Sitting of 4 November 1982

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

Business of the House
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the Leader of the House have a Business Statement to make?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): As the House is aware, the debate on the Address and reply to the Gracious Speech will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday 10 November.
On Thursday 11 November there will be a debate on the Government's proposals for revision of the immigration rules, Cmnd. 8683.
On Friday 12 November there will be a debate on developments in the European Community, January to June 1982 Cmnd. 8669.
Mr. Foot: I was given to understand a short time ago that a written answer is to be given by the Department of Transport on the Government's intentions on lorry weights. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the issue has been debated frequently in the House. When it was last debated the House expressed its view in opposition to what was being suggested. It would be shocking if the Government attempted to deal with the matter by means of a written reply and not by the Secretary of State for Transport making a statement, which will enable us to cross-examine him.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take steps to stop the written reply. I hope also that he will ensure that a statement is made by the Secretary of State for Transport tomorrow. Whether or not the written answer has been given, the right hon. Gentleman should appear before the House to answer questions. It was understood that the issue should be dealt with in that way. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will deal with the matter satisfactorily.
Will there be an opportunity for us to vote separately on the various aspects of the immigration document, which covers a wide range of subjects and which is to be debated on Thursday? It will not be sufficient to have one vote on the whole paper. The Opposition will be tabling a reasoned amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to that method of proceeding.
The EEC half-yearly report is to be debated on Friday. I understand that it will be the first debate under the new procedures, which means that the report will be debated in Government time. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not take that as a precedent for having the report debated on a Friday. We believe that it should be debated on another day.
I draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention early-day motion 4 on mandatory education awards that has been tabled in my name and in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and others. I urge
112
the right hon. Gentleman to take note of our representations that there must be a debate on the subject at an early stage. He gave a fairly forthcoming reply when I put the matter to him a week or two ago and I hope that he will confirm that reply now.
[That the Education (Mandatory Awards) Regulations 1982 (S.I., 1982, No. 954), dated 12th July 1982, a copy of which was laid before this House on 16th July in the last Session of Parliament, be revoked.]
Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about when the Chancellor of the Exchequer intends to make a statement next week? Will he be making a statement on Monday prior to the discussion that will take place later in the week?
Mr. Biffen: The answer that has been given today on lorry weights will not conclude the debate. Doubtless it will be just another stage in a debate in which the House will take—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh".] Perhaps I may be allowed to conclude my sentence. It will be a debate in which the House will have a final, conclusive say. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. I realise that they are made with considerable force and authority.
Secondly, the immigration rules debate on Thursday will proceed on a take note motion.
Thirdly, the European Community debate, which it is now proposed should take place on Friday, is, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, under a new procedure. It is not the Government's intention that having that debate on a Friday should be a precedent. That is something to consider as we have further experience of the new rules.
The right hon. Gentleman's fourth question was on education awards. I stand by the statement that I made to the House at the conclusion of the preceding Session, which was that we hoped that the House would have the chance to debate and vote on that topic. Therefore, I believe that I can meet the right hon. Gentleman's anxieties on that point.
Finally, it will be the intention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement to the House on Monday on the occasion of the autumn statement, which will be published that day in response to representations from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee.
Mr. Foot: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his approach on several of the questions that I raised. I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman was as little aware of the manner in which lorry weights were being dealt with as I was until recently. It is not merely a matter of the Department of Transport's convenience. Whatever has been attempted—whether or not an attempt has been made to deal with the matter through a written answer—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand what we are asking for. Will he please make sure that the Secretary of State for Transport makes a statement on such a controversial matter and does not seek to hide behind a written answer?
Mr. Biffen: This is a topic of such moment that any Minister would be foolish to try to hide behind the pretext of a written answer. I have taken note of the right hon. Gentleman's points and will make representations.
Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the words that the Leader of the House has just used. I

113
hope that he will press that message home to the Department of Transport, which seems to be doing precisely what he has described. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept my thanks in that he seems willing to have a debate on the Floor of the House on the important education grants issue, on which the Government were defeated in Committee and on which the right hon. Gentleman is being pressed by three parties to have a debate? Will the right hon. Gentleman also give sympathetic consideration to the need for a debate on the prayer on police pensions—an issue that has aroused a great deal of concern among police officers?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the three points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend is aware that the Government have highlighted the importance of fair competition for British industry in recent times. Bearing in mind the grotesque tariff barriers that have been put up by many countries against our goods and the minimum tariff barriers put up by this country against goods coming from those countries, will my right hon. Friend state when there will be a full debate on trading practices in the world so that we can ensure that employment in this country improves and that there are fair conditions in which British industry can operate against its competitors?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the point raised by my hon. Friend. Trading practices and the whole range of problems implicit in our international trade are at the heart of foreign affairs, which are to be debated this afternoon.
Mr. Charles R. Morris: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to the series of articles that have been published by the Daily Mirror in its northern editions, suggesting that the Greater Manchester area and the north-west region generally are fast becoming an industrial wasteland? Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that in the not too distant future there will be a debate on the North-West and the Greater Manchester area?
Mr. Biffen: My attention had not been drawn to those Daily Mirror articles. I can only conclude that, none the less, the Daily Mirror was full of foresight because tomorrow we are to have a debate on urban affairs, when I am sure that those articles will be relevant.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: If on 8 November the Danes do not agree to the common fisheries policy that has been agreed by the other nine member States, will my right hon. Friend find time, next week or the following week, to have a full debate on the impact of the common fisheries policy as agreed by the nine member States, because it will severely affect not only the offshore fishermen but the processing factories?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the points that my hon. Friend has made. However, I confess that I see little likelihood of there being a full day's debate on that topic next week.
Mr. John Maxton: On the Order Paper today in the name of the Leader of the House is a motion concerning meetings of the Scottish Grand
114
Committee in Edinburgh. I fully support that. Will the Leader of the House consider withdrawing the motion so that hon. Members can table amendments to it and so that we can debate what was an experiment last year? It would be useful if the House could debate the nature of that experiment.
Mr. Biffen: The House has had the opportunity to assess the experiment over the past 12 months. What is now proposed is but a continuation of the experiment. I hope that the motion will be confirmed.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been seeking to catch my eye and then to move on.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As we have just heard that not only has the Community been selling, illicitly, subsidised butter to the Soviet Union but it has started to do so legally, and as we have also heard today that British grain is finding its way to France and Germany, where it gets a greater subsidy than it would get here, will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to make a statement on the racket that is now the CAP?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to the points that my hon. Friend has made, but I am certain that my hon. Friend possesses such versatility that he will not require my right hon. Friend to make that statement when there is the prospect of a foreign affairs debate this afternoon.
Mr. Robert Hughes: May I press the Leader of the House a little more on the subject of lorry weights? Does he recall that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport withdrew a passage from his speech at the Tory Party conference when he was going to make an announcement on heavy lorry weights, on the basis that it would have been an affront to the House of Commons to make the statement at the Tory Party conference? Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that it is an affront to all quarters of the House to make the announcement by way of a written answer?
Mr. Biffen: I would not wish to draw an analogy between the Tory Party conference and the House. However, I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to the views that have been expressed this afternoon.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Does the Leader of the House accept that it is intolerable to many of us that one of the few occasions per annum when the House can discuss the Common Market has been relegated to a Friday? There is a clear division in the House and the country, and a preponderant view among the population that we should not remain in the Common Market. Those matters should be discussed in the House on a day when we can vote, and not on a Friday. Such a position is intolerable.
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman in no sense seeks to devalue the importance of Friday as a parliamentary day. I assure him that debates on that day can be every bit as lively as on any other day. As I said

115
in reply to the Leader of the Opposition, to have a debate on that subject on a Friday is in no sense creating a precedent.
Mr. Allen McKay: Does the Leader of the House accept that there is a continuing crisis in the steel industry? When will he make time for a debate, taking into consideration that there could be a review of the steel industry before long?
Mr. Biffen: Economic and industrial affairs will dominate the last two days of the debate on the Address. I am certain that the points that the hon. Gentleman has in mind will be made with great relevance on those occasions.
Mr. Frank Hooley: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer make a statement to the House about his appalling decision to support, within the International Monetary Fund, a massive loan to South Africa while that country is engaged in blatant aggression against a fellow member of the United Nations, Angola?
Mr. Biffen: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be speaking in the debate next Wednesday. I imagine that will be the occasion when the hon. Gentleman will have the chance to raise that issue.
Mr. Tom Clarke: In view of the interest over the crisis in the steel industry and in view of the meeting which I understand the Secretary of State for Industry will be attending in France this afternoon, may I ask whether the Secretary of State for Industry will make a statement on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to that point. The hon. Gentleman may also reflect on the fact that my right hon. Friend will speak in the debate next Tuesday.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: In view of the dispute that took place across the Dispatch Box yesterday between my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) and the Prime Minister, when the Prime Minister demonstrated that she did not understand the implications of the £1 billion underspend that the Secretary of State for the Environment keeps referring to, may we have a statement to remove the confusion that is in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House and in the minds of local authorities who, in the past few hours, have received circulars that few of them understand?
Mr. Biffen: There is not much that I can do to help the hon. Gentleman in his confusion, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will speak in tomorrow's debate.
Later:
Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am unclear about the question that I raised with the Leader of the House during Business Questions about the motion on the Scottish Grand Committee. Am I right in understanding that the matter is not debatable today or will there be an opportunity to debate it later?
Mr. Speaker: Unless there is opposition to it, I shall put the Question immediately when we reach the subject.

NEW MEMBERS
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath or made the Affirmation required by law:
Harriet Harman, for Peckham.
John Francis Spellar Esq., for Birmingham, Northfield.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS
  Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Nicholas Ridley and Mr. Norman Lamont, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the functions and activities of British Shipbuilders; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 1].
  ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Alexander Fletcher and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented (under Standing Order No. 91 (Procedure upon bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to increase the statutory limits on the amounts outstanding in respect of borrowings by the Scottish Electricity Boards; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 3].
  DIVORCE JURISDICTION, COURT FEES AND LEGAL AID (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by the Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Allan Stewart and Mr. Nicholas Ridley, presented a Bill to extend the jurisdiction of sheriffs in Scotland in relation to actions for divorce; to make provision as regards the sufficiency of evidence in certain actions for divorce in Scotland; to make new provision in Scotland as to the fees and outlays of counsel and solicitors in relation both to legal aid and to the giving of legal advice and assistance under the Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972; to make new provision in relation to the regulation of fees payable in the Scottish courts; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 2].
  HOUSING AND BUILDING CONTROL
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, the Attorney-General, Mr. John Stanley and Sir George Young, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the rights of secure tenants in England and Wales and, in connection therewith, to amend the objects of certain housing associations and housing trusts; to amend the law of England and Wales relating to the supervision of building work, the building regulations and building control; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 4].

  WATER
  Mr. Secretary Heseltine, supported by Mr. Peter Walker, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Tom King, Mr. Peter Rees and Mr. Giles Shaw, presented a Bill to make provision as to the constitution and procedure of water authorities and their borrowing and

  117
  other powers and as to arrangements for the carrying out of their sewerage functions; to enable water authorities and statutory water companies to provide advice and assistance outside the United Kingdom; to provide for the dissolution of the National Water Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission; to repeal section 25(1)(d) of the Local Government Act 1974 and the Water Charges Equalisation Act 1977; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 6].

  TRANSPORT
  Mr. Secretary Howell, supported by Mr. Secretary Whitelaw, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Leon Brittan and Mr. Reginald Eyre, presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to the finances and management of certain Transport Executives; and to reduce the indebtedness of the National Dock Labour Board in respect of money borrowed from the Secretary of State for financing severance payments to registered dock workers; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 5].
  AGRICULTURAL MARKETING
  Mr. Peter Walker, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Leon Brittan, Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, Mr. Peter Rees and Mrs. Peggy Fenner, presented a Bill to establish a body corporate to be known as Food from Britain to improve the marketing of food produced or processed in the United Kingdom and of other agricultural produce of the United Kingdom; to transfer to Food from Britain the functions of the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation and to dissolve the Central Council; to enable certain other marketing organisations to make contributions to Food from Britain; and to repeal section 61(9) of the Agriculture Act 1967; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 7].

Statutory Instruments, &c.
Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House I shall put the three Questions together.
Ordered,
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Certification and Watch-keeping) Regulations 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Coypus (Keeping) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Mink (Keeping) Order 1982 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That—
(1) Standing Order No. 6 (Precedence of Government business) shall have effect for this Session with the following modifications, namely:—
In paragraph (3) the word 'twelve' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 16; and in paragraph (6) the word 'nine' shall be substituted for the word 'ten' in line 41;
(2) Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 21st and 28th January, 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th February, 22nd and 29th April, 6th, 13th and 20th May and 8th July;
(3) Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence over Government business on 26th November, 3rd, 10th and 17th December, 4th, 11th, 18th and 25th March and 15th April and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Wednesday 10th November, Wednesday 17th November, Wednesday 24th November, Wednesday 1st December, Wednesday 16th February, Wednesday 23rd February, Wednesday 2nd March, Wednesday 9th March and Wednesday 30th March;
(4) On Monday 13th December, Monday 14th February, Monday 16th May and Monday 4th July, Private Members' Notices of Motions shall have precedence until Seven o'clock and ballots for these Notices shall be held after Questions on Thursday 25th November, Thursday 27th January, Thursday 28th April and Thursday 16th June;
(5) No Notice of Motion shall be handed in for any of the days on which Private Members' Notices have precedence under this Order in anticipation of the Ballot for that day.—[Mr. David Hunt.]

Orders of the Day

  Debate on the Address
  [SECOND DAY]
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [3 November]
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
  Most Gracious Sovereign,
  We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir John Eden.]
  Question again proposed.

  Foreign Affairs
  2.55 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): This is the first opportunity to debate foreign affairs on a comprehensive basis since I became Foreign Secretary and I welcome it. I hope that the House will bear with me if I make a rather longer speech than is my habit.
  In my view, the need for a positive and effective British foreign policy has never been more important and it is right that the House should have the time to consider the issues that face the world today.
  The Gracious Speech began by stressing the priority that the Government attach to the security of the nation and the preservation of peace. This should be self-evident, but looking at much of what is currently said about defence and security from the benches opposite, I am not so sure. I will come back to the theme of security and peace in a moment.
  I also want to address in turn the two other fundamental objectives of our policy—international stability and prosperity. Our foreign policy as a whole is founded on the conviction that Britain cannot flourish in isolation, either politically or economically. If it could, we would have little need for a foreign policy.
  The stability of our democratic institutions is the foundation of our freedoms, freedoms which we share with our European neighbours. It is worth noting that in Western Europe during the parliamentary recess, new Governments came to power in Germany, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark—evidence enough that the democratic institutions are in good repair.
  We have to face up to the reality that an unstable world could eventually endanger those institutions which we and our friends value so highly. Beyond that, of course, we all want to prosper, and we must remember that the fortunes of this country rest on free trade. They depend also on the smooth working of the international financial system, which in current circumstances is under strain. The sort of little England approach which is often urged upon us would do grave damage to our political and economic interests.
  The Government do not shrink from the challenges of the outside world but measure up to them firmly and resolutely. We do not seek simply to protect what we have.
  120
  That is not a sound basis for security or stability in a changing world. Nor is it a sound basis for prosperity in an increasingly competitive world. We aim rather to make a positive contribution to international peace and co-operation to the maximum of our capability.
  Security must be the starting point for foreign policy. The first duty of any Government is the provision for its people of lasting security. There can be no chance of achieving stability and prosperity without it. In an uncertain and dangerous world, we must be certain thai: our security rests on solid foundations. We must live in the world as it is, not as we would like it to be.
  Europe has enjoyed peace for more than 35 years. There is a tendency now to take this for granted, but those of us who saw the human misery and vast destruction of the Second World War can never do this. We know that war must not be allowed to happen again in Europe. The first objective of Her Majesty's Government is, and will remain, the prevention of war in Europe.
  Peace with freedom—that is an aim which has been pursued by all British Governments since 1945. We see it as the right of every citizen, but it is a right that always has to be worked for and can never be taken for granted. Our efforts for peace have been concentrated in our great alliance of free and democratic nations, an alliance in which all members voluntarily and freely subscribe to the same set of principles. No decisions are imposed. There is no dictatorship. We have pursued successful policies to prevent the scourge of war and we have done so by working together, through consultation and co-operation.
  This is not an easy course. There are no easy options. The Soviet Union has developed an arsenal of military power which goes far beyond the reasonable needs of self-defence. We have to face the fact of Soviet military power. That fact cannot be wished away. We cannot base our policy on comfortable guesses about Soviet intentions.
  Our security and the measures that we must take to ensure it are now the subject of widespread debate, which I welcome. It is right that Parliament and public should have every opportunity to consider these difficult and dangerous issues, but I regret that all too often the debate is marred by hypocrisy and humbug—by a refusal to face the hard, unpalatable realities. We cannot afford to forget the lessons of history. If we have learnt nothing else from the 1930s, we should at least have retained two lessons—that a foreign policy founded on wishful assumptions about the intentions of a potential adversary is a recipe for disaster, and that inadequate preparation and insufficient defence are no service to the cause of peace.
  The plain fact is that we have had peace in Europe all these years because we have been able to deter aggression. We live in an age of nuclear weapons which cannot somehow be made to disappear at the stroke of a magician's wand. We have been able to deter aggression by making it clear to any potential aggressor that the risks of any military adventure in Europe are so great that they far outweigh any conceivable gain.
  The readiness of our American allies to extend to their partners in NATO the protection of their own deterrent forces is the linchpin of our security. Successive British Governments have willingly made their contribution. This Government will not shirk their duty. We will maintain an independent British deterrent as a crucial part of our commitment.
  I cannot accept that this is in any way an immoral position, as some suggest. Of course I understand the

  121
  public concern about nuclear weapons. I share exactly the same concerns, and I recognise the sincerity of many who take a different view. If at a stroke the world could be changed, no sensible person could wish things to be exactly as they are today, but in the world as it is our overriding aim is to prevent the outbreak of any conflict and in my view that is the greater morality. In a world where our potential adversary is armed with nuclear weapons and is building more and more, this means for the West a policy of nuclear deterrence. What claim to higher moral principles can be made by those who would willingly shelter beneath American nuclear protection while refusing to provide the bases in this country from which that protection can operate? I see no morality there. I see only hyprocrisy and wishful thinking.
  I am not arguing for a blind adherence to the status quo. On the contrary, our entire purpose is to work for major reductions in the arsenals of East and West and to preserve the peace at far lower levels of cost and armament.
  This can be achieved only through painstaking negotiation. I tell the House this afternoon that between East and West there is now a dialogue on arms control and disarmament of a more comprehensive kind and across a wider spectrum than at any period since the war. The United States has our full support in negotiating with the Soviet Union in Geneva for major reductions in strategic nuclear armaments. The United States proposals, which we endorse, are radical and far-reaching. If accepted, they would bring about vast reductions in the arsenals of the Soviet Union and the United States, and that is what we all want.
  In full and detailed consultations with their allies, the Americans are also negotiating in Geneva about intermediate range nuclear forces. Here the American proposals are no less radical. Their objective is the complete elimination of a whole class of nuclear systems. The Russians have yet to demonstrate that they are prepared to work seriously for a balanced outcome to these talks. Propaganda is no substitute for hard work at the negotiating table. Nor will propaganda divert us from our commitment to the second part of NATO's decision in 1979—that is, to deploy, in the absence of a satisfactory negotiated solution, new United States systems in Europe.
  In the mutual and balanced force reduction talks in Vienna we are working with our allies to bring about major reductions in conventional troop levels in Europe. Time and again the alliance has put forward new proposals to overcome Soviet objections, and in spite of the fact that success has evaded us for nine long years we shall go on working for reductions.
  We want also to see sensible and practical measures taken to create greater military confidence in Europe. That is part of the process of the conference on security and cooperation in Europe. We hope that when the review conference in Madrid resumes next week it will be possible to reach a balanced outcome and that as part of that balance there will be agreement to call a conference on security building measures in Europe. It remains to be seen whether it can be achieved, but that is what we are working for.
  In the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva, we put forward earlier this year proposals for key elements in a convention to ban chemical weapons. Our objective is to remove once and for all this horror from the arsenals of the world, but this can be done only if the Soviet Union
  122
  accepts provisions on verification adequate to establish genuine confidence. We want to do it. Does the Soviet Union?
  It is sometimes said that all these disarmament negotiations take too long and are ineffective. No one would be better pleased than I if effective agreements could be reached more quickly, but it takes both sides to make agreement possible. With major questions of security at stake it is not surprising that the process is difficult, but the prize is worth all the effort and more. Her Majesty's Government will not be deterred by the setbacks. We shall continue to strive for arms control agreements with all our strength.
  We will not be tempted by short cuts leading to unsound conclusions. Let there be no doubt about our patience and our resolve.
  We offer the Soviet Union a choice. The alliance has put forward bold and imaginative proposals which can open the way for a more stable and open military relationship, for a more secure future for all. We have demonstrated our readiness for an open dialogue on these proposals. We are ready to talk about other things too, but we are not willing to talk about empty propaganda gestures or about commitments which are going to be cynically ignored.
  It is up to the Soviet Union to show that it is willing to respect human rights and to apply in their entirety the provisions of the Helsinki final act. It is up to the Soviet Union to show greater restraint in its international behaviour, and greater respect for the sovereignty of other countries, whatever their social systems. If the Soviet Union will choose the path of restraint, of arms control, and of respect for human rights, Her Majesty's Government and all our allies will welcome that choice. The initiatives that we have already taken make it absolutely, unmistakably clear that we are ready to respond.
  Mr. Eric Deakins: How will the sale of subsidised butter from the Common Market to the Soviet Union, which has just been announced, help to convince the Soviet Union that we are serious about the objectives that the Foreign Secretary rightly puts forward?
  Mr. Pym: I am about to come on to the economic aspects, but before leaving the subject of East-West relations I should like to call the attention of the House to another important aspect of the work of the alliance. Economic relations with the East are clearly an integral part of our comprehensive strategy, yet until now they have not received enough attention or thought. Over the past few weeks, Britain has played a leading role in helping to shape a more comprehensive Western strategy which, among other things, includes the wisdom or unwisdom of selling subsidised goods to the Soviet Union. Good progress has been made with those talks.
  The pipeline dispute itself gives us no joy, but I believe that we shall have strengthened our ability in the West to handle East-West economic relations on a more rational and agreed basis than before. The extensive discussions we have had with our friends over the last two months have established a large amount of common ground. We shall also have given the lie to those who claimed that NATO was in some fundamental disarray. It is not. The alliance is sound and in good heart. There is no disagreement

  123
  between us on the fundamental issues of war and peace. Membership of NATO for us remains at the heart of our foreign policy.
  Sir John Biggs-Davison: Would it not have been in the spirit of the alliance had the United States taken a different attitude on the Falkland Islands question now before the United Nations?
  Mr. Pym: Yes. We regret the decision that the United States took, and I shall have a word to say about it later. The Government's view has been made absolutely clear to the United States Administration.
  I should like to say a few words about Poland. The situation in Poland is a tragedy for the Polish people and a matter of deep concern to all those in the free world who admire them and wish them the peace and prosperity that they richly deserve. Western Governments, including Britain, want to do whatever they can to help, but the situation is enormously complicated. We all want to be sure that the policies we adopt will make it better. It is no surprise that in a Community of free nations there should have been debate and differing views about the best choice of means, but this must be kept in proportion. It would be absurd to make a crisis in the West of what is so clearly a major crisis in the East. The very reasonableness, by our standards, of what the Polish people have shown they want has highlighted once again the unreasonableness—and the fundamental instability—of a system which does not dare allow it. Our aim must be to keep alive, for the Poles and for the other peoples of Eastern Europe, the hope that freedom and democracy are not barred to them for ever.
  We naturally want security for ourselves and our allies. Our interest in stability goes much wider and recognises that we will be better off in a world in which all countries feel safe and in which all countries accept the need to seek peaceful solutions to any disputes that they may have with their neighbours.
  Not all countries attach as much importance as we do to stability in this sense; and, of those that do, not all have as much influence. Britain's history, our geographical position, and our traditional links with so many countries, as well as our permanent membership of the Security Council, are all part of the influence we bring to bear. They do not give us the right—or the resources—to act as a world policeman, but they do give weight to our views and opportunity to put them into practice. It is surely right that we continue to do so.
  One important element in this is that, beyond our membership of NATO and the Community, we have a link with the rest of the world of unique value in the Commonwealth. This Government are wholeheartedly committed to the strengthening of the Commonwealth—and that is a view I personally have always held strongly. Fears that our membership of the Community would undermine this commitment have proved groundless. Instead, the Commonwealth has continued to grow in maturity and self-confidence, as well as in meaning and in size.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great damage that has been done to the Commonwealth by the Government's policy on overseas students' fees? Will he take note of the strong feeling on the Conservative Benches and others that it is high time that we had a more enlightened approach to that problem?
  Mr. Pym: I am indeed aware of the concern that has been expressed on that score. My hon. Friend will know that the Overseas Student Trust has undertaken a major review which for some months has been under active consideration by the Government. Whereas it would be wrong of me to indicate that more resources will be available, we intend to make a further announcement in due course as a result of that study.
  The support which so many Commonwealth countries gave us during the Falklands conflict was impressive testimony to the value and strength of our Commonwealth links, but it goes deeper than that. The Commonwealth operates at all levels and in virtually all areas. We shall do all we can to foster and enhance its potential.
  This country has made a special contribution to international stability this year. We have shown the world that aggression need not pay. We have defended the weak against the strong. We have stood by our responsibilities and our commitments to a small and distant people. Our response to the unprovoked, unlawful and totally unjustified Argentine invasion of the Falklands was widely respected. I do not believe that its full impact on international habits of thought and action has yet been felt.
  The subject is now being debated at the United Nations. Argentina had first produced a draft resolution which was a blatant attempt to get the General Assembly to endorse the position which the junta had failed to achieve by the unlawful use of force. Many countries throughout the world saw this draft for what it was, and made it clear that they would no support it. Needless to say, we actively encouraged them in this view.
  The Argentine campaign managers took fright at the prospect of failure, as well they might, and were forced to alter their draft. In the world of the United Nations, their new version now has a certain superficial attraction, since some of the most obviously one-sided features have disappeared, but it remains totally unacceptable to us. We cannot accept a call for negotiations on sovereignty after an unprovoked attempt to force the issue by invasion—an invasion which made abundantly clear the extent of Argentine disregard for the rights of the Islanders.
  We know what the Argentines mean by negotiation—a discussion of the procedures whereby sovereignty might most quickly be passed to them. References which have been introduced into the new resolution to the non-use of force are cynical and hypocritical in the extreme, coming as they do from a country which launched aggression six months ago. The text—by what it contains and what it omits—continues to prejudge the substance of the issue on sovereignty.
  The whole idea of Argentina introducing a draft United Nations resolution calling for negotiations is absurd, after her flouting of the United Nations charter and her defiance of the Security Council. We have made our views very clear to our friends and allies. The vote at the United Nations may go against us, but such a result will bring little credit to those whose memories proved so short.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: If that is so clear to all right-thinking people, why is it not clear to the American Administration?
  Mr. Pym: It is for the American Administration to form their own judgment—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh] Of course it is. Every Government must take their own view. I have made our view very clear to the American

  125
  Adminstration. The vote has not yet taken place, so we shall have to wait and see. I think that I covered the point the hon. Gentleman raised in my reply a few moments ago.
  Mr. George Foulkes rose—
  Mr. Pym: I must continue, or I shall take too long.
  Our policy will continue to be based in the real world. There, we are busy with the difficult and unglamourous work of rehabilitation in the islands. Infrastructure is being put back in place. Essential services are being restored. Lord Shackleton's recommendations on development are being studied urgently, with the benefit of the islanders' own views. We intend, of course, to encourage economic development.
  There is much still to be done, not least on the psychological front. The invasion is only a few short months behind the people of the islands. Time is still needed, but in due course we and they will be in a position to discuss the political and other conditions in which they wish to lead their lives in future. That is the right approach, not an Argentine-inspired United Nations charade. We are committed to the future of the islands and we shall not let the islanders down.
  Mr. William Hamilton: Regardless of cost?
  Mr. Frank Hooley: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the unique position of Britain in many international organisations and our influence in the world. Does he agree that our influence would be enhanced rather than diminished if we abandoned certain nineteenth century and even eighteenth century colonial positions which we seem determined to hang on to indefinitely?
  Mr. Pym: I believe that the conversion of the British Empire into the Commonwealth is perhaps the most remarkable achievement of our entire history. We have recognised the rights of self-determination of the peoples concerned and have brought 50 members to the United Nations as independent nations in their own right. It is incredible to me that the idea that Britain is a colonial power should be fostered anywhere in the world. I never expected to hear such a view expressed in the House.
  The Gracious Speech referred to a number of international problems—the Middle East, Afghanistan, Namibia and Cambodia. These are all areas where we must use our influence, together with our friends and allies, in the interests of stability and peace.
  In the Middle East, the problems remain immense and fomidable, but they are not insuperable. An immediate priority must be the reconstruction of an independent and strong Lebanon, and the restoration of the Lebanese Government's authority in the wake of the unjustifiable and disastrous Israeli invasion.
  President Gemayel has made an impressive start and he has our support, but one vital key to further progress is the withdrawal of all foreign forces from the Lebanon. The United States Administration are working urgently to that end and have our full backing.
  Stability and peace within Lebanon in the longer term will depend crucially on progress towards a wider Middle East peace and a just solution to the Palestinian problem. Here, too, there is some room for hope.
  Mr. Foulkes: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the United States Government have asked the United Kingdom Government to join in assisting the training of Lebanese armed forces? Will he tell the House what the response of our Government has been and why it has been negative?
  Mr. Pym: There has been some discussion at official level, but no formal requests have been received. If they were received they would be given active and immediate consideration.
  On the Palestinian problem President Reagan has taken a bold initiative, which we warmly welcome. His policy is not the same as ours in all respects. We believe that Palestinian self-determination is an essential principle for any lasting settlement, but the President's approach has come much closer to the European approach and it offers a realistic way forward.
  We and our partners in the Ten will continue to encourage all concerned to respond constructively, whatever their doubts and fears. It is too easy in the Middle East for those in conflict to stay in the trenches of their long-established positions. That is no use. It is time for both sides to get out and step into the middle ground, as President Sadat and Mr. Begin had the courage to do over Sinai. Otherwise there can be no useful dialogue and no progress.
  The Arabs put forward their proposals for a negotiated settlement at Fez. The emergence of a united Arab approach is a welcome step forward. It is encouraging that they and the Americans have discussed their respective views in a constructive spirit. We look forward to welcoming an Arab League delegation to London later this month. We shall be making clear to them our belief that both Israel's undoubted right to a secure existence and Palestinian rights are equally vital elements of a settlement. Both must be accepted by both sides for an effective dialogue to begin.
  We have said that the PLO will have to be associated with negotiation. We stick to that, but if it were to state its unequivocal acceptance of a negotiated settlement and the principles on which it must be based, including the abandonment of violence, it would be much better placed to achieve a decent future for the Palestinian people.
  I have recently visited Syria and Egypt and go to Jordan shortly. I have also met the Israeli Foreign Minister in New York. My talks have revealed many differences of perspective and substance, but I have not been discouraged unduly by them. The seeds of peace are there. We in Britain have a role to play in nurturing them, and this Government will play it to the full.
  In the same part of the world, two other military conflicts continue. There seems no solution in sight to the war between Iran and Iraq. The fighting flares occasionally, but a decisive military advantage has not been gained by either side. This is a conflict over which we can claim little or no influence, but it is still a potential threat to our interests and to the security of some of our friends in the region. It has a still greater potential threat. If there is a way in which we can help to halt the war, we shall not hesitate to act.
  A little further to the east, in Afghanistan, the resistance to the Soviet occupation has not been crushed. Far from it. Despite an enlarged Soviet military presence, the people of Afghanistan continue to reject the Soviet attempt

  127
  to subjugate them. The absurd Soviet pretext of an invitation to help them has been proved the hypocrisy that we all knew it was.
  The Soviet interpretation of events in Afghanistan finds no echo in the great majority of countries in the world. Afghanistan has not been forgotten, and it will not be forgotten by us.
  In Asia, too, a country is occupied. Cambodia is occupied by Vietnam, with Soviet support. Again the international community has refused to acquiesce in this occupation. We welcome the coalition that has been formed. It is a step towards a much-needed political solution. We hope that a chance will eventually come for the long-suffering Cambodian people to run their own affairs as they wish, free from outside interference.
  Southern Africa is another region which craves greater stability. The successful bringing to independence of Namibia, to follow up the Zimbabwe settlement, would be a major contribution. Much time and effort has been spent on this during the recess, and much important progress has been made. The next few months may demonstrate whether negotiated independence is attainable in the near future. The crucial question is not whether the so-called linkage between Namibian independence and the Cuban presence in Angola is justifiable, but whether a further reserve of political will on both sides can be found to clear away the remaining obstacles.
  As to South Africa itself, we shall continue to impress upon the Government there the vital importance of peaceful evolution towards a society acceptable to all its inhabitants. That is the way to avoid violent confrontation in the future. I must, however, tell the House that I remain unconvinced that sanctions and unnecessary ostracism and vilification will lead to progress in the right direction.
  Mr. James Johnson: Before the Secretary of State leaves his tour of danger spots, does he intend to say a word about the Horn of Africa? What are his views about the behaviour of Ethiopia particularly towards Eritrea and other neighbouring territories?
  Mr. Pym: I shall within my speech deal with as many issues as I think the House can stand from me at one time. I might be content to take the entire time allocated to the debate but that might not be very popular.
  I must also, in the context of international stability, make clear our commitment to a stable and prosperous future for Hong Kong. As the House knows, the Chinese agreed during the recent visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Peking that this would be the aim of talks on the future of Hong Kong. Our target is a settlement with China which is acceptable to this House and to the people of Hong Kong. I believe that this is a realistic target. Meetings in Peking to follow up the Prime Minister's visit have already begun. The future of Hong Kong is a difficult and sensitive subject, but the issue cannot be ducked and 1997 is not all that far away. We are tackling the issue with vigour and resolution.
  International security and stability are necessary conditions for national and international prosperity, but they are not by themselves sufficient conditions. The pursuit of prosperity is as important and distinct a goal of foreign policy as it is of domestic policy. This is particularly true of this country, which has traditionally
  128
  thrived on international trade and international financial co-operation. World recession and unacceptable levels of unemployment, especially among the young, provide a particularly dismal background to our current efforts. In this hostile environment, I think it right to put into proper perspective the role played by the institutions which bind the international community and the strength to he drawn from them.
  In the 1930s equivalent strains led to panic. "Sauve qui peut" was the cry, and many were crushed in the rush for the lifeboats. Today, we have kept our nerve as an international community, and we have kept faith with our central institutions. We are now beginning to reap the fruits of that patience.
  The steel dispute is an example. Through the Community, Britain was able to fight its corner with the strength of the Ten. We have successfully maintained our full share of Community exports to the United States. Without the Community agreement, the British Steel Corporation stood to lose a market which was worth over £50 million last year. As it is, we have maintained our full share of Community exports to the United States. The agreement proved better both for us and for the other countries involved than any of the likely alternatives.
  The international framework held. There was no collapse into a national free-for-all. Internally, too, the Community has proved its worth in recent weeks. On the vexed question of the budget, it remains our joint task—and an urgent one—to find a lasting solution to the problem. We have now for a third year negotiated with our partners a satisfactory refund which means that a total of approximately £2,000 million in refunds has been agreed for the last three years. It is certainly a much better result than would be obtained by unproductive grumbling and threats to withdraw, which come, among other places, from the Opposition Benches. I remind the Opposition that they did nothing to negotiate refunds when in office. I hope that they will maintain a discreet silence on the subject.
  Fisheries are another example of the Community reconciling national interests. We are on the brink of a common fisheries policy which the industry in this country accepts as preferable to continuing uncertainty and turmoil. These successes give us confidence to push ahead with efforts to develop the Community in other ways. The fundamental principles of the common agricultural policy are sound but it is wasteful in practice. The Commission knows this and accepts the need for change. We shall continue to press for it. [HoN. MEMBERS: "When?"] As soon as possible.
  The further enlargement of the Community must not be allowed to hang fire for too long, despite the difficulties. In our view, Spain and Portugal should be admitted with the least possible delay. Both countries have successfully joined the European democratic family. The vigour of Spanish democracy has been shown once again by last week's election. The addition of both to the Community will consolidate these welcome gains for democracy.
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I accept that the Gracious Speech reveals the political objective of Her Majesty's Government to have Spain within the Common Market. Will my right hon. Friend confirm once more that there is no question of the

  129
  accession of Spain to the Common Market so long as restrictions are maintained on the border and the people of Gibraltar?
  Mr. Pym: I have made it clear on earlier occasions that it is unthinkable to us that the accession could take place while the border remained closed.
  A strong Community is vital if we are to preserve the world trading system through GATT. A major theme at the ministerial meeting at the end of this month—in fact, I think next week—will be the need for a fairer balance of access to overseas markets in which obligations and benefits are properly matched. I do not minimise the difficulties, and I am well aware that there are sometimes real problems in ensuring that other people abide by the rules, but there can be no question of the importance to Britain—a country which exports some 30 per cent. of its output—of maintaining, and indeed strengthening, the framework in which the open trading system can flourish.
  Where problems arise it is important to look for solutions which offer as much scope as possible for the development of trade. There are provisions within the GATT rules for arrangements to take account of special circumstances. They have proved their worth, and will no doubt continue to be necessary, but what we must strongly resist is the temptation to believe that the creation of barriers, the retreat into isolationism, could ever be the right answer to our problems. That path, by reducing efficiency and the ability to compete, will make us all—producers and consumers alike—worse off in the long run.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How can my right hon. Friend make that proposition when many countries with which we compete have far higher tariff barriers than ours, which operate against our goods, while we offer minimal tariff barriers against their goods? How can that situation make our industry more competitive which is the Government's intention? Surely it will lead to greater unemployment and drive many of our essential industries out of business?
  Mr. Pym: The Government want that problem solved not by increasing barriers all round but by reducing them. The reduction of barriers is a high priority objective of the Government.
  On the broader financial front, where we have seen so many recent shocks, it is important to make the point that the Bretton Woods institutions have served the world well since their establishment after the war. They have adapted to meet the changing circumstances of the world economy. In the present atmosphere of uncertainty over international economic prospects, they have a vital role to play.
  Now is not the time to pull up the roots of institutions that have served us well in the hope that something more vigorous and more adapted to today's world will spring up in their place. Neither must we assume that the institutions can best tackle the problems of tomorrow with the methods of yesterday. They must be constantly reviewed. They must be reinforced as necessary.
  We shall uphold the competence and political independence of the International Monetary Fund. We shall work for a constructive and orderly evolution of the international monetary system. The Government believe
  130
  that the institution must be effective and have the resources necessary to carry out their tasks. Their integrity must be respected. They must remain non-political.
  The rich countries cannot remain islands of prosperity in a sea of poverty. I do not shy from the word "interdependent". It expresses a truth. We are not, and cannot be, indifferent to the plight of the developing countries. The present world recession has hit them very hard. Their debts now amount to over £300 billion. Developing countries, especially the poorest, need help more than ever to adjust to the difficult circumstances that they face. Eight hundred million people in the world still live in absolute poverty and Britain remains determined to help them. Our aid programme—(Interruption.] I am absolutely astonished that Opposition Members do not wish to help them. Our aid programme is substantial. It is a vital part of our foreign policy. We are playing a full part in the common search for solutions to the concerns of the developing countries. We want a dialogue between rich and poor countries, between North and South, that addresses real-life problems not on the basis of sterile rhetoric but by recognising the realities of interdependence.
  Despite the length of the time that I have taken, I have not been able to deal with some important problems fully, and have left others untouched. Perhaps I may summarise what we have achieved in foreign policy in recent months and what we are aiming to achieve in the future.
  We have a sound and very positive alliance policy towards security. That involves the maintenance of a fully capable deterrent force while we work with all our own strength and with our allies towards arms control. We have made good progress towards an agreed Alliance position on economic relations with the East. We have settled a satifactory budget deal in the Community for this year. We have strengthened our Commonwealth links. In the Middle East we have remained actively involved in the search for lasting peace. In southern Africa, we have made progress towards a Namibia settlement.
  That is a good base from which to go forward. I take a positive view of the future. We want to see real progress in arms control; the end of the pipeline sanctions and an agreed approach to East-West economic relations; reaffirmation and greater acceptance of the basic principles of the open trading system; greater international financial stability; real movement towards a stable Lebanon and a wider Middle East peace; a lasting solution to the Community budget problem; a Namibia settlement; agreement with China on the safeguarding of the stability and prosperity of Hong Kong; and in the Falklands, a full return to normality and further economic and political development, and normality in our relations with Argentina.
  That is a heavy agenda, and progress will have to be worked for with patience as well as determination. But those objectives are not beyond our reach if we base ourselves, as the Government do, on a concept of Britain's role in the world which is free both of illusion and isolationism.
  We shall not shut ourselves away from reality. Our national interests will be resolutely defended, but in co-operation, not confrontation, with others. Britain can achieve security, stability and prosperity in the long term only in a world that is itself, so far as possible, secure, stable and prosperous. The Government have the will and

  131
  the policies to make that contribution which the world expects of Britain. I assure the House that the Government will play their full part.
  3.42 pm
  Mr. Denis Healey: As the Secretary of State said in opening his speech, there has always been a tendency in these general debates on foreign affairs on the Loyal Address to be so overwhelmed by the infinity of particular issues as to lose sight of what is happening in the world as a whole. The Foreign Secretary drenched us in details, but I thank him for his attempt to provide a general framework of the Government's thinking on policy as a whole. However, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so, in the last quarter of an hour of his speech the Foreign Office word processor seemed to be working overtime.
  There is much in what the right hon. Gentleman had to say in the earlier part of his speech with which I generally agree. However, his perspective was slightly skewed. I start by putting some general considerations to the House, against which to look at some specific problems with which we have to deal:
  "We live today in the presence of a chilling and unprecedented phenomenon. At the peak of world power there exist enough nuclear weapons to destroy life on our planet. It seems evident that nothing worthwhile would survive such a holocaust, and this fact, above all else, contains the nuclear confrontation—for the time being at least.
  In the middle level of world power there exist vast quantities of sophisticated conventional weapons. Indeed we have seen some of them in devastating action this very year. These weapons are, by comparison with those of former times, immensely destructive, and they are actually being used. They are also the objects of a highly profitable international trade.
  At yet another level we have the poverty of a vast proportion of the world's population—a deprivation inexplicable in terms of the available resources or of the money and ingenuity spent on armaments and war. We have unsolved but soluble problems of economic relations, trade distribution of resources and technology. We have many ideas and plans as to how to meet the growing needs of the large mass of humanity but somehow, such human considerations seem to take second place to the technology and funding of violence and war in the name of national security.
  It is for these reasons that our peoples, especially the young, take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands in many parts of the world to proclaim their peaceful protest against the existing situation and their deep fear of the consequences of the arms race and nuclear catastrophe. Who can say that these gentle protesters are wrong or misguided?"
  There is a significant difference between the perspective offered by this description of the world's problems and that offered by the Secretary of State. The description that I have quoted is that of Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, in the opening of his report to the General Assembly a couple of months ago. Most of us who had the privilege of meeting Mr. Perez de Cuellar would agree that he is the most able and dedicated Secretary-General since Dag Hammarskjöld. His report this year was the most sombre and realistic for many years.
  I wish to address myself to the three major problems that the Secretary-General described and with which the Secretary of State also concerned himself—the nuclear arms race between the great powers, the growing violence of conventional conflict in the Third world and the steady deterioration in the economic prospects of the world as a whole—which risk plunging large parts of humanity into mass starvation and civil war.
  132
  I remind the House that the revolt against the nuclear arms race is not confined to the young. The referenda held on Tuesday this week in towns, cities and states all over the United States of America came out overwhelmingly in favour of a bilateral freeze on the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union. It is extraordinary that the British Government should have chosen this moment to commit themselves to spend $10,000 million to buy a brand new American missile system with a destructive power equal to the whole of the Soviet SS20 forces, and to do so at the expense of the possible improvements in our conventional capabilities which could, as the NATO Supreme Commander pointed out the other day, make it unnecessary for NATO to rely on the first use of nuclear weapons as a threat to deter conventional aggression by the Soviet Union.
  Meanwhile, negotiations on the intermediate nuclear forces and the reduction of strategic arms seem to have run into the sand. I fear I cannot share the optimism expressed by the Foreign Secretary in his references to the current arms negotiations. There is clearly a dialogue of the deaf and there are growing signs that the Soviet Government are contemplating abandoning talks altogether. I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of the House would regard such a decision as inexcusable, whatever provocation the Soviet Government may believe that they have suffered.
  However, it has become increasingly clear that it is not possible at present to negotiate in Madrid strategic arms reductions, theatre nuclear weapons reductions, reductions in conventional forces and measures against surprise attack, all in completely separate compartments, above all because it is not possible any longer to pretend that the British and French nuclear forces are irrelevant both to the talks on strategic arms limitation and to the talks on intermediate nuclear forces.
  As I pointed out, the planned Trident purchase by the British Government would, of itself, provide Britain with a destructive capacity equivalent to the whole of the SS20 forces that the West is currently trying to negotiate away in the talks on intermediate nuclear forces. We must face the fact that the British and French forces must be included in any negotiations with the Soviet Union that are to have any chance of success, and that will have profound implications for British defence policy as well as for British diplomacy.
  There are two other technological possibilities now opening in front of us which make it desperately urgent to stop the arms race before it goes much further. Many experts believe that the cruise missile, when deployed, will not be able to be detected by satellite photography, which is the only type of inspection technique that the Soviet Union has so far been prepared to accept. Moreover, the possibility of fitting conventional warheads as well as nuclear warheads—and indeed, the United States' intention to do so in regard to both the cruise aid the Pershing missiles—will enormously complicate the task of monitoring the deployment of nuclear weapon systems which include those missiles. It will make it even more difficult if we have to rely entirely on satellite photography.
  Therefore, it seems to me that there is much justification for the growing demand on both sides of the Atlantic for a pause in nuclear developments in the East and the West, combined with a search for a new and more comprehensive approach to the problems which are involved in strategic and conventional arms limitation.

  133
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to the entrenched positions of the parties to the Middle East conflict, but there is no doubt in my mind that the positions of the Soviet and Western Governments on arms control are similarly entrenched. The fact that the major negotiators on both sides have been in the business for a long time—in the case of Mr. Nitze for at least 30 years—suggests that there is need for pause for thought, and during that pause it would be desirable that no further developments took place, if it were possible to negotiate that.
  I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the unity of the Western alliance is essential to the success of negotiations with the Soviet Union, but I fear that he was somewhat starry-eyed in his description of the alliance as it exists today. It is in disarray. It has been in disarray ever since I have been involved in its problems, since 1949, but in some respects I think that the threats to the unity of the alliance are greater today than I can ever recall them, if only because the United States is now trying to dictate to its allies on major issues of allied policy in ways which are immensely damaging to allied unity.
  It is not true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman did in his speech, that no decisions are imposed inside the Atlantic alliance. President Reagan unilaterally imposed sanctions and an embargo on supplies for the Soviet pipeline, and in doing so he hurt not the Soviet Union but his allies. There is no evidence whatever—and the Americans have never produced any-that, even if sanctions against the pipeline were universally imposed, they would lead the Soviet Union to change its policy towards the West for the better, or even to change its policy or its attitude towards events in Poland.
  To many of us, as I said in the House the other day, it is quite unacceptable hypocrisy for President Reagan to impose sanctions against firms in allied countries for breaking a unilateral embargo on supplies to the Soviet pipeline which he has imposed, and simultaneously to offer to sell the Russians three times as much grain as ever before and to offer them the inviolability of contract which he is punishing his allies for observing. I was glad to recall that, when I made that assertion in the House the other day, the Foreign Secretary said that he agreed with me, and hastily added "up to a point".
  Mr. Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Julian Critchley. I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—Mr. Peter Tapsell.
  Mr. Tapsell: While I agree with the point that the right hon. Gentleman has just been making, ought we not also to bear in mind that the buying of gas from the Soviet Union will provide the Soviet Union with hard currency that it can spend on armaments, while the sale of grain to it will drain it of hard currency and therefore have a much less damaging effect?
  Mr. Healey: The Wharton group in the university of Pennsylvania, with which the hon. Member is familiar—and so, I believe is his lookalike, to whom you so incautiously referred, Mr. Speaker—produced an extensive study a few months ago which showed that even in these terms, if we think through the consequences on Soviet activity of having to produce more grain rather than
  134
  to make good the shortfall in mechanical and electronic equipment which is now provided by the West, it would cost the Soviet Union more to make good the loss of grain sales by the United States than to make good the loss of technology provided by the West for the pipeline. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked me that question, and I have no doubt that he is equally pleased with my answer.
  I hope it is true, as the newspapers report today, that President Reagan now wants to climb off the hook on which he has impaled himself, but I hope that will not be at the cost of persuading his allies to impale themselves on another hook. I felt that there was some risk of that in some of the phrases used by the right hon. Gentleman, and I hope that my points will be answered when he replies to the debate.
  There has been a great tendency in the United States in recent months to try to persuade the allies to embark on economic warfare against the Soviet Union in a concerted campaign to damage the Soviet economy, in the belief that thin Russians are in some sense less dangerous than fat Russians. I believe that any policy based on such an assumption is likely to prove profoundly mistaken.
  I accept the argument—perhaps this is what the right hon. Gentleman was hinting at—that it is ridiculous for Western countries to provide the Soviet Union with goods at interest rates lower than they offer to one another when they make sales, and that in that sense some restriction of credit is highly desirable. But to go beyond that and to attempt—as so many Americans argue we should—to embark on a course of trying to weaken the Soviet Union by increasing its economic difficulties is, in my view—and, I think, in the view of most of us on the official Opposition Benches—to embark on a profoundly dangerous course which is more likely to destabilise the world situation that to increase stability.
  Mr. Anthony Nelson: Many of us listen to these arguments with a degree of sympathy and are becoming increasingly sceptical about sanctions of all sorts. Why is the right hon. Gentleman more sceptical of sanctions on countries such as the Soviet Union, whereas he perhaps would not be sceptical about them in regard to South Africa and, not long ago, in regard to Rhodesia? What criteria did he apply then, and what criteria does he now apply?
  Mr. Healey: The quick answer is that the hon. Gentleman would do better to address that question to his master, who came out very hot and strong against sanctions on South Africa but appeared to contemplate the possibility of some form of economic sanctions against the Soviet Union. There are few cases where general sanctions have produced the general result that was intended. There have been cases where economic action directed to securing a specific change in policy on a vital issue has played an important role. I believe that that was the case, for example, with the unfreezing of Iranian assets, which was an element in securing the release of the American hostages. Sanctions against South Africa to ensure a change in its policy towards Namibia might be successful, but I am much more sceptical about the chance of general sanctions against South Africa producing a general change in its attitude towards apartheid.
  I must refer to one matter to which the Foreign Secretary did not refer at all, and that is the law of the sea treaty. He will know that 130 countries voted to accept that

  135
  last April. The United States of America was one of only four countries that rejected it. The United Kingdom has probably a greater interest in that treaty coming into effect than many other countries, partly because it is deeply involved in international shipping but also because of its involvement as an oil producer, not only in the North Sea but in many parts of the world. When the Minister replies I hope that he will assure the House that it is the Government's intention to ratify the law of the sea treaty despite the pressure from the United States of America not so to do. It is an example of a comprehensive treaty on a matter of immense and growing importance to the world. We have an interest as British people and as citizens of the world to see that treaty in force.
  May I turn from the East-West problem and the dangers of global nuclear war which are, as the Secretary-General said—I agree with him—deferred for the time being by the risk of a general holocaust, to the reality of a conventional conflict in the Third world. It is a conflict that grows in scale and horror almost month by month. The Middle East is the area of by far the greatest danger. I should like to follow the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary in referring briefly to two aspects of the Middle East conflict—first, the Israeli-Arab conflict.
  There seems to be no doubt that the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and its role in the massacres in the Palestine refugee camps have not only awakened the conscience of the world but have also provided, ironically, some opportunity for progress. There is an opportunity in two respects. First, few people will now deny that the Palestine people have a right to a homeland of their own. The Foreign Secretary described it as a State during his Middle East visit. Until they have a State then, like the Jews in an earlier diaspora, they will be subject to persecution and pogrom wherever they may settle. That is one of the lessons to be learnt from the tragedy in Beirut.
  Years ago, some of my Israeli friends said that Israel should erect a statue to Ernest Bevin in the main square of Tel Aviv because, without knowing it, he was probably responsible for the establishment of the State of Israel. Many of us would feel now that by the same argument a statue of Menachim Begin should stand in the main square of the capital of a new Palestine State. What happened as a result of his actions in the Lebanon in the past few months has put the establishment of a Palestine State irrevocably on the international agenda.
  The shift in American policy towards a more evenhanded approach has been a second gain from the tragedy in the Lebanon. The United States has now proposed the "Jordanian option"—as it used to be called—in a form close to what the Labour alignment in Israel has favoured for a considerable period, and which seems to be compatible with the attitude taken by the Arab States at their recent conference in Fez.
  I agree with the Foreign Secretary that, whatever reservations we may have about one aspect or another of the Reagan plan, it is in the interests of Middle East peace that we should press on as fast as possible to engage both States in negotiations on that basis. We must accept also that it is impossible to find representatives of the Palestine people who do not include the PLO. With the Foreign Secretary, I hope that the PLO will make it clear that, included among the objectives of any negotiations, must be the recognition of the State of Israel inside secure frontiers by all concerned. If some means could be found by the PLO leaders to make such a commitment—even a
  136
  contingent commitment as I suspect it would have to be—I believe that nothing would more successfully open the way towards fruitful negotiations.
  I should like to ask the Foreign Secretary one question about the Lebanon. The internal position of the Lebanon is still immensely unstable. I understand from the newspapers that the American Administration has decided to strengthen substantially its contribution to the international force. Is the Government prepared to do so? I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to reply "We have not been asked formally." I know, as well as the Foreign Secretary, that soundings are always made before formal approaches are made. I hope that he will say, as was made clear earlier during the story, that the British Government would be prepared to accede to a request to provide forces if necessary.
  It seems to me that it would be much better to provide a British contingent in an international force than for us to involve ourselves—as has been suggested—in providing military instructors for the Lebanese forces. I believe that that would be an extremely unwise commitment with a Lebanese regime as unstable as the present one.
  Meanwhile, as the Foreign Secretary said, a few hundred miles to the east the war between Iraq and Iran continues unabated. However, it is worth reminding the House and the country that often during the past year more people have been killed in a single day in the war between Iraq and Iran than in the whole of the recent fighting in the Lebanon. There is one bit of good news attendant on that fighting, and that is that the Shi-ite population of Iraq does not seem to have risen to support its sectarian brothers beyond the eastern frontier, because, I suspect, the atrocities of the Khomeini regime forbid anybody to support it who is not an Iranian Muslim fundamentalist. The problem of Muslim fundamentalism will continue to worry us. In the past few days we have read of hundreds of people being killed by Muslim fundamentalists in riots in Northern Nigeria.
  There are two further areas of importance to the world in which Great Britain has a major responsibility, to one of which for some reason the Foreign Secretary has made no reference, although I know that he was perhaps short of time. That is Central America. It seems to me that the dangers in Central America are now immense. Economic developments in Mexico—I shall have a little more to say about that in another context later—risk throwing the largest and most stable democracy in southern America—a State on the United States' immediate southern border—into civil war and conflict unless they are well handled.
  Meanwhile, conflicts in other parts of Central America continue their savage course. Venezuela still poses a threat to Guyana. Can the Minister tell us when he winds up whether Brazil is now offering certain military assistance to Guyana? I believe that the Opposition would welcome that if it were the case.
  The threat by the Right-wing dictatorship in Guatemala, whose treatment of its own population produces more horrifying reports almost every day, is as serious as ever. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can assure us once again that the British Government have no intention of appearing to signal the green light to Guatemala by reducing our available forces for the defence of Belize.

  137
  The civil war in El Salvador seems to be reaching a climax once again, but at least now there seems to be some prospect of talks. When other European Governments supported the request for talks made by Senor Ungo, the political leader of the revolutionary forces, the British Government refused to align themselves with them. But I understand now that, under Mr. Shultz's influence, the American Administration takes a more favourable attitude towards negotiations to end that civil war. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will now bend all their efforts to try to secure such negotiations and to do everything possible to ensure their success.
  Most disturbing at present in terms of urgency is the armed threat to Nicaragua from terrorists based in Honduras who are armed and organised by the American Government. I have raised this matter with the Government on several occasions, both privately and in the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell the House something about that. In response to a story of an imminent armed invasion of Nicaragua from Honduras in Newsweek the other day, there was a denial by the State Department, filled out by an interview, it appears, with CIA representatives in the New York Times in which they accepted that America was training terrorists for action in Nicaragua and that this armed action against a friendly Government was continuing all the time. That is absolutely inexcusable, especially from a Government who never cease to make speeches about terrorism being one of the cancers in world society and speak of terrorism being organised exclusively from Moscow and Communist States in Eastern Europe.
  I was deeply depressed to discover when I had the rare pleasure of reading the briefing material prepared for the Foreign Secretary as he left for Toronto—I regret that it was due not to his kindness but to the fact that someone got hold of it and published it in a magazine called City Limits—that Britain was the only country in Western Europe which supported the United States in opposing international aid to Nicaragua. Yet Britain supports the United States in offering IMF aid to South Africa despite the fact that the South African Government are in the process of attempting to torpedo the talks on Namibia.
  I hope that, even if argument will not persuade the right hon. Gentleman, he will be influenced a little by the kick in the teeth that he got yesterday from the United States over the Falklands resolution. Fawning can be carried a little too far. It seems to me that the time has come when the British Government should stand on their own feet and align themselves with our European allies in opposing this attempt to subvert, by violence if necessary, a friendly Government in Central America whose record on human rights, although by no means perfect, is a great deal better than that of most of the Governments who surround them.
  I make only a brief comment about the Falklands. I do not believe that this is a good moment to take up direct negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Argentine on the future of the Falklands. The Argentine Government do not appear to be significantly more stable or more democratic than the junta of General Galtieri. Moreover, it is too soon, as I concede, to ask the inhabitants of the islands to take a considered view about their future. But nor is it right to reject the good offices
  138
  of the United Nations, and the United Nations Secretary-General has made it clear that he is prepared to make his good offices available at any time the British Government want to make use of them.
  I think that the best answer in the long run to the problem of the Falklands will be, as I have thought for a long time, as have other hon. Members, some form of United Nations trusteeship. There is no doubt that the full cost, not only in diplomacy but also in cash, of attempting to maintain Britain's position in the Falklands without support, logistic or diplomatic, from any Latin American Government is likely to be quite disproportionate to the issues at stake. The Shackleton report would resolve the problem by throwing money at it, which it has always seemed to me was not exactly the rhetoric for which the Conservative Party had been notable on other issues. It seems to be proposing that we should spend 100 times more per head on helping the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands than on those who are without work within our own borders in Scotland, Wales, Northern England and the West Midlands. I must confess that I am not surprised that there is a growing request from these areas to the Prime Minister to contrive to invite the Argentines to invade their regions so that they may enjoy the treatment being contemplated for the Falklanders. However, I was glad to see that, during his recent visit to the Falklands, the Under-Secretary of State appeared to pour cold water on the Shackleton report. He took a decidedly sceptical view. As I recall, his only positive recommendation was that some entrepreneur on the islands should set up a fish and chip shop to supply the British forces there. That seems to be an admirable idea, though even I feel that it might not, by itself, be a wholly adequate response to the problems.
  Before I pass to the third main area with which the Foreign Secretary dealt, I want to ask one question about one of the many dogs which did not bark in the Gracious Speech. There was no reference to co-operation with the Republic of Eire in trying to create a framework in which it would be easier to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister made a great deal of this idea some time ago, and I think there was much merit in it. But her love affair with Mr. Haughey seems to be one of the shortest in recorded history. I understand that the Prime Minister seems to recognise, nevertheless, that Northern Ireland is a problem with international as well as national dimensions. I even heard it said—and perhaps we shall have some comment on it—that the Irish Committee of the Cabinet had been abandoned and that the Irish problem in future would be dealt with by the Overseas and Defence Committee, which I suppose puts it fairly and squarely in the Foreign Secretary's lap.
  Have the Government really given up the hope of developing a framework for helping to resolve the Irish problem through Dublin as well as through Stormont? It would be very sad if that were so, though I am delighted to see that the Prime Minister has finally given the lie to such disloyal voices as that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow)—I believe that he is known on the Conservative Benches as "Supergrass"—who claim that she did not support the proposals of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for an Assembly in Northern Ireland. All those Back Benchers who were misled by the hon. Member for Eastbourne about the Prime Minister's position in this affair now have it from the mare's mouth in the Gracious Speech drafted by the right hon. Lady.

  139
  I pass briefly to the third area with which the Foreign Secretary dealt. It is what the Secretary-General of the United Nations called the unsolved but soluble problems of economic relations, trade, distribution of resources and technology. It seems to me that here is where there lies the greatest and most dangerous failure of Western policy. It is a failure of policy for which the Government carry a heavy responsibility. That failure of policy was reflected in the extremely narrow and perfunctory way in which the Foreign Secretary dealt with the issue in his speech.
  What are the facts? The central fact is that the world is moving remorselessly into deeper despair. There is no chance of stemming the remorseless increase in unemployment anywhere in the world under present policies. Every forecast produced by national and international bodies in the past 18 months has been more pessimistic than its predecessor. Only this week we read of the report of the Commission of the European Community, which forecast that there would be no improvement of significance in any area of economic performance in the Community over the next five years unless there were fundamental changes in policy. The Prime Minister regularly boasts that she blazed the trail into this slough of despond. She takes pride in the fact that she persuaded others to follow her, apart from occasions such as her speech yesterday, when she tried to throw the blame for our appalling performance on to the policies of countries that she says have taken their policies from her.
  The plain fact is that it is no longer possible to deny that the problems facing the industrial world are the inevitable consequence of attempting to follow the lead set by the Prime Minister and that the growing threat of trade restriction is the inevitable consequence of the failure of her policies. One aspect of that problem, with which we should be deeply concerned, is the consequence for the Third world of the developed world's failure to adopt intelligent policies. I am glad to see the Foreign Secretary nodding in agreement.
  For the past 10 years countries in the Third world have been encouraged by the West to borrow from Western banks in order to recycle the OPEC surpluses, but the policy of Western Governments has led to a recession in which it is impossible for the Third world to earn enough money through exports to service their loans. As a result of the world recession, commodity prices are lower than they have been for 30 years. The private banks have at last woken up—far too late—to the fact that they are dangerously overexposed. Their balance sheets are now overloaded with a growing burden of provision for bad debts; provision stemming not only from lending overseas but often, also, from lending to large and important companies within their respective countries.
  The private banks are now caught in Morton's fork. If they refuse to continue lending to the Third world, world trade will fall even further and faster, there will be mass starvation in many Third world countries, political revolution and, without question, some of the debtors will default on their debts and so bring down the private banks. However, if they take the other course and continue lending to bad debtors they will become even more exposed and are liable to go bust. The enormous volume of international inter-bank lending that has grown over the past 10 years uncontrolled and unmonitored by Governments or international organisations means that if some banks go bust in Germany or the United States of America—as any reaction is more likely to start there than
  140
  in this country—there is a risk that a chain reaction will spread all over the world in a way that would make the catastrophe of 1929 look like a storm in a tea cup.
  Sir Anthony Meyer: I do not, for one moment, dissent from what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, but will he not admit that the policy that the Labour Party clamours for of greater protection against imports, particularly those from the Third world—[Interruption.] The Labour Party is clamouring for restrictions on imports from developing countries such as Brazil and Korea. Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that that constitutes a great threat to world trade? Will he not use his enormous authority within his own party—which I freely acknowledge—to convince his colleagues of the self-defeating nature of the proposals that they put forward?
  Mr. Healey: It is no good the hon. Gentleman acknowledging my enormous authority within my own party. It is the members of my party whom I want to acknowledge that. However, if I pursue the right hon. Gentleman's point I shall have to go into the details of domestic policy. I should be delighted to do that another time, but I do not want to overburden a speech which, I fear, may already be a little too long.
  The only answer to that international problem is to give the official international organisations the resources to take over responsibility from the private banks—because the private banks are no longer capable of handling it—and to save the Third world from the consequences of the way in which the developed countries have failed to manage their affairs intelligently through soft loans and aid not only from the international banks but from the IMF.
  However, I was staggered by the complacency with which the Foreign Secretary referred to the need to reinforce the international organisations and to revise the way in which they work. The problem has been staring the Government in the face for three and a half years and they have failed to do anything about it. Even when they met in Toronto the other day, under the imminent shadow of an international bank collapse, the best decision that they could reach was to defer dealing with the problem of expanding IMF resources for another six months. That really will not do. The performance of the Government and the United States' Administration has been appalling. The Government have done nothing to support those who wish to increase the resources of the international organisations and have done everything to discourage them. The United States of America—especially as long as Mr. Sprinkel had influence—was even worse.
  The Foreign Secretary and the Gracious Speech talked about increasing aid, particularly to the poorest countries. What are the facts? This year the Government cut their aid programme by 11 per cent. in real terms. They cut the British contribution to the International Development Association, although it is by far the most important source of international aid to countries that cannot pull themselves up by their bootstraps. As an act of policy they have given priority not to the poorest countries but to the interests of British exporters. Even in a debate a few months ago the Minister for Overseas Development had to tell the House that he was prepared to spend 0·15 per cent. of gross domestic product helping the least prosperous countries only on the condition that he could be satisfied that it would not damage our ability to give the bulk of our aid to much better off countries in the Third world.

  141
  I know that the Foreign Office agrees with us about the Government's handling of overseas students, because the Government have taken an incredibly short-sighted step. We have already lost more exports to Malaysia alone as a result of that decision than we have gained from the reduction in grants to overseas students. I assure the Foreign Secretary that he will have our full support if he puts pressure on the Treasury in that respect.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: On the subject of the Government's attitude to overseas aid to poor countries, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will recall that the British Government were one of the two Governments who virtually sabotaged the proceedings at Cancun.
  Mr. Healey: Of course, I recall that and we debated that a few months ago.
  I do not think that the Foreign Secretary will disagree with me about the problems of the world as a whole. There are two overwhelmingly important tasks for international statesmanship. The first is to maintain the military balance between East and West at the lowest possible level of cost and risk. The second, which is often ignored by Foreign Offices, is to maintain the balance in the world economy at the highest possible levels of growth and employment. All Western Governments seem to have ignored that second task, to our common cost. It is desperately necessary that Governments address themselves to that task, preferably at a summit conference.
  The Secretary of State spoke eloquently about his objectives. He made a vigorous and well-constructed speech, but the picture that he drew of Britain's current reputation in the world is different from the perception of the country's foreign policy across the Channel, across the Atlantic and in the Third world. We must ask ourselves how it is that Britain, which has been famous for centuries for its skill and wisdom in handling international affairs and which played the leading role in the years after 1945 in establishing a framework of world order to give us a quarter of century of unparalleled peace and prosperity, now cuts such a poor and negative figure in international affairs.
  I am afraid that the responsibility lies in large part with the Prime Minister herself. She entered office with little knowledge or experience of external affairs. She is not to be blamed for that. For some time she was content to leave most of the more difficult and important issues to Lord Carrington who, as I said at the time, did a good job on the tasks allotted to him. He did a good job in controlling the Prime Minister's extravagances and repairing the damage that she caused.
  The Prime Minister's relations with the present Secretary of State seem to be a little less comfortable. She seems increasingly to be tempted to arrogate to herself responsibilities which should be his and, simultaneously, to reject the wisdom and experience of his professional advisers in the Foreign Office. Her general motto seems to be, as it always is, "Please do not confuse me with the facts."
  For the first year or two the Bank of England was the institution most at risk from that attitude, but recently the Foreign Office has moved into the firing line. For the last few months the Prime Minister has been barging about like
  142
  some bargain basement Boadicea leaving dismay and disruption wherever she goes from Peking to Berlin. Thank God that she has not yet gone to Gibraltar.
  The Prime Minister's visit to the Far East was an unmitigated disaster. I think that the Secretary of State will agree. The right hon. Lady completely failed to make any impact on the attitude of the Japanese Government. The way in which she handled the Chinese Government brought Hong Kong close to disaster—a disaster from which I hope that it may soon recover. Now the Prime Minister is behaving increasingly like Catherine the Great and surrounding herself with favourites. If she cannot install them at the head of the relevant Department, she puts them inside No. 10 and ignores the Departments altogether.
  This may not work out as well as she hopes, or as badly as we fear. It was one thing to staff No. 10 with bizarre interlopers from academia, such as Professor Walters, the Dr. Who of economics, or Sir John Hoskyns, the rich man's Frances Morrell, but now she is recruiting from a different source. It is just possible that a skilled diplomatist such as Sir Anthony Parsons may be able to put the realities of world affairs to her more effectively from inside the portals of No. 10 than from across the road.
  It is fascinating to see how the right hon. Lady has begun to pluck people out of retirement. In diplomatic terms Sir Anthony is probably the George Smiley of the Foreign Office. Maybe he is a double agent and works just as well for the Foreign Office as he does for her. I know that that is the Foreign Secretary's hope. I wonder where the right hon. Lady will find the next of Smiley's people. Unfortunately, Sir Nico Henderson has already pre-empted the role of Sir Toby Esterhazy.
  It is dreadful that Britain's reputation in the world is now so much at the mercy of one woman's imperious caprice. The only hope is that those are right who interpret the Gracious Speech as meaning that the period during which we shall suffer from these dangers may be over before we assemble for next year's Speech.
  4.35 pm
  Dr. David Owen: It would be churlish not to admit that the House has enjoyed the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Its most endearing characteristic was that in all its points of substance it bore no relation to the policy or resolutions of the party that he supports.
  The debate should concentrate on some serious issues. I believe that what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said about the state of the world and the state of our alliances was closer to the truth than the Foreign Secretary's description. I understand the Foreign Secretary's problem. He has to put as brave a face on the world as he can. He has to try to present the British Government's role in the most positive light. The Foreign Secretary is an honest man and he knows that East-West relations—and, more importantly, relations within the NATO alliance—are fraught. That is not new. When one looks back at what has happened in the one and a half years since the Polish problem began its decline, the response of the NATO allies has been divided, incompetent and incoherent.
  Today the Soviet influence in Poland is naked and growing. We must remind ourselves that in Europe 10 months ago people misguidedly talked about General Jaruzelski as if he were a Tito-like figure. The present

  143
  position is unprecedented in NATO's lifetime. The most powerful NATO State—America—is taking sanctions against firms in other NATO countries. That is not a good position. It would be foolish to continue the debate on the basis that the alliance is continuing reasonably.
  In the past 10 to 15 years there has been a growing discontinuity in the way in which Europe sees its relations with the Warsaw Pact countries and the way in which the United States sees them. It has come to a head in the last two or three years because the new United States Administration thought that they could turn back the clock and reassert their leadership role, forgetting that that role comes from their ability to persuade their European partners. The old automatic leadership role for the United States within the alliance is over permanently. The United States must now move to a different relationship with Europe. That is not helped by the divisions in Western Europe.
  There is much in the American case that all too frequently, when the American Government ask for a European view, they receive a divided view. There has been a divided European view on how to respond to the Soviet invasion, which is what happened when the military clampdown in Poland was masterminded by the Soviet Union. It is folly to pretend otherwise. Europe's voice was divided on that. Consequently the Americans acted on their own, talking tough. NATO has also sounded tough and has used strong rhetoric, but its action has been weak and ineffective.
  We do no credit to the alliance if we do not look back on the past year and a half with a degree of shame. Solidarity is now banned entirely. People are still interned without any form of trial. We see people being arrested, and the West seems powerless to do anything about it. All the time we say "We must not take any action for fear that it will make things worse". The action that we were able to take was always limited, but we led our own people to believe that we had far more effective power at our disposal than we really had. When we eventually used sanctions, they were bound to be ineffective from almost the day that they were introduced. There is a lesson to be learnt from that, and there are lessons to be learnt from the divisions among the allies over Afghanistan. I still believe that it was a great tragedy that only the United States and West Germany did not send their athletes to Moscow. That was the start of the break-up of a united response to an overt aggressive act.
  Despite the differences within the alliance about economic and trading links, which to some extent owe their origin to geography, we must hope that the sanctions on the pipeline will be lifted. The Americans were right from their point of view to argue against the pipeline back in 1978. There is nothing new about the argument. President Carter expressed the American view to his allies. It was a legitimate point of view. The Americans said that it was wrong for Europe to put its energy resources so much in hock to the Soviet Union. However, the member States having taken national decisions which they felt to be in the interests of their countries, it made no sense for the United States leadership to flout that decision-making. They should respect it. It was a profound error of judgment to apply the pipeline sanctions.
  Europe, however, must recognise that we have tended to have it all ways. That can be said especially of the Federal Republic of Germany. Not much is said about the fact that the Federal Republic, under the Treaty of Rome,
  144
  is allowed to trade with East Germany as though it were a fellow member of the European Community. Vast and extensive trade is taking place. This trading link has been exploited by other East European countries. They have used East Germany as a channel for trade.
  There is a discontinuity within what the Western democracies are saying about defence and security and how they are acting in the economic and trading spheres. There must be a closer relationship. It was folly to pretend after signing the Helsinki final act that we would suddenly see the emergence of free and independent nations in the Warsaw Pact. It was folly to believe that we would see massive and immediate changes in human rights. We put much too much pressure on the human rights part of the Helsinki agreement in 1977 and 1978. It was always a much longer term provision. However, there is now an urgent need for the Western democracies to start to think afresh about how they deal with the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact. We must bring our policies on defence, economies and trade more into line and adopt a rather longer time scale for the changes that it is reasonable to expect to occur in Warsaw Pact countries.
  We face an added problem because there is disagreement about our own defence and security posture. I do not think that the Foreign Secretary gave sufficient weight to the growing opinion not only in Western Europe but in the United States that we must question the role of nuclear weapons in NATO's deterrent strategy, which is one of the basic defence strategies of the West. Those who take this view can no longer be dismissed as pacifists or neutralists. There is a serious body of opinion that is questioning this role.
  Given the world as it is, I am convinced that NATO has to have a deterrent strategy that is based on conventional deterrence and nuclear deterrence. The rhetoric of President Reagan and Defence Secretary Caspar Weinberger has, however, increasingly given grounds for believing that they are not merely aiming for nuclear superiority or sufficiency to deter others from embarking on a war but that they are arming for a nuclear war, which they believe they can win. They are constantly using language about nuclear war fighting strategies and limited nuclear war.
  It is true that battlefield nuclear weapons have existed for some time in Europe. It is true that the strategy has been around for over 15 years. However, for at least 10 years most people have believed that it could never be used. It was a strategy that was on the books, so to speak, but it was not really believed to be a serious part of the overall strategy. Over recent years a battlefield nuclear war fighting strategy has come to be believed in by at least some United States politicians. This raises serious questions for the West. We must start right at the front of the nuclear weapon strategy and question the strategy of the early use of nuclear weapons.
  With respect to those who argue for no first use, the first question is whether we can end a strategy that is based on early use. The only way in which we can introduce a strategy that is based on no early use of nuclear weapons is to have sufficient confidence in our conventional forces in Europe. That may mean that we shall have to pay a price to maintain the conventional balance. It would be preferable to have the conventional balance at a lower level as a result of successful negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions. It may be that that can be achieved. After more than nine years of negotiations it is

  145
  high time to achieve a breakthrough. The attitude of the Federal Republic of Germany on the data question is remarkably rigid. It should now be asked to come forward with a more realistic negotiating framework to overcome the problem of data on which MBFR is locked.
  It is clear that 1983 will be a difficult year for nuclear issues in Western Europe. It will be extremely difficult to hold the alliance to the double decision in 1979 to deploy cruise missiles and to negotiate. There are too many people in the United States who think that it was only a single decision to deploy cruise missiles. There is now not the same confidence as there was a few years ago that the negotiations over cruise missiles, SS20s and Pershings will be conducted in a real and constructive frame of mind on the part of the United States negotiators.
  It may be necessary for the Western allies to continue to make preparations for deployment all through 1983 to ensure that the Soviet Union comes to the negotiating table ready to give and ready to concede some of the major points which are the concern of the West. But against that background it is necessary for NATO itself to take some initiatives. As part of any initiative, I urge the Foreign Secretary seriously to consider the possibility of a battlefield nuclear weapon-free zone. I concede that it will be difficult to verify. I accept that it will not be a massive measure and that nuclear weapons could still be targeted in from outside. However, it is the most tangible way of demonstrating that NATO is pulling back from a strategy of early use and is endorsing a strategy of no early use. It would have a considerable psychological impact in Europe, especially during a difficult year when we must hold firm in our negotiations over cruise.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the West has extracted the maximum advantage from the zero option initiative and that it has to move forward from there?
  Dr. Owen: When negotiating with the Soviet Union one of the greatest dangers is for us all to start getting into different negotiating positions. We can all rejig the negotiations, but the fact is that they will take place in private. I think that, broadly speaking, we must leave the details of the negotiations to the negotiators. We will expect a constructive negotiating position. That is a good opening bid, but I do not believe that one has to fix on one's opening bids.
  I agree with those who have always argued that the INF talks must be linked to the SALT talks. One cannot put oneself into a narrow negotiating box in which one discusses only SS20s, cruise missiles and Pershings. It is necessary to have a wider framework of reference, taking in strategic arms and also the MBFR negotiations. There is a seamless robe to deterrence. One must look at all the negotiations. It is folly to say that we should leave battlefield nuclear weapons until after we have dealt with strategic weapons or intermediate missiles. They are all linked.
  The Foreign Secretary should not underestimate the difficulty of holding public opinion over the next year or two. He should not underestimate the necessity to hold centre Left opinion. It has never been enough in NATO for its solidarity to come just from an agreement between Governments. It is not enough for it to come just from agreement between the parties of the Right. Until recently
  146
  the strength of NATO was that it had wholehearted support for its strategy from all parties in this House and from all parties in many other European democracies. It is extremely important that the United States should be made to realise that it has a heavy responsibility—that it must listen—to some of its own people.
  I now leave the issue of Europe, which is serious enough, and come to the other central question, which is North-South relations. There is no doubt that the world is facing a dangerous problem over its economic, financial and trading arrangements. The Government spend a great deal of their time explaining the problems of the domestic economy by reference to the world recession and the international situation. Even if we take all their arguments at face value, they must give a higher priority to trying to do something about the world economy. In that area there has been absolutely no leadership from the United Kingdom.
  In 1978, at the Bonn summit, a serious attempt was made to reach a co-ordinated approach to expansion. I see that the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the then Prime Minister, is present. I pay tribute to what he tried to do in that Bonn summit. It encountered serious trouble because in 1979 there was the second oil price rise. We ran into inflation. Expansion, which was undertaken by the Federal Republic of Germany—although I suspect that it now somewhat regrets it—was undermined because of the inflationary pressures coming from the oil price rise. We are now coming to 1983. With inflation coming down all over the world, the chances of a co-ordinated approach to expansion will be much greater, particularly if that were coupled with an attempt to achieve greater exchange rate stability.
  The summits of the economic seven have a disappointing record. Britain will not be the most powerful voice in that summit. If the European community could co-ordinate on a position for the next economic summit and if we could bring Japan, the United States and the EMS countries together in terms of exchange rate stability, then for co-ordinated expansion that would be the most effective grouping available. Of course, there are things that can and should be done in the IMF, the World Bank, and other institutions. However, if that grouping of the seven could unite and co-ordinate its activity, it could spread out to involve the OECD countries and countries further afield.
  Let us look at Nigeria. It is the most important trading nation for this country other than the European Community countries and the United States. It is facing severe financial difficulties and is locked in negotiations with the IMF, in which the conditionality demanded of it makes it impossible to accept. I could add many countries other than Nigeria. We have a direct and important trading interest with many of them, too. It is not sufficient just to allow the present philosophy to continue. The IMF has saved Mexico, but only because the United States has such a strong political interest that it was prepared to intervene and insist on new and special arrangements. The honest answer is that where politics matter to the United States it is prepared to use its influence in the IMF. We must take account more of some of the political consequences in the world financial situation.
  I shall not go right round the world. Two long speeches have already been made. However, I shall mention three or four small issues. The first is sovereignty. I know the

  147
  difficulty with the present Prime Minister. I urge the Foreign Secretary not to get the Falkland Islands issue hung up on sovereignty. The House was very nearly united at various stages in its determination to resist aggression. That is why we agreed and why there was a great deal of support for the Government's action in the Falkland Islands.
  I believe that the United Nations was foolish to have had this debate in the General Assembly. The resolution was at the wrong time and was made in the wrong place. It should have gone to the Security Council, not to the General Assembly. We should not get into a flap about the United States. It paid a heavy price for giving us unequivocal support when it mattered, which was during the war in the Falklands. Any Government would say "This is not the right time to open negotiations. We have barely buried our dead. The wounds are still not healed, both metaphorically and physically." There is no doubt that we shall have to build up trust and understanding with the Falkland Islanders before we go into negotiations.
  What has been missing in the United Nations is any clear statement from the British Government that in the fullness of time they will enter into negotiations. That is what we should have. That is what must come out of the debate. All hon. Members know that there will have to be negotiations over the Falkland Islands. We are not prepared to be pushed into them by General Assembly resolutions. We shall do so in the fullness of time and at the right time. Let us have no nonsense about the fact that we will do so.
  The Prime Minister's visit to Hong Kong was disastrous. She should never have gone to China. She had made so many commitments on sovereignty and self-determination that she could not grapple with the issue as sensitively as was required.
  All I can say to the Foreign Secretary is that he should keep the Prime Minister well away from those issues now. He should take them into his own hands. I say to him in great friendliness that, if Sir Anthony Parsons is to accompany him, he could not get a better person. The Prime Minister must not be allowed near Hong Kong. That is the almost unanimous view of the 5 million people who live in Hong Kong. This is a resolvable problem on which action must be taken.
  I shall mention two other major areas. The first is Namibia. It is regrettable that the contact group of the five countries did not tell South Africa when it came to it for a loan from the IMF that it was practising not just institutional apartheid but economic apartheid. It should have said that South Africa cannot continue to do this and ask it to agree in the IMF that it should have financial support. There is merit in the IMF not having too great a political involvement in its financial decisions. That is one of the reasons why the IMF has lasted as long as it has. It has been broadly insulated from that.
  But South Africa must be told clearly that Namibia is a test case and that no obstacle can legitimately be placed in the way of UNTAG supervising independent elections there. The South Africans should have been told that before the IMF loan was given. From now on they should be told that there will be no subsequent support from the IMF while they continue to block progress on Namibia. There is distinction between sanction for independence in Zimbabwe, Namibia—
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Too late.
  Dr. Owen: I do not think that it is too late. I still believe that Namibia can come into independence.
  Mr. Hughes: I was saying not that it was too late for independence for Namibia, but that it was too late for the IMF to attach conditions to the loan in relation to Namibia.
  Dr. Owen: I apologise for misrepresenting the hon. Gentleman. I made representations to the Foreign Secretary about the matter. I have little hope that there will be a change now, but I suspect that, given the problems that confront the South African economy, it will be back for more. It should be made clear to the South Africans that there will be no more IMF support while they are blocking progress in Namibia. I know that the Foreign Secretary is prepared to say that it is South Africa that is currently blocking progress in Namibia.
  I have been somewhat critical of some United States policy in the past. Nevertheless, I pay tribute to President Reagan's courage in putting a multilateral force into Lebanon. We would not even be in the present uneasy circumstances if that force were not there. I also pay tribute to George Shultz. I have far more confidence in him as Secretary of State than I have had in the United States Administration's policy of the past few years.
  I give the Foreign Secretary a word of caution about the Middle East. Since they have been in office, the Government have managed to lose influence in Israel. That is dangerous. It is possible to be a candid friend of Israel while criticising her, as President Mitterrand has shown. He still has a dialogue with Israel. I regret some of the statements that even the Foreign Secretary has made on the issue.
  To talk about a Palestinian State without qualifying the circumstances in which a Palestinian State is possible only fuels those who have an unrealistic view of what a Palestinian State should be. I do not object to the wording, but I tried to restrain the Foreign Secretary on this matter at Question Time recently.
  In any serious negotiations, a Palestinian State would have to be demilitarised. It is unrealistic to propose a Palestinian State on the West Bank that has the missiles and weaponry of modern warfare. That is one of the reasons why President Reagan was right to state that a link—some federation—between the West Bank and Jordan might be the right solution. He said that that was his favoured position, not the only possible one. In that case, the new State would be armed. It is difficult to expect people to accept a State, the territory of which is totally demilitarised. That is one of the real problems that must be faced. The Americans are right to state that that is their preference, but to admit that a solution must be negotiated.
  The PLO should not be made the sole exclusive voice of Palestinian opinion. That UN form of words was a great problem when it was given to SWAPO in Namibia. I am reluctant to give it to any organisation, let alone the PLO. Nevertheless, we must all be anxious to find a way of getting the PLO to negotiate. Without the PLO, it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a solution that will stick. Such a solution will require a great deal of skill.
  The one country with which Britain has much influence is Jordan. I am glad that the Foreign Secretary intends to visit it shortly. It is always difficult to persuade King Hussein to take a risk and to push him out too far in such negotiations. The time is fast coming when it would be

  149
  reasonable to expect Jordan to involve itself in negotiations about a Palestinian homeland and an autonomous arrangement—which I believe will be the transitional step—for the West Bank.
  The world at present could hardly be a more depressing place. The arms race continues, the United Nations special session on disarmament was a disaster and the follow-up to the Brandt report at Cancun and elsewhere has been a series of disappointments. One of these days, the prophets of doom in our midst, who grow ever more strong, will have their doomster predictions justified. That could be horrendous for us all. We live with great perils of nuclear weapons. We live with the horror and dangers of a world economy that is out of control.
  I advise the Foreign Secretary, in a spirit of friendliness, that he might carry the House a little more if he were more frank about the serious problems that the world faces. I know that he knows about them, but he must articulate them in the next year or two. If we back off or try to pretend that all is well, we shall not be able to achieve the new thinking and co-ordination between nations that is vital if we are to overcome the massive problems that confront us.
  5.4 pm
  Sir Paul Bryan: It would be wrong for the House to stage a major debate on foreign affairs without considering and recognising the worrying circumstances that confront the people of Hong Kong. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Hong Kong in his opening speech. It has been referred to in every speech so far.
  "Economic miracle" is a phrase that has been much overused to describe countries that have enjoyed unusual growth. For no territory is it more apt than for Hong Kong. Hong Kong emerged from the last war devasted by Japanese occupation and with a population of 600,000. Now, less than 40 years later, its population is more than 5 million and, with no natural resources, the people have attained a higher standard of living than any other country in the Far East except Japan.
  Hong Kong is also a social miracle, in that, despite the sometimes almost overwhelming flood of immigrants from mainland China, the British administration has succeeded in constantly raising the standards of health, education and housing, to the astonished admiration of the rest of the world. Much of the credit for those great achievements can be attributed to the inspired governorship of Lord Maclehose, who retired recently.
  In addition to being a major manufacturing and trading area, Hong Kong is a great financial centre. The opening up of China should even further ensure its prosperity. Nevertheless, we all know that the people of Hong Kong are deeply worried about their future and their relations with China. The matter has been brought to a head by the negotiations that are going on between China and Britain.
  In present circumstances, those negotiations should be successful. Never have relations between China and Britain been better. The present arrangements have brought great advantages to the people of China, Hong Kong and Britain. The negotiations started in Peking with a friendly meeting between the two Prime Ministers concerned and a joint commitment to future prosperity and stability for Hong Kong.
  150
  I do not agree with either the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) or the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that the Prime Minister's visit was a disaster. The right hon. Member for Devonport was in Hong Kong just before the Prime Minister arrived there. I was there just after she left. I was busy questioning those whose opinion I respect and who know both China and Hong Kong well. Their verdict was very different. It is obvious that they could not be euphoric, but they were satisfied with the progress so far. Their attitude was "So far, so good." That is as much as can be expected at this stage.
  Nevertheless, as the future of Hong Kong depends on the outcome of the negotiations, the people who have made their homes there are worried and will remain so until the talks are completed. In my view, the Government have done everything possible to reassure them in a difficult situation. Our genuine commitment to Hong Kong has been demonstrated by the fact that the Prime Minister herself initiated the talks with the Prime Minister of China. They could not have been conducted at a higher level.
  The Prime Minister has gained general admiration in Hong Kong for the trouble that she has taken and for her thoroughness in consulting a wide range of Hong Kong people. I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary is taking a personal interest in the negotiations.
  When I was in Hong Kong I was frequently asked whether the people there would be kept informed of how the talks were going. That is not easy, because negotiations must be confidential, but it would strengthen confidence in the territory if progress reports could be issued from time to time, and in particular if some indication could be given of how long the talks are likely to continue. I hope that in stressing the concern of the people of Hong Kong about the present political situation I have not given the impression that all life there has come to a halt—far from it. Having heard the robust address to the legislative council by the new governor, Sir Edward Youde, one can only be impressed yet again by the bustling activity of the place, the Government's ambitious social programmes and the plans for the massive development of the infrastructure.
  However, as the busy life of the territory continues, so do the problems of the day-to-day relations between Hong Kong and Britain. One of those problems, which might be classed as a festering sore that needs to be healed soon, is that of overseas students' fees. Here I agree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. In this area Britain has achieved the worst of all possible worlds. Having been almost over-generous in the expansion of our population of overseas students, we suddenly, indiscriminately, and without consultation drastically raised their fees, thus causing offence to many of our oldest friends and allies and, indeed, to countries to which we have a moral obligation. Furthermore, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in areas such as Malaysia we have actually lost heavily in economic terms as a direct result.
  I raise this matter in a foreign affairs debate—as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman did-because it is, naturally, the Foreign Office that is most conscious of the damage that has been done, and it is the Foreign Office on which we rely to use its pressure to put these matters right. I know that the Foreign Secretary himself is very interested in this subject. The more he travels, the more it will be brought home to him.

  151
  Over the past few years, those of us who pressed the Government on this subject were told that it was too early to know what the effect of the increased fees had been. Then we were told to wait for the report of the Overseas Students Trust, which would be a guide to Government policy. The report turned out to be a brilliant document. If, in general terms, the Government were to follow the policies put forward in the report, I should be well pleased. After that, following an early-day motion signed by no fewer than 150 right hon. and hon. Members, I understand that the Government set up an inter-departmental committee which has been meeting during the summer and will report shortly to Ministers.
  I shall be glad if, when he winds up the debate, the Minister of State will tell us when the Government will be able to make proposals and when we shall be able to debate them in full. Among the recommendations of the Overseas Students Trust is the suggestion that students from British dependent territories should be treated as home students. This arrangement would be very much welcomed in Hong Kong.
  To ease the passage of such a reform the Hong Kong Government have offered to meet some of the cost. In the course of his address to the legislative council the governor said:
  "On the basis of the proposals contained in the report of the Overseas Students Trust, the Government hopes to reach agreement with Her Majesty's Government for joint funding of the difference between home and overseas student fees. If arrangements can be agreed, Hong Kong students in Britain will, subject to a means tests, pay the same fees as home students."
  The Hong Kong Government are clearly doing their very best to be helpful. I sincerely trust that Her Majesty's Government will take the same attitude.
  It is now absolutely clear from the latest figures that Hong Kong students are being diverted from this country to other countries, particularly to Canada and America. A good general guide to the trend of overseas student destinations is provided by the visas issued to first-time students by the immigration department in Hong Kong. These show that of students in all categories 45 per cent. went to the United Kingdom in 1979, 25 per cent. to Canada and 26 per cent. to the United States. In 1981, 21 per cent. went to the United Kingdom, 51 per cent. to Canada and 21 per cent. to the United States. In the category of first-degree students, 651 settled for the United Kingdom in 1979 and 342 in 1981. That is a very sad trend. I only hope that it is not too late to reverse it. It is important that Her Majesty's Government reach a conclusion on this very soon. Otherwise, whatever changes are made will not be operative this time next year, when the next education year commences.
  I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a promise made by the Prime Minister when she was in Hong Kong. In his speech to the legislative council the governor said:
  "During this Session, members will be invited to consider amendments to Hong Kong's emigration and other legislation as a consequence of the coming into force of the British Nationality Act on 1st January next year. An important related question which still needs to be resolved is the nationality description to be used in passports. The Government continues to urge on Her Majesty's Government the importance we all attach to a satisfactory resolution of this issue."
  Referring to this question of the nationality description to be used on passports, the Prime Minister said at a press conference on 27 October:
  152
  "I do not think the Nationality Act changes Britain's commitment to the people of Hong Kong, and I do not think we can change it now, but I understand there is a passport problem which I will look into when I return."
  I am sure that the Prime Minister will be as good as her word. I shall be glad to know whether the Minister of State has anything to report.
  Finally, as the multi-fibre negotiations are now grinding to a halt, I ask the Government to look again at the question of imports into and exports from Hong Kong. Because of the multi-fibre arrangement, Britain and Europe have restricted the importation of various categories of Hong Kong garments, greatly to Hong Kong's disadvantage. Hong Kong is a territory which is free of all restrictions, and we take great advantage of that freedom. We export more to Hong Kong, with its population of 5 million, than to Japan, with its population of 100 million. We have that great advantage, and yet we put restrictions on Hong Kong. This might make sense, albeit harsh sense, if it preserved employment in this country, but the gap left has been filled not by poor developing countries but by rich European countries and by the Americans, who do not hesitate to keep out our goods. The arrangement is not even working. It is now time to start again.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Donald Stewart: I am aware that the proposed pattern of debate on the Queen's Speech is for foreign affairs today, and I will touch on aspects of that subject, but I hope that I may make some comments from a Scottish viewpoint. In seconding the motion on the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) said:
  "We are a United Kingdom, and those of us who live north of the border look to Westminster to ensure that in economic. as in constitutional, matters we remain one community."
  People in Scotland who look to Westminster for help will look in vain. Indeed, in his next sentence the hon. Gentleman said:
  "In the North, we suffer from the same economic and industrial ills as the rest of the country, only more so." [Official Report; 3 November 1982, Vol. 31, c. 10.]
  Yes, indeed—and that is despite the fact that without the oil from Scotland the United Kingdom would file its petition in bankruptcy, and that even with the oil the Government have gone a fair way towards achieving that end.
  The Gracious Speech reads:
  "My Government will maintain the monetary and fiscal policies necessary to achieve these ends, including continued restraint in public spending."
  That is a chilling message without vision or hope. There are no prospects of anything being done for the unemployed, yet the Government claim to be
  "deeply aware of the anxieties and distress caused by unemployment."
  Had those words any genuine content, they would have led to action to remedy the Government's appalling record.
  As is her custom, the Prime Minister blames everyone else. She claims that world recession is the cause of it all, although she is extremely selective in the countries she names and the statistics she uses. For example, the very low levels of unemployment in Norway, Sweden and Austria are never quoted. Yesterday she had the nerve to blame the local authorities for not reducing unemployment and attacked them for not spending enough, yet the

  153
  Government have devastated local authority spending by reducing grants, which in turn has forced the curtailment of essential services.
  When Conservative Members complain, as some did yesterday, about the dangerously high level of local rates, they should place the burden where it belongs—on the shoulders of the Government. To keep even truncated services going, many local authorities have been forced to raise rates to an exceptionally high level.
  The Queen's Speech also refers to the economic development of the Falkland Islands. It has not gone unnoticed by the nurses and the Health Service workers that the Government, who cannot find the money to increase their depressed wages, will now meet a bill for £1,600 million for the Falklands war. The assistance to the islanders is welcome, but one wonders why the modest aid for which a number of us have asked in past years was not forthcoming. It also pinpoints the empty rhetoric of the Prime Minister about kith and kin that a substantial number of the islanders were excluded from British citizenship by the mean standards of the Government's legislation.
  The Government talk about negotiations. Undoubtedly, those will have to be held somewhere along the line, but it is ridiculous to think that the events of the last few months can be washed clean at the request of Argentina, which must have known that its aggression would not pay as soon as the war was concluded.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman alluded to the Health Service dispute and drew an unfortunate comparison between the money which in the long term we must spend in the Falkland Islands and on the replacement of lost vessels and the money that has been offered to the nurses. Is he aware that the Secretary of State for Social Services has on the table a package totalling £1,100 million and that he is prepared to talk to the representatives of the Health Service trade unions about a two-year package involving that money? That is not very different from the £1,600 million that we shall be spending on the Falkland Islands over the next few years.
  Mr. Stewart: I am aware that the Secretary of State absolutely refuses to go anywhere near the Health Service workers' claim, which I believe to be very modest in view of their weekly earnings.
  The Gracious Speech includes an undertaking to bring forward measures
  "to permit private investment in British Telecommunications".
  If passed, such a measure will lead to severe problems for scattered rural areas such as the one I represent, where the need for a telephone is vital and, in many cases, literally a matter of life and death. I place no trust in Government assurances that the private firms will be obliged to maintain rural lines and services. They will be in it for the money, and the areas of loss or insufficient profit will be for the chop.
  The Queen's Speech also reaffirms the Government's
  "strong commitment to the European Community."
  Once again, they promise to work for fair solutions—a point that was emphasised today by the Foreign Secretary. Those assurances never seem to get anywhere. The butter mountain still exists for the benefit of the Russians, which ought to be unacceptable to Conservative Members. The common agricultural policy has not changed in any
  154
  material aspect, but every time the matter is raised we are assured that the Government will see that that is done. The common fisheries policy is a disaster. A majority of the public is opposed to membership. The trade balance is hopelessly wrong. In spite of all that, the Government remain committed to the EEC. They ought to draw the logical conclusion.
  The Gracious Speech refers to Bills that
  "will be introduced … to improve the control of subsidies to public transport in the conurbations."
  I leave the implications of that to the hon. Members concerned, but I regret that the Government have decided against a road equivalent tariff system in the Scottish islands. I accept that the Conservative election promise was to move towards RET, and I also accept that the Government have given substantial aid to the shipping companies that serve the islands, but it is a serious blow to development in the islands that they have not had sufficient concern to go the full way on RET, as recommended by an all-party Select Committee.
  It is tragic that in this Queen's Speech, which one imagines will be the last before a general election, nothing has been said about Scottish government. During the referendum on the Scotland Act, the Conservative Party was quite definite in its advice to the Scottish people. A newspaper headline declared:
  "No vote will not kill devolution, pledges Thatcher".
  It was suggested that the people of Scotland should vote against the Scotland Act on the ground that they would get better legislation from the Conservatives. They trundled on Lord Home, who advised the people of Scotland to vote "No" and said that he would produce a better Bill. It probably does not matter much to the Government's reputation, but I would have expected that by now Lord Home would have produced the Bill that he promised.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) is present. One of the great arguments during our discussion on the Scotland Act was the West Lothian question, which the hon. Gentleman used to great effect. I am sorry to note that since that time, when Scotland has been devastated by a Government who have no mandate, the hon. Gentleman does not seem unduly perturbed. I give him full credit for attacking the Government as a Conservative Government, but he seems in no way put out by the fact that the effects on Scotland have been produced by the West Lothian questions in reverse.
  Mr. John Maxton: Is it not the case that the Scottish National Party has abandoned devolution as a policy and now believes in root and branch independence and nothing else?
  Mr. Stewart: We believe in total independence, and that has always been our position. We would never again support anything like the Scotland Act. If such a measure came along, we would examine it, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that SNP Members will not support such a measure in the future.
  The Gracious Speech promises an amendment to
  "the Scottish law on mental health".
  That will no doubt be a useful measure. The only other Scottish measure mentioned in the Queen's Speech is a divorce Bill. The view of the people whom I represent—I agree with it—is that what Scotland needs is a divorce from England so that we in Scotland can right the wrongs that now affect us.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Ioan Evans: I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), who made a wide discussion. We are primarily debating foreign affairs.
  I do not believe that Scottish problems can be solved simply within the country's own borders any more than English or Welsh problems can be solved internally. Nations should be internationally minded. Mankind's greatest curse today is narrow nationalism, the belief that one's nation is right and that all others are wrong. All Parliaments should realise that we are one humanity and seek to break down the boundaries that divide nations, as we have succeeded in doing within these islands.
  We may look to a distant future with a world authority, where the United Nations will be given far greater powers, but today we must confine ourselves to the affairs of nations. Both the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition referred yesterday to a part of the Queen's Speech that was taken up today by the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  The Queen's Speech said:
  "My Government consider the security of the nation and the preservation of peace their highest priority."
  Security is vital but the preservation of peace is paramount and should take precedence over all other subjects debated in the House. We shall have important debates on unemployment and the way in which the Government are privatising large sections of public industry that have worked well for our country. We shall discuss the Government's vandalism as they try to take industries out of the public sector and hand them over to the Conservatives' financial backers. But above all such important debates, the preservation of peace is paramount.
  The Leader of the Opposition said yesterday:
  "The Government must also deal with world-wide disarmament. The best way to use the resources that are being squandered in order to alleviate the present appalling position would be to provide a much more imaginative and energetic attack on the nuclear arms race."
  The Government are not providing such an attack. The Prime Minister is a nuclear warrior and she appears to enjoy being one. She said yesterday:
  "We shall maintain our commitment to plan for 3 per cent. annual increase in defence spending in real terms, and we shall provide funds for the Falklands on top of that."
  When the Government talk about help for pensioners, the unemployed, industry or the hospitals—all the things that people want—they say that they lack the resources. The Prime Minister said that total public expenditure next year would be the same as it is this year—although there is to be a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence expenditure. Although inflation is coming down worldwide, we shall be spending less on some services next year than this. But although we are already spending a tremendous amount on arms, the Prime Minister wishes to spend more. She said:
  "We shall implement NATO's decision to install cruise and Pershing missiles from late 1985 onwards if the talks in Geneva on the zero option are not successful."—[Official Report, 3 November 1982; Vol. 31, c. 16-25.]
  A Pershing missile crashed in Germany as the right hon. Lady was speaking. Fortunately for those in the vicinity, the missile did not have a nuclear warhead. All we get from the Prime Minister and her Cabinet is
  156
  complacency when terrible fears afflict mankind. Nuclear weapons and the arms race are the major issues that
  confront the House.
  Also while the Prime Minister was speaking the Pope was addressing academics and intellectuals at Madrid university. He urged scientists
  "to work to help all human beings achieve their rights and dignity."
  He said that it was
  "a scandal of our time that many researchers are dedicating themselves to perfecting new armaments which could one day be fatal in war."
  That warning by the Pope has been echoed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and religious leaders throughout the world.
  The Church of England has recently made an important contribution to our consideration of the subject through the report of the working party chaired by the Bishop of Salisbury, a former Speaker's Chaplain. The report "Nuclear Weapons and Christian Conscience" is to be debated by the General Synod and I believe that it is right that the Church should take an interest in the subject.
  Like some of my hon. Friends, I have been a member of the CND for a long time and it is interesting to see the increasing support that we are receiving.
  Mr. Critchley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, of the six clergymen who were responsible for that document, one is a former vice-chairman of the CND and two were not even members of the Church of England?
  Mr. Evans: The Church of England set up the working party.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It did not.
  Mr. Evans: Expertise was involved; I believe that one member of the working party came from the Society of Friends, which has concerned itself with international issues for a long time. Instead of arguing about who served on the working party, hon. Members should read the report and its conclusions. Anyone who reads the book with an open mind will conclude that it is a major contribution to the discussion about the dangers of nuclear weapons.
  The book says:
  "Pressure should be brought to bear on the Government to make the debate on defence and disarmament a real one. We welcome the recent increase in the availability of information. It must be said, however, that the Government's counteroffensive against the peace movement, however understandable, has often not improved upon the level of some peace movement propaganda. MPs should be encouraged for more accountability on defence and disarmament in Parliament."
  I say amen to that. Under successive Governments we have not had enough information about what has been spent on nuclear weapons. It is essential that in future we be kept fully informed about what is being done.
  Others in the Church of England take a different view. The Bishop of London said yesterday that nuclear weapons could be morally acceptable
  "as a way of exercising our moral responsibility in a fallen world."
  I do not know how the bishop can live with himself after having made such remarks. If nuclear bombs fall there will not be much of a world left. The bishop seems to be living in another world.
  There is no justification for the use of nuclear weapons. Those who possess such weapons say that they never want to use them. That seems to be a strange argument for keeping them. Once nuclear weapons are used we shall be

  157
  finished. That must be agreed. If we start a nuclear war, civilisation will end. The idea that one side will use nuclear weapons and the other side will not retaliate is ridiculous. If nuclear weapons are used, the chances of retaliation and of the reduction of this planet to a cinder heap are tremendous.
  I do not believe that the United States or the Soviet Union will deliberately set out to use these weapons. The danger is that there will be a war by accident. There is a danger of the recurrence of the incident that occurred in Germany only yesterday when a Pershing missile was railroaded—although it did not possess a nuclear warhead. It is known that technology can fail. It could happen that before very long a weapon will be dropped and explode somewhere where it will cause tremendous damage. Who will then admit that such an incident is his mistake?
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: As one charming and articulate Welshman speaking about another, is the hon. Gentleman saying that Nye Bevan was wrong?
  Mr. Evans: Nye used a phrase with which many of us disagreed at the time and following which the party conference reached a decision that he had once suggested. Nye was right on many things but even those who are right on so many things can be wrong on others. I believe that his wish as Foreign Secretary would have been to have a trade-off in negotiations. It was, I believe, a wrong analysis. The problem needs to be examined in the same manner as the study carried out by the Church of England working party and numerous other groups in the world.
  I recently attended the Rome conference of the Inter-Parliamentary Union where representatives from the four corners of the world met together. The one issue that dominated everything else for those representatives was the danger facing humanity from the use of nuclear weapons. The words of the Bishop of London remind me of a cartoon that appeared a number of years ago at the time when the atom bomb was dropped on the Bikini atoll. The bomb threw up a mushroom of dust and created the shadow of a cross on the seas of the world. The caption underneath the cartoon read:
  "Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do."
  We have to recognise the immense dangers if a tremendous proliferation of nuclear weapons takes place. The first atom bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki 37 years ago. The world now has 50,000 nuclear weapons, with a destructive power of one million Hiroshimas. The Government have announced today that they are spending £1,000 million to modernise Polaris. They have already announced their intention to spend £10,000 million on the purchase of Trident which possesses a destructive power exceeding that of all the destructive power of the Soviet Union's SS20s.
  It has been estimated that the explosive force of a one megaton bomb is equivalent to the amount of TNT that would fill a freight train 300 miles long. One can imagine a freight train stretching from London almost to the Scottish border loaded with TNT. That is the destructive power of a one megaton bomb. Now there is talk of 10 megaton and 100 megaton bombs. The human mind cannot appreciate the destructive power now in the hands of East and West.
  It has to be recognised that 98 per cent. of nuclear weapons are in the control of the United States and the
  158
  Soviet Union. With our own independent nuclear deterrent, we, along with France and China, are in a very small league comparatively. We should ask ourselves whether it would be a major contribution to preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons if we abandoned our individual position. If the Government maintain that we are fully justified in having our independent bomb, what is to stop Poland, Hungary, Romania, East Germany and other countries in the Warsaw Pact having it?
  Mr. Mikardo: Or India and Pakistan?
  Mr. Evans: Or India and Pakistan, Iran and Iraq and countries of the Middle East? Is it suggested that if they possess nuclear weapons the world will be a better place? What we should be seeking is a reduction of the existing number of powers that possess these weapons. We should aim for mutual reduction by the United States and the Soviet Union. It is nonsense to argue that we would be dependent upon the United States if we were to abandon nuclear weapons. There are about 150 countries in the world, and only five possess nuclear weapons. We are involved in massive and unnecessary expenditure. The Labour Party says that it will not proceed with the production of Trident because the nation cannot afford it. The Government always seem to find money when preparing for war but cannot find money for the purposes of peace.
  There is massive arms expenditure throughout the world. The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute for 1982 says that during the past four years world military spending has been following an upward trend at a rate of about 3 per cent. per annum in volume. This is rather faster than in the previous four years in spite of the deteriorating performance of the world economy. So the burden measured as a share of the world's total output has probably been rising. It is difficult to get a meaningful measure of the world total. For what it is worth, the current dollar figure in 1981 was about $600 to $650 billion.
  There has been reference in the House today to the problems of world poverty and the 800 million people who live on the border of starvation. Yet this Government lead the industrial nations of the world in increasing arms expenditure year by year. We have to call a halt to it. I believe that the people will call a halt to it. In the United States a million people demonstrated against nuclear war. Throughout the world, people are saying that we have our political differences and our economic difficulties but that we have to settle them by peaceful means and that war has become obsolete.
  The Government have done little to implement the findings of the Brandt Commission. The Government talk about doing something for underdeveloped countries and help for the world's poor. When the small fraction of expenditure that they are prepared to devote to underdeveloped countries is compared to the massive expenditure on arms, the figures show a diminuation of the help going to developing countries.
  The world's poor get less from this Government. The arms manufacturers get much more. When returned to office, a Labour Government must give a great deal of attention to world poverty. We created the Ministry of Overseas Development and separated it from the Foreign Office. We must recreate that Ministry and give priority to methods of dealing with the problem of world poverty.
  The Prime Minister is now converted to capital expenditure. She apparently now wants local authorities to

  159
  spend more, whereas in the past local authority spending has been curbed. They have been putting them in a straitjacket. They have prevented them from spending money. Now the Prime Minister comes along, a very late convert a year before the election, and tells the local authorities that they should have spent more on capital expenditure. Of course there should be more capital expenditure, but there should be more capital expenditure on aiding people in the developing countries.
  Many people are unemployed in this country in the steel industry and the manufacturing industries who could be manufacturing products. For the peace of the world it would be better if we gave those products to the under-developed countries rather than pouring the money down the arms drain as the Government do.
  We have had a tour of the smaller territories around the world. There has been mention of the Falkland Islands, although there seems to be an embargo in the House on talking about the islands until we have the Franks report. We should have an early debate on what is to be the future of the Falkland Islands. We had a recent contribution about the future of Hong Kong, and that is something to which we must turn our minds.
  Only yesterday, the Prime Minister was asked about Gibraltar. These smaller territories were the imperial outposts when we had a British empire and this House governed a quarter of the people of the world. However, we must now examine the real position in the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Hong Kong and the other smaller territories.
  Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the Foreign Affairs Select Committee has agreed, once it completes its study on the Falklands and the future of British foreign policy in relation to the Falklands, to look at all British dependent territories. I am sure that my hon. Friend will welcome that, and I hope that the House will follow on from the recommendations that the Select Committee might make.
  Mr. Evans: I welcome my hon. Friend's intervention, and what he has to say is constructive. The Select Committee is doing a good job, as those of us who might have had reservations about it have concluded. I look forward to reading that report.
  We must examine these problems in advance—we cannot just wait for things to happen, which is what we did in the Falklands. I remember speaking in the foreign affairs debate on the Gracious Speech last year, and the speech of the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). He had been to the Falkland Islands and he warned the House about the dangers 12 months ago, long before the Argentine invasion.
  To imagine that when the Argentines invaded the Prime Minister did not know of the fact until she read it in the newspapers is beyond belief. The Foreign Secretary did the gentlemanly thing and went, and the Secretary of State for Defence, who was told to wait and get the war over before going, is now retiring. However, the problem is one of co-ordination between the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence. That is where something went wrong and the Prime Minister's office is responsible for that. This might be the reason why the Prime Minister now has her own foreign affairs adviser. We should have looked more closely at the problems of the Falklands.
  It is now suggested that we have the tremendous expenditure of £1 million per family on the island. For a
  160
  Government who do not believe in subsidising anybody, it seems strange that this is accepted without argument. We have to realise that if these people want to raise sheep there must be a more cost-effective way for them to do so than in that part of the world. We must examine all these factors.
  There is also the problem of Gibraltar, which could become worse in the not-too-distant future. We must have a policy for the smaller territories. We should examine the possibility of creating some sort of United Nations trusteeship. I know that Conservative Members disagree with much of what is done by the United Nations, but it is the only organisation we have and we must make it work.
  It is deplorable that South Africe should be given an IMF loan. This was an opportunity for the world powers who can influence the decisions of the IMF to obtain undertakings from South Africa. Not only should it end its illegal occupation of Namibia, which has gone on from the time of the League of Nations, but since the formation of the United Nations there has been a demand that South Africa leave that territory. There should be pressure on South Africa about Namibia, and to make it end the evil apartheid system.
  Another issue that has been raised in debate is that of giving assistance to overseas students, the importance of which is recognised by both sides of the House. The Government are acting in a penny wise, pound foolish fashion. Many people who have taken leading positions in Governments in Africa, the West Indies, India and other parts of the world were educated at Oxford, Cambridge, the London School of Economics, Ruskin college and elsewhere in this country. They remember that attachment, but the Government are breaking it off. The students are now finding that it is less costly for them to go to the Soviet Union, the United States of America or somewhere else to be educated than to come here. I hope that the Government will look at this again; assistance to overseas students is a method of giving aid to developing countries that is beneficial to us as well.
  The paramount issue that faces us is that of peace. The people of this country would be better served by a Labour Government than by a Tory Government led by the present Prime Minister.
  5.57 pm
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) spoke with passion and at some length. I shall not follow him in many of the issues that he mentioned, but he spoke of the Falklands. It was refreshing to hear the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) say that this was not the time for direct negotiations with Argentina. However, he was a little premature in the way that he dismissed Lord Shackleton's report without discussing its merits, although I understood what the right hon. Gentleman was saying.
  There is one aspect of that report to which I shall refer, and that is the question of having a runway on the Falkland Islands capable of taking civilian aircraft. On page 14 the report says:
  "The establishment of regular civil air communications with the Islands is an absolute priority. Without it, little or no development would take place, the economy would decline further, and the sense of isolation would probably be unacceptable to the majority of Falkland Islanders."
  Lord Shackleton goes considerably further later, when he says on page 99:

  161
  "A regular air service with the Islands must again be introduced if the Falkland Islands are to have a future beyond the short term. This is true for reasons of economic development and social welfare. For most of the development possibilities considered, particularly concerning natural resources and tourism, an air service is essential, and if one is not provided the morale of the Islanders will suffer."
  That theme runs through the whole report, and the need to provide an air strip capable of taking civilian aircraft is extremely important for tourism. The Falkland Islands will never have a vast tourist industry, but Lord Shackleton suggests that it could be expanded from 200 to 300 people a year to 2,000 to 3,000 a year. This could bring more jobs, and
  "Its attraction is that it offers organic growth of the economy which could be combined with and help to sustain the existing sheep farming activities on the Island."
  There are two problems raised in this connection. The first is that the extension of the runway in its present form is neither long enough nor broad enough to accommodate civilian aircraft according to the strict and stringent regulations of the Civil Aviation Authority. The parliamentary answer from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind) last week stated that civilian aircraft would need a runway of 8,500 ft. The existing runway is merely 6,100 ft. It would therefore have to be extended, and Lord Shackleton estimated that the cost would be between £30 million and £35 million, and that if the existing runway were not extended another runway would cost about the same.
  The second difficulty—apart from the considerations of cost and extension or of having a different runway—is that mentioned by the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), when he said that there would be the problem, in cases of emergency, of diversion to other airfields in other countries—and, of course, the Civil Aviation Authority would not allow in-flight refuelling of civilian aircraft.
  It is my contention that the problem can be solved. The French have a problem exactly like it in relation to the Austral Islands in the Southern Pacific. The French have what they call an island diversion scheme. The aircraft has the capacity to take more fuel, and with it the capacity to circle for more than 2½ hours until the weather clears so that it can get down. With modern navigational aids and weather forecasting now being so advanced, and with the capacity to circle for an extra 2½ hours with more fuel, there is no problem for the French in establishing a civilian air link.
  Naturally, if the island diversion scheme were applied in the Falklands, a longer runway, or a different runway, would be needed. Without it, aircraft could not take off or land with the extra fuel required to enable them to circle for 2½ hours in the event of an emergency. If the French can do it in relation to their islands in the Southern Pacific, surely we could do it in relation to the South Atlantic. That is the simple point that I wish to put to the Minister. I ask him to look very carefully at the French experience in relation to the Austral Islands.
  If we had the capacity to do it—and I believe that we could have—is it necessary and is it desirable? Having established that it can be done, I would argue that it should be done, for three reasons.
  First, if the United States is to vote that the Argentine and Britain should have direct negotiations over
  162
  sovereignty, that will represent a weakening of resolve to take the interests of the islanders fully into account in all circumstances, since the resolution, as I understand it, makes no mention of the rights and freedoms of the Falkland Islanders. If that is to be the position of the United States, it is all the more important that the islanders and the Argentine should be in no doubt of the weight of the British commitment to the Falkland Islanders.
  There is reason to believe that the islanders and the Argentines see the full development of the runway, or of a new runway, for civilian aircraft, as a test of the strength of the British support for the islanders. A full development of the runway, or of a new runway, would be seen as an assurance of intent for the future. I hope that the Minister will regard it as of fundamental importance as an assurance of our intent.
  Secondly, it will not have escaped the notice of the Ministry of Defence that a fully lengthened runway would also be of benefit in increasing the possibilities of reinforcing the islands with a brigade at very short notice, through the use of VC10 aircraft flying direct from the Ascension Islands in the event of any future potential threat. Although the existing runway has been slightly developed, the VC1Os cannot use it, and the islands are dependent on supplies from the sea, supported by flight-refuelled C130s. I contend that the use of VC10s, which could land on an extended or new runway, would be much more rapid and efficient and have much military advantage. The full extension of the runway, or a new one, would not only assist the economy of the islands; it would enhance the security, very much on the basis of the words of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), that an ounce of deterrence is worth a ton of defence.
  The third reason for developing the runway is that from 1951 to 1973—more than 20 years—the outflow of funds from the Falklands to the United Kingdom was considerably greater than the inflow of funds to the Falklands. The Shackleton report, on page 33, states:
  "One of the major findings of the 1976 Report was that there had been a continual outflow of funds over the years from the Falkland Islands to the United Kingdom, largely in the form of company dividends and undistributed profits which were not reinvested locally … It was pointed out that the United Kingdom Exchequer had gained substantial amounts from taxes on the outflow of funds and it was estimated that for the 1951 to 1973 period the United Kingdom direct tax take (about £1·9 million) on dividends and profits from this flow of funds was approximately twice the amount given as United Kingdom aid to the Falklands (£0·9 million)."
  Because more funds were taken out of the Falklands than were put into the islands over the years, we owe it to the Falkland Islanders today to redress that balance, so that neither they nor anyone else should be in any doubt as to our resolve and intent.
  When Lord Shackleton's first report was published relatively little was done about it, and I hope that the publication of his second report will, at the least, lead to the runway being lengthened or to an alternative runway being built, in the interests of the islanders. Such a development would, I believe, be in accord with the spirit of the Queen's Speech.
  I was delighted and proud that during the Falklands crisis some of my constituents, in the Ferranti factory in my constituency, worked literally round the clock to make certain that Royal Air Force Harriers would have the capability to fly off aircraft carriers with the most advanced avionics equipment in the world. We do not

  163
  often have to work 24 hours a day ourselves. My constituents—and, I am sure, many others—believe that we owe it to the Falklanders, and to those who died for them in the Falklands, to do everything that we can for their well-being and their security.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: I should like, first, to make one or two comments arising from the observations of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). He told us that over about 20 years there was a net inflow to the United Kingdom from the Falklands of a little under £2 million. Over this year and the next three years, we shall be spending £1,600 million on the Falklands. That is very nearly £1 million for every man, woman and child on the islands.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said, we must try to develop some sense of proportion about the Falklands. We have a problem with the Falklands, but we also have other problems. There is a place called Ulster. If we were to spend money on Ulster in the same ratio, we would be talking about the ludicrous figure of £1,500 billion. For a tiny fraction of that sum we could revive Ulster's economy, get rid of its unemployment and, hence, of many of the problems that create much of the unrest there.
  We could give Ulster a gas pipeline under the straits, so that the people of Ulster would not have to pay more than we do for their fuel, either for domestic use or for industry. We could do good business with the Irish Republic out of it. But we do not do those things.
  The Falkland Islands have a population no greater than that of a not very big English village. What is meant by the independent existence of the Falkland Islands? There are just about enough Falkland Islanders to maintain a not very good primary school. There are not enough to maintain any sort of secondary school. There are not enough to maintain any sort of further education, or any medical services beyond general practitioner services. There are not enough of them to run a television station or a cinema, or even, when the troops move out—notwithstanding the efforts of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow)—a fish and chip shop. We are talking about devoting a major slab of the resources of the United Kingdom to a single village.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West talked about taking fully into account the views of the islanders—the Foreign Secretary and other hon. Members have made the same point—but I have to admit that I do not know what is meant by the phrase "taking into account the wishes of the islanders." There are only two possible views to take about that. One is to give the islanders a veto by saying that "taking the islanders' wishes into account" means that as long as they want and say they wish to remain British subjects—those who have not been robbed of their British nationality by the British Nationality Act 1981—we shall ensure that they remain with us at a cost of £300 million a year—that is, about £180,000 a year for every man, woman and child. That is a tenable definition of what is meant by "taking their views into account". Their views are made paramount. If that position is not taken, I do not know what "taking their views into account" means.
  One will judge this country's relationship to the Falkland Islands either on the basis of what is good for the islanders, or what they think is good for them—that is
  164
  1,800 or 1,400 people, as 400 have lost their nationality—or on the basis of what is good for over 50 million British subjects, in which case the islanders do not have the veto. What does "taking their views into account" mean if one stops short of giving them the veto? That is the dilemma that no British Government have yet faced—not only the present Government, but their predecessors.
  We have spent years trying to talk the islanders out of their veto. We failed. There is no prospect that we shall talk them out of their veto now. If we have a referendum—Gibraltar is an example—we cement their veto in concrete. We fossilise it for all time and make it immutable and unbreakable, and we are still in a mess. What do we do about it?
  I understand the strong feelings for the islanders of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West. Those feelings are shared by many hon. Members. Goodness knows, they have had a rotten experience. Does any hon. Member seriously believe that the relationship between the Government and the Falkland Islands will be the same in 1990 as it is today? If the answer is "Yes", does he still believe that it will be the same 10 years after? Nobody does.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East that this is not the moment to start negotiating. It is much too soon. The wounds are too fresh. But sooner or later we shall have to come to it. When we do, why do we not grasp the nettle and say once and for all that a small community—however worthy it is and however devoted one is to it—cannot be given a veto over the policy of a Government trying to run a country of nearly 60 million people?
  Mr. Deakins: Does my hon. Friend accept that one way of overcoming the logjam, or grasping the nettle—if I may mix my metaphors—would be to adopt a much more flexible immigration and settlement policy for the islands so that people who wanted to go there from Latin America and elsewhere might be allowed to do so? That might be the time to check the majority opinion of the islanders.
  Mr. Mikardo: My hon. Friend is right. That is one solution that may arise once we admit that we have to think out something fresh, which is the essential prerequisite. When we start thinking that, we can think of all sorts of possibilities. Some people believe that there is a possibility of a United Nations trusteeship or a condominium, as we had with Egypt in the Sudan.
  We could set up all the Falklanders in a more amiable climate, in palatial houses with 50 acres each, for a fraction of what we are spending now. There must be all sorts of possibilities—political, economic and social—but we cannot explore them because we have a logjam—as my hon. Friend said—of refusing to think whether the phrase "taking the islanders' views into account" means an absolute veto.
  I was diverted by the remarks of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West, but I am grateful to him for launching me on that subject.
  I want to say something about the Middle East, which is an area I know well, in a wider context. The Foreign Secretary referred to the tiny bit of the Middle East which consists of the southern half of the eastern littoral of the Mediterranean—that is all that the Lebanon and Israel put together is—and said that he wanted to think about it in

  165
  a wider context. The inter-relationships in the Muslim world generally and the Arab world in particular are so close and complex that one has to look at the whole picture.
  The Middle East stretches from the Atlantic coast of Morocco to the border between Pakistan and India and the borders between Turkey and Greece and between Turkey and the Soviet Union. The Middle East consists of all the Arab States plus the four large contiguous Muslim non-Arab States of Pakistan, Iran, Afghanistan and Turkey. The whole area is one of potential danger, because it is unstable from east to west and from north to south.
  I do not see the third world war arising in Europe. The fear of it arises in the North African and Middle Eastern area. Look around the area from Morocco through to Iran and Afghanistan—leave out the little sliver that is Israel—and one sees that every country in that area is de facto either a feudal kingdom or a military dictatorship. Outside Israel there is not one genuinely free, sovereign and omnicompetent multi-party Parliament like ours in the whole area. There is not one Government in that area on which any prudent man would bet 10p that it will still be in office in three years.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Oman.
  Mr. Mikardo: I wish the ruler of Oman a long life, but bullets are cheap in that part of the world and there are a few people who do not like him. I pray that he will still be there, and I hope that the others will still be there, in three years' time. I do not want to see Governments overthrown by violence. There is no stable Government in that area. After all, Oman is not a big part of that area, is it?
  The Middle East is full of rivalries. There is the traditional rivalry between Syria and Egypt for leadership of the Arab world which has gone on for a long time and still goes on. There are dynastic enmities. There are political enmities from extreme Left to extreme Right. There are religious enmities not only between Muslims and Christians but, even worse, between the Shi'ites and the Sunni—two brands of Muslims who treat each other rather like the two brands of Christians in Belfast treat each other. The enmities are very grave.
  Syria has never really abandoned her long-time goal of a Greater Syria. She looks upon Lebanon—we must remember that she has never had an ambassador in Lebanon and has never recognised Lebanon—as a province of Greater Syria, as she does Palestine and Jordan.
  There is a Soviet army in Afghanistan. There is a Syrian army as well as an Israeli army and some remnants of a Palestinian army still in Lebanon, with- the Syrians occupying two-thirds of that country. Until recently, there was, and could well be again in the very near future, a Libyan army in Chad. There is a war between Iran and Iraq. There is a war between Algeria and Morocco, the Algerians using the Polisario Front as surrogates for their own army.
  My guess is that the next war in the Middle East will be not between Israel and one of her neighbours, but between Egypt and Libya. There are many good judges of the Arab scene who believe that one of the late President Sadat's principal motivations in his trip to Jerusalem was
  166
  to secure his eastern border so that he could turn to deal with the one that he really looked upon as his enemy to the west of him.
  Moving to the northern part of the area, there is a Turkish army in Cyprus, against our guarantee which we did not honour. We gave a guarantee to prevent that. We did not honour it.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It was given by the Labour Government.
  Mr. Mikardo: Yes. I am not making a party point about it. I was very critical of that Government. The hon. Gentleman cannot accuse me of being slow to criticise Governments of my own party. We dishonoured that obligation, so we have partition not only in Lebanon but in Cyprus as well, and bad feeling between Turkey and Greece because of it, in addition to the bad feeling between them because of the sea bed of the Aegean and the rest of it.
  Important and serious as are the happenings on that eastern littoral of the Mediterranean, important and serious as are the wars between Israel and the Arab States and the conflict between the rights of the Israelis and the rights of the Palestinians, important and serious as were the Israeli and the Syrian invasions of Lebanon and their consequences, important and serious as are the Israeli military occupation of the West Bank and what was the PLO military occupation of southern Lebanon, what worries me is that so many people take the view that if that little bit only shut up and got out of the way there would be no problems in the area. They say that if only we could wave a magic wand overnight and stop Mr. Arafat and Mr. Begin from being such awkward customers or get Israel to disappear into the Mediterranean, there would be no war between Morocco and Algeria or between Iran and Iraq. People do not do what the Foreign Secretary urges them to do. They do not look at that bit of the world in context.
  I have always been an advocate of the rights of the Palestinians and of their rights to a State of their own, so long as it did not threaten other people. But people forget that there was a Palestinian State for six months. The United Nations resolution of 1947 set up two States divided by boundaries not very different from Israel's pre-1967 boundaries which the Arabs now say that they want. They had it. It was given them. The United Nations gave them that State with those boundaries.
  It is commonly assumed that that November 1947 resolution of the United Nations set up the State of Israel. It did not. It set up specifically a Jewish State and specifically an Arab State. That is why those who talk about a unitary secular State of the whole of Palestine having some writ of international law are talking nonsense. There were specifically set up a Jewish State and an Arab State.
  What a difference there would have been in history if the Palestinians had taken their State in May 1948. On 15 May of that year, when the Israelis took their bit, what would have happened if the Palestinians had taken their bit? There would now have been a Palestinian State for 34 years, and I bet that it would have been a good one, because the Palestinians are very talented people. One has only to go round the Middle East to see the large extent to which some of the most difficult and responsible jobs in all the countries of the Arab world and some outside it contain Palestinians in their top echelons. I am quite sure

  167
  that if the Palestinians had taken that State 34 years ago, it would have been a very good one. I dare say that there would have been frictions between that State and the Israeli State next door, but I cannot conceive that those frictions would have resulted in anything like the mayhem that there has been since 1948.
  By now, we might even have had a Middle East economic community. We might have seen the operation of the Reagan plan of its own volition decades ago if the Palestinians had taken their State. But, clever as they are, the Palestinians were misled by the Mufti of Jerusalem, their then religious leader and the war-time ally of and spokesman for Adolf Hitler, who said "Do not let us take this State. Let us all clear out, and then we shall march in behind seven Arab armies and take over the lot—including the bit allocated to the Jewish State." That is where it all went wrong. It is one of the great tragedies of history. History is full of "if onlys"—if only this or that had happened. In my view, this is one of the biggest and one of the saddest "if onlys" of history.
  I welcome the Reagan initiative. I have some reservations about it. It is a bit obscure. Everyone who talks about that area gets confused. Lord Carrington got confused. He got that Venice crowd together and thought that he would get a declaration. He knew that the Israelis would reject it, but he thought that the Arabs would welcome it, throwing their caps into the air, and he thought that the Palestinians would hoot with joy. He issued his pro-Palestinian Venice declaration. Predictably, the Israelis rejected it and, two hours later, the PLO rejected it in terms much more condemnatory than the Israelis, because he had got it all wrong.
  The Labour Party also got it wrong. At our recent party conference, we approved four statements about the Middle East. There was a passage in "Labour's Programme '82". There was a statement rather similar to it but worded rather better which was put forward by the national executive committee. There were two resolutions, one a composite resolution and the other an emergency resolution. They say four quite different things and all were carried. Therefore, there is no monopoly of confusion about the Middle East.
  The trouble is that people think with their hearts instead of with their heads. I hope that I do not sound big-headed, but the complexities are so great that few people have had the time or have given enough thought to understanding them. Therefore, there is great confusion and a certain amount of obscurity.
  Ultimately, relations between whatever entity exists on the West Bank and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan will have to be settled by the peoples of those two areas, not by Mr. Reagan or by the Foreign Secretary or by me. Eventually it will come to that. However, we have a starting point if only people approach it intelligently. I am delighted that there has been a great upsurge of popular support for the proposals in Israel. There is probably some support for the plan among the PLO as well. However, the problem is that the PLO is not a unitary organisation but a coalition. It is even more disparate than the Social Democratic—Liberal alliance. It consists of people from either end of the political spectrum. There are those who would not hurt a fly and those who would take a dozen lives without batting an eyelid.
  As soon as one element in the PLO wants to be moderate, an extremist comes along to outbid him. The funniest thing was the argument that the PLO had about
  168
  whether Mr. Yasser Arafat should speak at the United Nations. Some in the PLO wanted him to go there and some did not. Ultimately, they reached a compromise. He would be allowed to go to the United Nations provided that he carried his revolver into the chamber. That demonstrates the differences within the PLO. However, among the PLO there is an element of good will that is sufficient for the Reagan proposals to form a beginning.
  Of course, progress will take a long time. Sometimes it will be two steps forward and one back, and sometimes one step forward and two steps back. There will be an argument about the interim period of autonomy, its length and the nature of the autonomous powers. However, we have a starting point and the basis for some hope. There will have to be some changes in leadership in Israel, the Arab world and perhaps elsewhere before those plans can come to fruition. I speak as a very old gent, and they may not come to fruition in my lifetime, but I believe that they will succeed in the lifetime of most hon. Members.
  It behoves us all not to say or do anything that would raise the tiniest obstacle to that progress.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members will be disappointed and will not be called if speeches continue to be as long as they have been.
  6.33 pm
  Mr. Julian Critchley: I hope that the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) will forgive me if I do not take up his remarks in depth on the Middle East and the Falkland Islands. I would like to be pro-Israeli, but the trouble is that the Israelis will not let me.
  I should like to raise a constituency point, which also has wider implications. Those of the bereaved who wish to go to the Falkland Islands to visit the graves should perhaps go in January or February next year, which would coincide with the 150th anniversary of British rule. More importantly, the Ministry of Defence or the Government should be willing to place a cruise ship at their disposal, which would allow them to sail from Ascension Island to Port Stanley. The ship could then be used as a floating hotel and could bring them back. Clearly there is no question of sending the bereaved in a Hercules that would take 14 hours to get to the Falkland Islands and 14 hours to return and which would have to be refuelled in the air twice on each leg. Therefore, perhaps the responsibility falls on the Government to do as I have suggested.
  There is a reference—albeit brief—to NATO in the Gracious Speech. It is a message of support which, although welcome and important, is not especially interesting. Three things have happened recently with respect to NATO that are particularly interesting. First, a series of leaders is currently appearing in The Times. Secondly, a speech was made in Bristol by the sage of Wolverhampton—that is how I like to think of him, although I am fully conscious that he now lives in exile in Northern Ireland—about the future of the deterrent. As interesting and perhaps more important, there have been a couple of speeches made by SACEUR, General Rogers. One of those speeches was made in Brussels and the other in London. As a result of making them, he found himself in hot water.
  The Times leaders appear to be in a sequence of four, of which the third appears today. They are entitled

  169
  "No end of a lesson"
  and have been presumably written by the editor, Charlie Douglas-Home; at least, when he has been able to find space in his great newspaper that is not being used by Mr. Bernard Levin. The series is fascinating and foreshadows the great debate on strategic policy that will begin to take place as part of the
  "fundamental defence review of the mid-eighties"—
  an exercise that must follow the re-election of this Government.
  In his four pieces Mr. Douglas-Home seems to prefer the "blues" to the "browns", or a maritime to a continental strategy. He wishes to divert the emphasis of Britain's defence effort away from NATO. However, he has not yet faced the effect upon the European will to self-defence if a British withdrawal—even a small withdrawal of forces from the Rhine Army—were to bring about, first, a reduction in the number of United States forces in the Seventh army and, secondly, a reduction in the German Army. Indeed, there are already all sorts of pressures in the Senate to reduce the number of American forces in Europe.
  The return of the legions would lower the nuclear threshold in Europe. By severing—if we wait a little longer—the nuclear link between Europe and America, it could bring about an end to deterrence at a time when smaller European conventional forces are facing superior Soviet conventional and nuclear forces. It is extraordinary that we should have just completed the process of withdrawal from Empire only to begin all over again the process of adopting global responsibilities. Yet that must be the theme of the debate on defence policy that will take place later in the 1980s.
  The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), whom I described as the sage of Wolverhampton, is never dull. In the brief lull between the end of one Session and the beginning of another he has spoken out against the independent nuclear deterrent. It is a little curious that someone who is so strongly nationalistic and whose beliefs owe more to Hegel than to Home—Charlie Douglas-Home, that is—should be against the State's possession of what has been described by others as the ultimate means of self-defence. But he may be right.
  If the NATO alliance endures for another 30 years there will be no need to take out additional insurance. However, if it were to disappear or fragment, the argument for national nuclear forces as the safeguard for national independence might become overwhelming and bring with it the inevitable spread of an independent nuclear capability to other countries in Europe.
  That brings me to SACEUR. General Rogers is not the sort of American soldier who carries a pearl-handled revolver on his hip. He is a scholar—a Rhodes scholar. His most recent speeches have got him into hot water. To all intents and purposes he was summoned before the NATO council last month to explain the burden of his two most recent speeches. What was the message that Bernie Rogers attempted to put across? It was to stress once again the vital necessity of strengthening Europe's conventional defence not only to raise the nuclear threshold, which is important in itself, but to make the alliance more acceptable to public opinion at a time when the so-called
  170
  "peace movement" presses hard upon NATO's contradictions. I refer to the uncertainty of an American nuclear response to Soviet attack and the necessity within Europe to rely upon the threat of first use.
  Theatre nuclear rearmament will make the first appear more likely. It will strengthen the credibility of extended deterrence. A 4 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending might purchase us, thanks in part to new weapons and technology, an effective conventional defence.
  I shall be interested to learn the Foreign Secretary's reactions, not only to the series of leaders in The Times and to the views of the sage of Wolverhampton, but to General Rogers' two speeches. The Secretary of State was once in charge of defence. Some of us look back on that time as a golden age. Is he now in favour of a 4 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending?
  6.42 pm
  Mr. David Young: Last evening at this time I and nine of my colleagues were flying back from the Falkland Islands. One must endure that journey and experience the conditions to appraise the difficulties involved. I pay tribute to the men and women of the British forces in the Falklands who have a tremendous task to perform, not only in clearing up the debris of war but instituting the infrastructure which should have been instituted as a result of the Shackleton report. We now have not only a military commitment that could be continuing, but a strong economic commitment. The Government would be ill-advised to ignore the consequences. They must recognise that all issues demand deep concern and care. If the economic nettle had been grasped before the invasion we might now face difference circumstances.
  I shall not criticise the Government for what happened before the Falklands war because that will be dealt with elsewhere. However, the forces were sent there as a result of a political decision. Our men did a magnificent job. I pay tribute to those who died in the conflict. One of the most moving parts of our trip was when we visited the cemetery at San Carlos. I say to the relations of those who died that we felt that had it been our relatives we should have liked them to be buried there.
  The press has been unfair in some respects. Much worry and concern has been caused to relatives who have not been able to visit the graves of those who died in the Falklands. The journey by Hercules would be impossible for women and children. It involves 13½ hours, or a return journey of 27 hours, on an aircraft. Each aircraft flying from Ascension must be prepared to turn round and go back. It sometimes takes two or three flights to put a Hercules down on the Falklands. That, with the inadequacy of toilet facilities and the dangers of refuelling, would be unacceptable.
  Travelling by boat for 12 days would also be out of the question. Accommodation is in short supply. Many troops live in tents. I hope that we shall soon have a statement. The relatives have a right to know what can be done to permit a visit.
  Until I arrived in the Falklands I was not aware of the Falklanders' deep economic reliance on Argentina and other South American countries. We must recognise that there are no simple, glib economic solutions. The main industry was agriculture, but that has declined. It may be necessary, as Shackleton suggests, to get rid of the

  171
  absentee landlord and ensure that investment goes to the islands rather than finding its way back to Britain, but that will not resolve the problems.
  Shackleton makes various proposals, but they are proposals and nothing more. Many depend on the results of surveys and investigations. We must recognise that there are no glib solutions. Because of escalating costs, the House must carefully assess the investment necessary. There is no glib solution to the problem of providing an alternative airport. It is not simply a question of lengthening an airstrip under peacetime conditions. While the airstrip is being lengthened, the defence capability will be removed, but one cannot be sure that the present runway will carry the necessary aircraft weight.
  There are many technological aircraft difficulties. We must recognise—it is difficult to do so unless one has visited the islands—that weather conditions change from minute to minute. There are strong side winds, for example, and the aircraft that operate in the area must be able to land in those difficult conditions. Port Stanley experiences some of the worst weather conditions on the island. We must receive estimates before we commit ourselves to building another airport. I have heard estimates ranging from £30 million to £500 million. There is no guarantee that what is suitable for civilian aircraft will be suitable for military aircraft.
  We must recognise that we have commitments other than those to the Falkland Islands. We have massive commitments in the United Kingdom as well as abroad. More is involved than collating a few pieces of paper and initiating a few simple schemes. If the necessary economic resources had been present before the invasion took place, it is possible that the issue would not have arisen. If the islands return to economic dependence on Argentina or any other South American country, their position will be the same as that which obtained previously.
  Having visited the islands, my colleagues and I did not return with any simple solutions. We are concerned about the economic road that has to be travelled. There are 4,000 troops on the islands and the natural inclination of the islanders is to look for economic activity based on that potential market. There are two soldiers for each civilian. A temporary market of that sort would be all right but what would happen when the force level was reduced? There is no doubt that at some stage a reduction must take place. If any market is created that is based on the present number of troops stationed on the island, their removal in part will damage that market.
  The islanders might think that there was a role for them in supplying a "permanent" force of 4,000 soldiers. That would be dangerous. Over-dependence on Argentina should not be replaced by over-dependence on British armed forces. When requests have been made for supplies of bread, for example, our forces have been careful to encourage the islanders to provide the initiative to meet their own needs. Unless this is done, we shall have a continuing military commitment to guard very little else than a military presence.
  The medical service on the islands consists of virtually no more than a general practitioner service. Before the invasion, an islander went to Argentina if he needed glasses or any form of surgery. There was a general practitioner on the islands who did some surgery. The King Edward VII hospital was built by the British in 1914. The Churchill wing was added in 1953. The establishment is little more than what we would call a village hospital.
  172
  The operating theatre is now used for civilians and military personnel and is not adequate for the sterility that is required for operations. If bone operations have to take place, there are extreme difficulties to be faced. It is not unusual for unexploded bombs to explode suddenly or to be exploded by the bomb disposal squad. There is much live ammunition flying around, and many minefields, and there are showers of plaster from the roof when they explode. There is a serious risk of infection, and it is not satisfactory either for the civilian population or for our soldiers to face these dangers because of inadequate hospital provision. These shortcomings must be attended to urgently and effective means of sterilisation must be at the top of the list of priorities.
  Before the invasion islanders requiring surgery went to Argentina. They now have to be flown to the United Kingdom. They are flown here on Thursday of every week. There may not be many of them, but when serious cases have to be brought here a complete medical team must fly with them. Medical teams must fly to the islands from here or they must be sent from the islands. This means that medical costs are out of all proportion to the size of the population.
  If we are to have a continuing commitment, are we to provide one hospital or different hospitals for military and civilian use? I should think that one hospital is the key but the economic costs must be borne in mind. If civilian doctors are to work in the hospital, we must recognise that an island doctor will be paid much less than someone who goes to the islands from the OECD. If the islanders are to look after themselves, we must encourage them to do so.
  There is an education problem, because outside Port Stanley most of the teachers are unqualified. Many are untrained and many alternate between teaching and storekeeping. There is a tremendous problem in achieving continuity. There is a need for a hostel in Port Stanley so that children from other parts of the islands can receive education at Port Stanley.
  My colleagues and I returned with a conviction that the House must urgently debate the economic future of the Falkland Islands. If we fail to recognise the implications of actions and decisions taken now, we shall find ourselves with a continuing commitment that may exceed our commitment in Ulster. When the troubles started in Ulster in 1969 we thought that they would be over in a few months. There is still no solution in sight. If we take the same attitude to the Falkland Islands, we shall condemn ourselves to an open-ended commitment and our children as well as ourselves will have to pay the cost of our failure to debate and appreciate the dangers that face us on the Falkland Islands.
  6.59 pm
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: There have been a number of interesting and provocative, if long, speeches. I hope that mine will be fairly brief. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young). I hope that he will accept that I do not necessarily agree with the conclusions that he has reached, although I was glad to hear about his personal knowledge from his recent visit to the Falkland Islands.
  I am much more in tune with the views that were articulately expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), who rightly urged the Government to implement the Shackleton report and the recommendations contained in the updated

  173
  Shackleton report. I do so for a number of reasons. To the world, what happened during 1982 in the Falkland Islands is a matter of great importance and high principle. This country, in making sure that unprovoked aggression did not succeed, has set the example that the world required.
  Countries such as Belize, which is threatened by Guatemala, and Guyana, which is threatened by Venezuela—those overbearing neighbours—will be greatly encouraged by the example set by the United Kingdom when it sent the task force and reoccupied islands which historically and legally are part of Britain. For 150 years the people have stated that they wish to remain a dependency of the United Kingdom.
  I shall correct some of the remarks that were made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), who made a fascinating speech. His understanding of the Middle East enthralled me and many hon. Members. I hope that what he said will be heeded carefully by the Treasury Bench and the Foreign Secretary, because I was in considerable agreement with much of what he said. However, on the Falkland Islands the hon. Gentleman and I will beg to differ.
  The hon. Gentleman talked of a figure of about £1,600 million. I hope that he is prepared to accept that that figure includes not only assistance that is to be given to the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Islanders, in reconstruction and extension of the facilities there, but the replacement of the ships and the aircraft that were, unfortunately, lost, and the replacement of other armaments lost during the campaign. I am sure that he will accept that much work and employment will be provided in this country because of the replacements. The contracts are being placed with builders and contractors in the United Kingdom.
  I was greatly reassured to see early in the Queen's Speech that the Conservative Government
  "will be concerned to encourage the economic development of the Falkland Islands. An appropriate defence force will be maintained there".
  I am concerned about the future. For a moment I shall tempt the House and be provocative. I recall the Monroe doctrine. Some of us know what that is all about. It relates to American foreign policy that goes back over many decades. If the Fulton commission on the Civil Service had been heeded when it published its report 16 years ago and action had been taken on that report, the Franks committee would not now be sitting and there would not have been the Falklands campaign. Unfortunately, our Ministers are not always apprised of information that they should be given by those who serve them in their Departments. That goes on in many Departments, not least in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
  I hope that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate he will say whether it is true that the Americans were negotiating with Argentina six months before the invasion of the Falkland Islands by Argentina, that the Americans urged upon Argentina the desirability of an Argentine-American military base in the Falkland Islands and that the person chosen for that work in Buenos Aires was General Walters, a former head of the CIA.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell indicated assent.
  Mr. Winterton: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman confirms that that is so.
  Mr. Dalyell: I wrote a letter to The Times saying exactly that, but it was never answered by anyone. It is true.
  Mr. Winterton: I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will answer that point, because it is important. It relates to a logical step in the determined history of American encroachment, at first—whether or not now is another matter—invited by the British Foreign Office, and the steps which were intended later, which were proven by State Department documents which have long since been published in Washington. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will comment on the matter.
  We have a great deal at stake in the South Atlantic. I remind the Foreign Secretary that the Prime Minister has stated from the Dispatch Box that the Falkland Islands act as a gateway to the South Atlantic, which is an increasingly strategically important area of the world. They also command the sea lanes to the South Atlantic. Bearing in mind the instability of South America—I am sure that all hon. Members will agree with that—I believe that it is important to have a secure military base, which could be the Falkland Islands. I say to the hon. Member for Bolton, East, who has just returned from the Falkland Islands, that that is one way in which the future economy of the Falkland Islands could be assisted.
  The views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West are mine. We should continue to help the people of the Falkland Islands. We fought to preserve their freedom and their democracy. The islands are precious to us, whether they are 8,000 miles away, 18,000 miles away or 80,000 miles away. Irrespective of the islands' distance, we have a commitment to the people there. If later we need to enter into an arrangement with the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and Chile on providing a South Atlantic defence force based on the Falkland Islands, I hope that the Government will consider that with great concern and urgency. That is also a way of conserving the democracy that exists in the British dependency of the Falkland Islands. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has been muttering during those last few remarks. Would he like to live in Argentina under such an Administration?
  Mr. Foulkes: I do not like the Administration in the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Winterton: I do not wish to condemn the 1,800 people in the Falkland Islands to live under an Argentine Administration against their will.
  Namibia is also mentioned in the Queen's Speech. I recently visited that part of the world, in which I have taken a great interest for many years. The Foreign Secretary will know that I am highly critical of the fact that in the negotiations that have taken place in the move towards independence and our involvement with the contact five group the British Government and other member States of the group have had little meaningful negotiations and discussions with the internal parties in Namibia. That is strange. It goes against all the principles of democracy.
  Whether those internal parties form part of any Administration after independence is irrelevant. They are representing the people in Namibia at this time and they are doing an extremely good job. There is a close tie between Namibians and South Africa. The Council of Ministers and the other internal parties are doing their best

  175
  to separate themselves from South Africa, but we are not helping them to do so. Why not? Because we are negotiating with South Africa about the future of Namibia and its independence, because we are negotiating with the front-line States, many of which are dictatorships and bankrupt to boot, and because we are negotiating with SWAPO External, whose leader, Sam Nujomo has not set foot in Namibia for more than 20 years.
  Will my right hon. Friend re-examine our representation in Windhoek and ensure that Mr. Jeremy Varcoe, who has recently gone there as a representative of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, establishes meaningful contact not only with the Council of Ministers under the dynamic leadership of Mr. Dirk Mudge, for whom I have the highest respect, but with the other internal parties that are not involved with the Council of Ministers such as SWANU, the National Independence Party and the SWAPO Democrats under the leadership of Andreas Shipanga.
  Those internal parties, which go from the Right of politics to the extreme Left, are all critical of the contact five group because it will not enter meaningful discussions with them. It will send an official from our embassy in Pretoria every five or six weeks—a junior official at that—to tell and advise them what is happening but not to discuss with them how they envisage the future of their country.
  The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) looks pregnant with words and as though he wishes to speak. I shall give way in a moment. If we can settle Namibia correctly we can hasten progress in South Africa. I am sure that we all want to achieve that result.
  Mr. Deakins: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that there are no lessons to be learnt from our experience of Bishop Muzorewa in Southern Rhodesia?
  Mr. Winterton: My goodness, it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman wants us to follow the example of Zimbabwe in Namibia. Is he aware that despite all the assurances that were given in the Lancaster House agreement—quite by chance I have them with me, but I shall not detain the House by reading them—they have gone by the board? Mr. Mugabe is moving rapidly towards creating a one-party State. Black politicians who do not agree with that move and want to meet to decide how to prevent it are imprisoned without trial and without any charge being made.
  In that context, I could refer at length to the case of Mr. Wally Stuttaford, the Republic Front Member of Parliament who was detained for almost 12 months. He was finally tried, found innocent and released, but only after three black politicians who the State thought would turn State's evidence decided not to do so and spoke on behalf of Mr. Stuttaford. Subsequently, those three black politicians were put back into detention without charges being made against them. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for Waltham Forest wants to happen in Namibia. I do not.
  Moreover, the hon. Gentleman should talk to black or white Zimbabweans about the deteriorating infrastructure—education, medicine, roads, security and even tourism. Tourists are now being murdered. Mr. Mugabe has tried to imply that the Matabeles are turning against the whites and vice versa. That is untrue. White Zimbabweans and the Matabeles have a long-standing friendship. That is
  176
  merely an example of the methods that Mr. Mugabe is using to cover up the rapid deterioration of his country. Why does he need the North Koreans to train a crack Fifth Brigade, which is to be his special armed guard? Is that what the hon. Member for Waltham Forest wants in Namibia?
  Will my right hon. Friend assure me that, as a member of the contact five group, we will have more meaningful consultations with the internal political parties—not only the Council of Ministers, but the Namibian Independence Party, the SWAPO Democrats and SWANU—so that they can participate in the development of their country? I hope that that will lead to peaceful independence and set an example that will enable Mr. Botha to continue with his liberal and progressive policies in South Africa.
  It may not have been noticed, but virtually all forms of separate development that lie within the power of the Council of Ministers have been abolished and are now illegal. The only discrimination remains within the second tier authorities under AG8. The Council of Ministers and I and others have urged the South African Government and the Administrator General to abolish AG8 to enable Mr. Mudge and the Council of Ministers to make the progress that will give them credibility when elections are held, and they want elections.
  My right hon. Friend knows that I am interested in the clothing and textile industries in Britain. He also knows that he has some responsibility for their future, although major responsibility inevitably lies with the Department of Trade. I hope that in the negotiations during the GATT meeting that is likely to take place soon he will appreciate that there is much unfair competition for many of the traditional and vital British industries. It does not only come from the Third world. My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) was right to point out that, if anything, we are discriminating unfairly against Hong Kong if we expect it to take such a large reduction in quotas as are contained in the new MFA III.
  Is my right hon. Friend aware that the market in Britain is not a self-regulating mechanism, because of the substantial involvement of the State, and that Britain's competitors for nigh on 100 years have relied on a protected home market to support their manufacturing base? It is all very well for us to talk about free liberal trade, but there is no point in our doing that if we have no manufacturing industry left and if we are the only people playing the free liberal trade game.
  Is my right hon. Friend aware that a strong manufacturing base is essential for a sound economy and that British banking, institutional and financial systems are not well geared to medium and long-term financing of manufacturing as are those of our competitors, especially Germany, France and Japan, where the banking system and manufacturing are much more closely tied together? I am highly critical of the way in which our institutions have foreclosed on so many of our manufacturing concerns.
  On Tuesday I spent three-and-a-half hours at the Northgate Group factory in Wardle Street, Macclesfield. That factory is to close on 14 January 1983 with the loss of at least 100 jobs. Why is it closing? Not because it is inefficient, not because it has not made sufficient new investment—it is part of the Courtaulds group—nor is it because of a bad work force or because of strikes or a bad

  177
  history of industrial relations, but because of grossly unfair competition—not merely from the Third world but from developing countries.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend will assure the manufacturing sector that our industries will be safeguarded from unfair competition before it is too late. If we do that, the other achievements that we have notched up—inflation and interest rates being reduced—will stand us in good stead in the approach to the next general election. I am confident that if we are seen to have tackled the problems of Britain, including unemployment, we will be swept back to power to follow up these policies, which will ensure a sound and prosperous future for Britain.
  7.19 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: It is scarcely appropriate at this hour to embark on a general thesis about the change in attitude and emphasis that would characterise a Liberal foreign policy. For one thing, the world-wide scale of horror is so vast that it is hard to know where to begin and on what to concentrate.
  We know, for example, that at least 70 of the States that signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights practise torture as a settled policy rather than as an occasional abuse. Incidentally, it seems that in some cases we are selling them useful equipment to aid them in the task.
  We recognise that we live in a world so violent that the total number of deaths, both Argentine and British, in the Falklands war amounts to an average day's killing through politically inspired violence since the end of the Second World War.
  The global population increases every day, but we are wasting agricultural land at the rate of 200 acres per minute. Everywhere there is prejudice—not just between black and white in this country, which is relatively mild, but between tribes in Africa, religious sects of Islam, Chinese and Malays in Asia, castes in India, and between the white majority and non-white minorities of both super-powers, particularly the Soviet Union.
  Twenty-five million children die of hunger and its attendant diseases every year, while most of the Governments theoretically responsible for protecting them eagerly buy at vast expense the weapons that West and East, Socialist and capitalist, are so eager to sell to them.
  I shall confine myself to suggesting just a few areas in which I believe that the Government could do rather better. I begin with the subject of arms sales. The Queen's Speech refers to arms control, which is a different issue. It is now more than two years since the German Foreign Secretary and leader of the German Liberals, Herr Genscher, proposed that there should be a register of arms sales at the United Nations to make a start at least on identifying the problem. What have the British Government done, or what do they intend to do, about that? Have they taken or do they intend to take any initiative in the European Community, which collectively is an enormous supplier of arms world-wide? That is not mentioned in the Queen's Speech, but it is unquestionably a very great issue on which we could give both a practical and a moral lead in seeking workable solutions.
  The Queen's Speech devotes quite a long paragraph to the European Community. Rather than burying the Government's policy in such a long paragraph, it could simply have said:
  178
  "My Government re-affirm their strong commitment to … work with determination within the Community to sustain British interests".
  That sums up the Government's approach to the Community. I should like to see a British Government learn that the most effective means of developing in the Community an understanding of our problems is to demonstrate some will to improve the working of the institutions and some interest in and understanding of the problems of other members. In this context, I should be interested to know what the Government would regard as
  "a satisfactory outcome to the reviews of the Community's Regional and Social Funds."
  Unless the Foreign Secretary regards this as no more than a cosmetic exercise, if the funds are to have any genuine economic impact throughout the Community it is essential that they be given greater resources, and that can only be achieved through an enlarged budget. There is no baulking that. There may be arguments against an enlarged budget. That is a different matter, but let us not be told that we must have effective regional and social funds while at the same time denying the means for their achievement. The Community as a whole will never succeed or be seen by its populations as a worthwhile and hopeful enterprise unless there is acceptance of a significant redistribution of resources. The United Kingdom Government could take a lead in promoting that, but, despite much rhetoric to that effect, successive Governments have made no attempt to do so.
  Both in our own policy and in taking a lead in the Community, Britain could make a constructive contribution to working out a more enlightened approach to the underdeveloped world. I shall not dwell on this as other hon. Members have dealt with it, but doing something to relieve the misery of refugees in places such as Uganda, Eritrea and Kampuchea is surely better than supporting, supposedly for technical reasons, the IMF decision to lend large sums of money to South Africa. It may be said that those two things are not strictly comparable, but many people certainly regard them as such. In that context, I strongly support the comments of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) about the law of the sea conference. If the Government are genuine in their assertions of internationalism, one would have expected them to press far more strongly against the United States' view and for the international solutions.
  The Foreign Secretary lauded democracy in the Community, but said nothing about the Government's response to the European Parliament's proposals for a common election system in 1984. The proposals are very close to those of the Labour Government in 1977, so they could be speedily implemented. The present system is not only grossly unfair, but it gravely distorts representation in Strasbourg. The Foreign Secretary knows this. What does he intend to do about it?
  I welcome the Foreign Secretary's remarks about the Middle East. I press him strongly on just one point. We should not hesitate in any way in being prepared to assist the Lebanon to emerge from its prolonged tragedy, although I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East about the dangers inherent in engaging in the officering of Lebanese troops. I was one of the three hon. Members who observed the first Lebanese presidential elections in mid-August and I had the pleasure on that occasion of meeting the now President Amin Gemayel. I was struck by his dedication and his belief in

  179
  reconciliation. Those qualities were not necessarily generally attributed to his brother, whether or not they were merited, but that is certainly the general view of Amin, and he deserves all the help that we can give him.
  Understandably, perhaps, the Foreign Secretary's references to the Falklands were brief. Most people have expressed agreement that we require a certain amount of time to consider the situation, not least to consider the Shackleton report which should certainly be debated in the House.
  I wish to put three brief points to the Foreign Secretary. First, there is an increasing number of reports of tardy and rigid treatment by the Ministry of Defence of Service men who died in the conflict with regard to pensions, financial support and the like. I know that some hon. Members have already raised this distressing matter and I may not have observed the Government's response. However, it is worth repeating that this is causing great concern.
  Secondly, can the Foreign Secretary say anything about the major problem of minefields? Are there any maps? Have any approaches been made to the Argentines to establish where the mines are, or did they simply strew them indiscriminately all over the place? That would seem an extraordinarily barbarous way to behave. Can the right hon. Gentleman make any prognostication about how long the problem will continue and whether there is any information in existence that would accelerate its solution.
  Thirdly, I hope that the Government are undertaking discussions quietly but vigorously at the United Nations to see how a secure peace can be guaranteed. Incidentally, although the right hon. Member for Leeds, East made a pretty good speech, he gained no credit from me for his rather clumsy jokes on this subject. We all know that it is a major dilemma, that one cannot make any open-minded commitment, and so on. Nevertheless, it should never be forgotten that the position in which the islanders find themselves was not of their own making any more than was the responsibility of failing to anticipate their invasion.
  There is another area where the Government should give a different lead. A number of hon. Members have already said that if we buy Trident it will be an enormously expensive folly that will not improve either our own or world security, but will weaken our capacity to develop and support more constructive policies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) stressed, the cohesion of the Western democracies and the need to re-examine their defence, disarmament and trade policies is much more important. It is quite obvious that negotiations on arms control are at the core of East-West relations, and without some positive progress in this regard all other problems may well become irrelevant.
  The Western alliance should engage in constant and uninterrupted negotiations on arms control, regardless of difficulties and conflicts of interest elsewhere. The prevention of nuclear war is an interest that East and West share. Therefore, the concept of linkage, which at times has been put forward by the Americans—who argue that all aspects of co-operation and agreement with the East should depend on Soviet good behaviour in all matters—should be firmly resisted.
  Any attempts to unleash a trade war against the Communist countries would soon defeat its own purpose. Obviously, exports of strategic materials are perhaps in a different category. However, at all costs the West must avoid any strengthening of a siege mentality in the East,
  180
  for that not only helps to underpin the position of the most intransigent elements in Moscow but contains unpredictable dangers for world peace. Western policy must therefore be more closely co-ordinated. The Europeans must develop a greater understanding of American concerns. The United States Administration must respond by adopting consistent policies that can be understood in Eastern and Western Europe.
  That does not mean that I am suggesting that we close our eyes to the ethical issues. The West can never approve of the Soviet system of repression. The courageous men and women in the East who dissent from the nature of the regime that governs them deserve all the practical encouragement that we can give them. [HON. MEMBERS: "Such as?"] That is exactly the point. I do not think that our response should be to reinforce the siege mentality of the men in the Kremlin, because that makes the task of the brave men that much more difficult.
  The basic characteristics of Leninism have not changed that much, but limited progress towards a more reasonable way of life in the East is possible. The USSR today is a very different place from Stalin's Russia. This is a process that must be assisted by constructive patience. It cannot be advanced by trying to bludgeon the Soviets into changing their ways.
  I do not agree with the Reagan thesis that one of the most effective ways of undermining the Soviet system is to engage in an economic war upon it. On the contrary, if there is a measure of economic success within the Eastern system, there is a much greater chance of political change and advancement.
  All this calls for strong and humanitarian leadership from the Government. I am not confident that we are getting it to the extent that we should or to the extent that meets the challenges we face.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The winding up speeches will begin at 9 pm. A considerable number of hon. Members have been waiting all day to take part in this important debate. If hon Members limit their speeches to not more than 10 minutes, it will be possible to call nearly all of them.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I support a number of the things mentioned by the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston), particularly his comments on the arms trade and the law of the sea treaty. It was encouraging to hear him speak in this vein, because it shows that at long last the Liberal Party is beginning to regain that sense of genuine international commitment which many of us felt it lost when it supported our entry into the Common Market more than 10 years ago.
  My criticisms of the Gracious Speech stem from the view that Britain should pay much more attention to its role in the world, particularly to the problems facing the Third world. I shall concentrate my remarks on those aspects of the Gracious Speech that bear on this topic.
  The Queen's Speech talks about overseas development and helping the poorest countries, but that is not strictly correct in the light of the Government's policies on overseas aid in the past few years. After all, this Government in the last three-and-a-half years have cut overseas aid in real terms at a time when the problems

  181
  facing the Third world have been getting worse. Those problems have stemmed from the oil price rises and from the fact that commodities are now fetching the Third world producers less in real terms than they were 21 years ago. In addition, the Third world countries have an enormous debt burden, which will gradually suck more and more of them into a maelstrom of economic chaos and confusion. That will undoubtedly react on the United Kingdom and our own economic prospects.
  The Government's aid record is bad in terms not only of the amount of aid that we have given—we should have given much more—but of the direction of that aid. When they came into office, the Government changed the direction of British overseas aid policy. They moved away from the policies of the Labour Government, which saw aid to the poorest countries as a top priority, and said that far more priority would be given to political and commercial considerations. That is going in completely the wrong direction. If the Government want to use taxpayers' money for political and commercial considerations overseas, so be it, but let not that money come out of the overseas development budget. It should come from the Ministry of Defence or some other Department.
  By their increase in the use of funds under the aid and trade provision, which was recently severely criticised by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, the Government are increasingly using our reducing bilateral capital aid to developing countries for commercial purposes that do not necessarily pass the proper test of developmental soundness and viability.
  The Gracious Speech refers to support for the United Nations. There has been precious little sign of that in the past few months. For example, there has been the Government's lack of sympathy for the very concept of the law of the sea treaty. It would be appalling if, at the end of the Government's review, we were to align ourselves with the United States and West Germany as three rich countries alone against the rest of the world merely to preserve the so-called interests of certain commercial firms in the United Kingdom, Western Europe and North America. We must work towards a world in which new resources are shared for the common benefit of mankind. If we do not sign the treaty, we shall do ourselves great damage in the Third world and in many other OECD countries that intend to sign that treaty for the benefit of mankind.
  At the time of the Falklands dispute, the Government went to the United Nations and secured a Security Council resolution condemning the aggression. However, we did not go back to the United Nations and make use of its peacekeeping machinery to try to get the Argentine troops out without our having to invade with the task force at a cost of so many lives and so much money. It might not have succeeded, but as a founder member of the United Nations and a permanent member of the Security Council we ought to have set an example to the rest of the world and tried to make use of the peacekeeping machinery, particularly the article in the United Nations charter that deals with economic sanctions. We know about the bad state of the Argentine economy, and it would have been worth at least trying economic sanctions through the United Nations to bring about changes in that country and the withdrawal of troops from the Falkland Islands.
  182
  The Gracious Speech refers to more military expenditure within the context of NATO. The Government cannot be aware of a subtle change of policy in the United States. The United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Caspar Weinberger, reported to Congress in July this year on burden sharing within the alliance. He said:
  "Non-military economic assistance to underdeveloped countries is not included in the NATO definition of defence spending. Nevertheless, it is a contribution to world security and stability … If official development assistance … is included as a contribution to international security, the apparent disparity between US and allied contributions is reduced … These factors temper somewhat the larger GDP percentages spent for defence by the US than spent by its NATO allies".
  That is an important shift in American thinking on burden sharing in the alliance. I was surprised to hear no mention of it in the speeches of the Foreign Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), although my right hon. Friend may not be aware of the statement. It means that within any given total we could, as I wish, reduce our defence expenditure to the average level of our NATO allies in Europe and increase our development assistance to the Third world. If we added the two together we might be able to satisfy the criteria laid down by Mr. Weinberger.
  Mr. Robert McNamara, at a seminar at the Brookings Institute in July, said:
  "at the margin … I believe the US buys more security by spending a dollar for development assistance than for military hardware. Economic advance will not guarantee political stability, but long continued economic stagnation will assuredly lead to political disorder."
  Those are surely words of wisdom, and there should have been some recognition in the Queen's Speech of the value of development assistance, as distinct from military spending, in terms of stability and security for us and for those in the Third world.
  The Gracious Speech refers briefly to arms control, and the Foreign Secretary made some good points about the negotiations that are taking place in various parts of Europe to limit nuclear and conventional weapons. But why can we not do something to try to get a first limitation of the arms trade, particularly between rich and poor countries? About 80 per cent. of arms are produced in rich countries and about 75 per cent. are bought by developing or poor countries.
  The arms trade is surely an obscenity in the face of the degradation and misery that confront so much of humanity. I know that it takes two to make an arms trade—the buyer and the seller—but it is up to us, as a founder member of the United Nations, to get together with our allies and other arms suppliers and try not to stop the trade—we will not do that overnight—but to start restricting it. At present it is expanding fast, in almost geometric proportions, and, rather than bringing peace to the Third world, it is creating increasing instability. As the Brandt report said, more arms make mankind not safer, but poorer. Most of us would endorse that.
  The Gracious Speech also refers to the possibility of reducing nuclear arms, particularly in Europe where most of them are situated, and among the super powers. We could make a start at home by getting rid of our independent nuclear deterrent. I will not go into all the arguments, but Polaris and Trident are the world's most expensive toys. I use the word "toys" advisedly, because they are the things with which our generals and admirals can play to their hearts' content without ever having to make serious use of them. They are expensive and will

  183
  distort the pattern of our defence spending over the next few years. I do not believe that NATO would be weakened if Britain gave up its nuclear weapons.
  The cruise missile is likely to be arriving on these shores some time next year. Even though it has not been fully tested and is not fit for active service, we are likely to get it. The NATO military planners say that we need cruise, but I do not believe that we need the missile in Britain or in NATO.
  There is a growing movement in the United States for a freeze on nuclear weapons, because both sides have enough to kill everyone in the world, let alone knock each other out. In view of the present state of negotiations in Geneva and elsewhere, it would be wrong of us to go ahead with the deployment of cruise. There is a prospect that the negotiations will succeed and we must avoid distorting or undermining them by taking a drastic step such as the installation of cruise missiles in this country. It could lead to the whole edifice of arms control negotiations crumbling.
  Our so-called commitment to the Common Market is certainly a commitment of the Government, but it is not a commitment of the majority of the British people, as public opinion polls constantly show.
  Many of the policies pursued by the EEC, purportedly in the interests of the people of Western Europe, are not in the interests of those in the Third world. I refer particularly to the protectionism of the common agricultural policy, the dumping of subsidised surpluses on the rest of the world, which distorts the agricultural trade of many developing countries, and a number of other areas where Common Market policies do not tie up with the needs of the poorest people in the poorest countries. That is certainly true of food aid, which has been severely criticised by economic and social experts who know about these matters as being a means of dispersing aid which is not in the interests of most developing countries, because it distorts the pattern of agricultural prices and production in developing countries and makes those nations too dependent on surpluses for the future.
  On all those issues, the Gracious Speech was extremely disappointing. It is a narrow-minded speech on those issues, and I look forward to the time when we have a Government who will produce a Gracious Speech that does not think in terms of narrow nationalism, but looks at the needs of one interdependent world in which Britain still has an honourable and great part to play.
  7.47 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) finished his speech with those words. This country has shown considerable honour in the past year, not only in respect of the Falkland Islands, but in our attitude to many world problems, including aid.
  I understand the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's wish that we should help other countries. We should all like to do more to help other countries, but there is no reason to assume that, given the state of the world economy and, more particularly, the state of our economy, we should be expected to do more than we already do. We all know that we are in a difficult position. The Government have a far better record than the hon. Gentleman has given them credit for.
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said that security is the starting point for his foreign policy, and he
  184
  added that membership of NATO remains at the heart of our policy. The North-Atlantic Treaty Assembly, of which I am a member, will be meeting in London later this month and will debate in full plenary session a rather clumsily worded motion entitled "Consensus, public support and the future of the alliance. Is NATO still valid?" Clearly, in the view of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, it is still valid.
  However, some aspects of NATO's work give cause for concern and I should like to put down two markers about the implications of our foreign policy for some of the ideas on defence that will undoubtedly be discussed at the NATO meeting of parliamentarians later this month. The first marker relates to the role and disposition of conventional forces and the second relates to the role and future size of nuclear forces.
  The extent to which we should commit almost all our conventional forces and most of our military effort to NATO has been subjected to renewed controversy and debate in the light of the Falklands experience. There have been other reasons. There has been the instability of the Gulf. The growing dependence of Western Europe on oil from the Middle East has led to the feeling that this is perhaps an area in which we should take more interest. There is the Iraqi war, the second oil crisis, the Israeli invasion of the Lebanon and, lastly—this has caused great concern—the growing knowledge that the Soviet Union has already developed an international trans-ocean nuclear fleet capability, a submarine capability, of great power and strength.
  The United States has responded by forming a rapid deployment force. Its problem is finding suitable bases. We have added, I understand, a small token force of our own. This poses the question—we should hear much more from Ministers on the issue—whether the threat to the security of NATO powers lies increasingly outside the well-established NATO area. Are we wrong, especially this country, to concentrate so much of the resources in the NATO area and also on the central front? If we perceive that there is a threat outside the NATO area, should we reduce our force levels in the NATO area itself? Or should we extend our military commitment by increasing our military expenditure and changing the size and balance of our forces?
  If we were to reduce our commitment to Europe, as has been advocated by hon. Members on both sides, we should be careful about the repercussions in the United States and Germany. I believe that it would be difficult for us to convince the Germans in particular that we could be relied upon wholeheartedly, in the face of a Soviet land attack, to be an effective ally. We would need to have important discussions with them and important military consequences would flow were we to adopt a policy of withdrawal of conventional troops from the mainland of Germany to carry out other tasks outside the NATO area.
  To what extent does the Foreign Office believe that our international political priorities and obligations have changed? There will be a considerable debate on this issue, I feel, in the next few months. Is NATO to be regarded in such a way that our military defence posture cannot be changed, or are there other areas that the Foreign Office considers of growing importance as a threat to the security of the nation? The Foreign Secretary says that he believes that NATO is the linchpin, the cornerstone. Some other voices have, however, been heard saying that there is a possible need for change.

  185
  The other marker that I should like to put down is the nuclear marker. I do not wish to rehearse the arguments for the nuclear deterrent. I use the word "deterrent" because I believe that the nuclear weapon has helped to deter war. So long as we have a nuclear deterrent, the Soviet Union will be deterred from attacking us. It goes without saying that I wish to get rid of nuclear weapons provided that the Soviet Union gets rid of them. There is no short cut.
  A wide-ranging public debate is about to arise over the political implications of a defence policy that results in a Europe with a greater dependence on conventional weapons or a Europe that might persuade NATO that it could provide its defence purely on conventional grounds under an overall strategic nuclear deterrent from the United States. This means discussing to what extent we can keep intact an alliance that says to the United States "We have no cruise missiles, no Pershing. So far as the British contribution is concerned, we are scrapping the lot." To take those steps may sound, on military grounds, reasonable to some people, certainly to Labour Members. It is the Opposition's policy to get rid of the British nuclear deterrent.
  I wonder to what extent people have thought this issue through in relation to its political impact. Let us suppose that the conventional strength of this country was raised, that we were subject to attack by the Soviet Union and that a conventional response was insufficient. What happens then? Does anyone really think that the Soviet Union, faced with a stronger conventional response from the West, with all the latest technical wizardry that we are capable of producing, would gamble on winning the war conventionally? All the intelligence that we possess suggests strongly that in such circumstances the Soviet Union would do what it has always done: it would attack ruthlessly, relentlessly, with the strongest weapons it has. That would mean the tactical nuclear weapon. I do not believe that we should take that sort of risk. If it does happen, it will have an important effect on the Soviet Union's judgment of how it conducts its future diplomatic relations with the West and particularly with Europe.
  The United Kingdom nuclear deterrent has one important impact on Soviet diplomacy. I assume that it has been the thinking of successive British Governments that, looking at Western Europe, the Soviet Union could be tempted to believe in a time of crisis that the American perception of what was or was not a legitimate method of solving a dispute differed from Europe's. The Soviets might calculate that in some set of circumstances the United States would not intervene or use its nuclear arsenal to defend Europe.
  There can be legitimate differences between the United States and Europe. They exist right now. We have differences over the Falklands. There are differences over our attitude to trade with the Soviet Union. There are different preceptions in strategy. In the scenario that I have assumed, the possession by Britain, a European power, of nuclear weapons would have to be taken into account by the Soviets. They would have to decide whether to pursue their objective by peaceful means, by conventional military means or by nuclear weapons.
  The Soviet Union in this whole issue of the possession of nuclear weapons would have to make up its mind not by calculating whether the United States could threaten the
  186
  use of the nuclear deterrent in defence of a cause which they, the Americans, did not wholly believe in, but in the knowledge of a determination by Europe to resist Soviet aggression backed by the threat of a British nuclear capability. The roles of strategic and tactical nuclear weapons and the balance and disposition of our forces are matters to be discussed not simplyin military or even moral terms, but in the context of the effect on the conduct of international diplomacy.
  I hope that the Government will encourage the debate on these issues. It is a debate that for too long has been dominated by proponents of unilateral nuclear disarmament and those who oversimplify the nature of the military, political and ideological threat from the Soviet Union.
  7.59 pm
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Predictably and predicted, foreseeably and foreseen in April by critics of the Falklands war, Latin American countries have now gone to the United Nations in the aftermath of a British military victory in and around the Falklands. No less predictable and no less predicted, the United States, where its long-term interests in hemispheric relations are concerned, is supporting its southern neighbours. It is far too glib of the Foreign Secretary to dismiss these events at the UN. He talked about
  "a discussion of procedures by which sovereignty might most quickly be passed"
  and an
  "Argentine-inspired United Nations charade".
  Ministers have never looked at what the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) called the other side of the hill, or the South American viewpoint.
  I wonder how the Foreign Secretary thinks that his word "charade" will go down with Tom Enders and George Schultz. They might not be pleased to be told that they were voting for a charade. It is unreal, petulant and childish of the Foreign Secretary to talk in those terms.
  Those who put their faith in the United Nations cannot pick and choose their resolutions and will have to support the call for resumption of immediate negotiations on the question of sovereignty. That remark is addressed, as well, to my own Front Bench.
  The more blood spilt, the more money expended, the more politically embarrassing such a course is. I heard the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) say that we have just buried our dead. I know all this, but the Foreign Secretary also talked about "normality" in relation to Argentina. Ministers must understand that, like it or not, there can be no normality until the issue of sovereignty is at least tackled, and probably resolved.
  What is the alternative for any of us, whether or not we believe in the United Nations? If Britain refuses these negotiations, it is the spinechilling prospect of revenge strikes on the Falklands. The right hon. Member for Devonport talked about getting round to it in the fullness of time. Are we sure that we have time or that time is on our side? I am not scaremongering. Let us consider the facts. For what other reason is Argentina scouring the face of the world to get more efficient, longer-range Etendards with deadly Exocets?
  I wish to raise particular matters with the Foreign Office, about which it has had warning. For seven hours there was a conversation between the French technicians who were turned back at the airport and their colleagues

  187
  under the leadership of Monsieur Herve Colin in Argentina, saying exactly how an Exocet should be fitted to the wings of an aircraft. Engineers can understand instructions from their technical colleagues.
  I quote from a letter that the Foreign Office has received from Isobel Hilton about the work that she did in Buenos Aires. She said, about some articles in The Sunday Times:
  "The subject under discussion in our articles was the fact that, after the announcement of the weapons embargo by France, a French technical team actively assisted the Argentine navy with the final and crucial preparation for combat of its Super Etendards. Without this work, it is highly unlikely that the Arentines could have used their AM 39 missiles and the lives lost on the 'Sheffield' and the 'Atlantic Conveyor' would have been spared."
  Miss Hilton was very specific:
  "To remind you of the evidence which is 'unavailable' to you: on Friday, July 9th, I travelled to Bahia Blanca, in Argentina, where I visited the Base Espora aeronaval base to talk to Commander Jorge Colombo, leader of the 2nd Attack Squadron of the Argentine Fleet Air Arm. This is the squadron of Super Etendards responsible for the Exocet attacks (AM 39) on the British fleet. I was researching a book The Sunday Times was preparing and hoped to discover the answer to a number of outstanding questions. Amongst these questions was how had Argentina managed to complete the outstanding technical work on her Super Etendards and Exocets and with what assistance?"
  "In the course of a three hour interview with Commander Colombo—which, with his permission, I tape recorded—he told me that the French technical team, which had arrived in November 1981 for a year's technical assistance, was still in Bahia Blanca. He further told me that, after the cancellation of the Aerospatiale team, the work they had been due to carry out had been done by the team already in Bahia Blanca, led by Herve Colin of Dassault. They had continued to work, as he put it 'like professionals' after the announcement of the French government embargo, installing and testing the missile launchers of the five Super Etendards delivered the previous November. As soon as that work was completed, the squadron flew south to their operational bases to continue training in the weather conditions of the South Atlantic and to wait for their targets to present themselves. As you know, the squadron flew south on April 19th and 20th. In the south, technicians from the Argentine navy slotted the Exocets into the launchers—a relatively uncomplicated task."
  These are the French people who are still merrily supplying Argentina. She continued:
  "Under the circumstances, I considered it unlikely that the word of an Argentine naval officer would be deemed sufficient to publish such serious 'allegations'. We therefore drove to the house in Bahia Blanca where Herve Colin was living with his family in order that he could confirm Colombo's story. We were cordially received. In the course of an hour long interview—also tape recorded"—
  these tape recordings have been offered to the Foreign Office, and I hope that the Foreign Office will study them—
  "with permission, M. Colin confirmed Commander Colombo's statements and added further details of his own. He described in detail the technical difficulties the team had overcome—which included the repair of three missile launchers found to be defective—and added that, even after the squadron had flown south, the French team had volunteered to accompany them in order to ensure that no technical difficulties impede their operation. This offer was declined by the Argentine navy who preferred that the French remain in Bahia Blanca on call. This they did.
  We were struck by the omission from the French government statement of any denial by M. Herve Colin of the facts presented above. M. Colin further assured me that at no time had he been asked by his government or his company to leave Argentina. M. Colin, I understand, was recalled to France when our articles were published and remained unavailable to the French press. Surely not unavailable, though, to a French government inquiry."
  188
  The tapes are there, and I ask that tonight, or on some other occasion, the Foreign Office give a reaction. It is this kind of evidence that makes the possibility of a revenge strike all too real.
  Second, there is the question of nuclear policy. It is clear from the National Union of Seamen and other evidence that ships, including the Royal Fleet Auxiliary "Fort Austin", were ordered from Gibraltar to the South Atlantic on 28 and 29 March. It is also clear that some of these ships then, or at a later stage, were carrying nuclear warheads, dummy and real.
  Did the Prime Minister, as elected leader of our country, know at the time that the nuclear weapons were being deployed to the South Atlantic? If the Prime Minster had that knowledge, that would make her answer on Tuesday 26 October that the Falklands crisis came "out of the blue" on Wednesday 31 March an untruth to Parliament.
  On the other hand, if the Prime Minister did not know that nuclear weapons were being deployed to a potential theatre of shooting war, such a situation raises infinitely grave problems for every hon. Member on the political control and deployment of nuclear weapons. Have we an independent deterrent so independent that the Prime Minister does not know where the nuclear warheads are? If that is the definition of independent deterrent, it is a serious matter for all of us.
  Alas, these questions are not theoretical. The circumstantial evidence points overwhelmingly in the direction of HMS "Sheffield" having gone down with nuclear weapons on board. It may be that the "Fort Austin" was in the process of collecting nuclear weapons from the fleet but had not yet reached HMS "Sheffield". However, if HMS "Sheffield" did not have nuclear weapons, for what other reasons do commanders ask their men to hazard their lives by trying to board a molten ship on tow, other than to salvage something that is desperately important? I put it to the House that the only thing of that importance was nuclear warheads.
  The British have to come clean and tell the world that there are nuclear devices on the bottom of the South Atlantic, not in the kind of canister or steel and concrete casks of nuclear waste which may or may not give relative safety. Physicists that I have talked to have made various guesses about the level of danger arising from the emission of radio-nucleides. Some say that there is not much danger from pollution, but others say that the danger of radionucleides being emitted from the tomb of the Sheffield would be serious. It would be much better for a public statement from the Government to clear up this problem and at least tell the truth. Having allowed the conditions in which nuclear weapons were sunk, we ought to make a clean breast of the matter. Therefore, I ask the Government to notify the world of the details and the depths of the nuclear weapons sunk in the wreckage of HMS "Sheffield".
  I also ask the Prime Minister why it was impossible for those ships carrying nuclear weapons during routine exercises in the Mediterranean to offload nuclear devices in Gibraltar before being ordered to the South Atlantic on 28 and 29 March. I associate with that question Mr. Jim Slater of the National Union of Seamen. It was possible to offload at Gibraltar, just as some of the ships that left Portsmouth were carrying nuclear weapons, and some of those nuclear weapons, if not all, were offloaded.

  189
  It is not sufficient to say "Ah, but they would never have been used." We have only to look at page 158 of those moving published letters of David Tinker, the young Service man who lost his life in "Glamorgan" two days before the end of the war. He wrote:
  "If they are sunk, they will have nothing to stop us from bombarding Buenos Aries."
  One of his senior officers even said:
  "Drop a big white job"—
  that is a Polaris—
  "on them".
  David Tinker said:
  "Thank God he's not in command."
  I simply say to the House that if one is being "Exoceted", there is a tremendous temptation to knock out the bases from which those Exocets come. If there are rules of engagement and one has nuclear weapons, how can any of us be sure that those nuclear weapons will not be used? Furthermore, as we know from the orders given to the "Conqueror" in the sinking of the "Belgrano", the Prime Minister is in command of these matters. I simply say to the House that a person who was capable of giving the orders to sink the "Belgrano" because she was faced with a compromise that was politically unacceptable at home, and could not easily refuse the offers of compromise that were coming from Peru and from the United States, is certainly capable of ordering the use of nuclear weapons.
  I turn briefly to the veracity of the Government. In answer to my hon. Friend Lord Jenkins of Putney, the Minister responsible, Viscount Trenchard, said:
  "My Lords, I can state categorically that there is no question at all of our using nuclear weapons in this dispute. It has been the long standing practice of successive Governments neither to confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons in any particular place at any particular time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 April 1982; Vol. 429, c. 778.]
  The impression given at that time was that there were no nuclear weapons with the task force. We now know that to be untrue.
  The Defence Secretary ought to be asked what orders went out from Ministers to the task force from 5 to 8 June 1982 to the effect that politically the Government were unwilling to hazard "Intrepid" or "Fearless" but that they were willing to hazard smaller but less prestigious landing ships. That was the question posed by Mr. Max Hastings in The Observer on 31 October 1982. That question has to be answered.
  There is one final question that the Foreign Office has to answer. It arises from a report in The Times of 25 October. I ask the Foreign Secretary what investigation he has initiated in his Department to ascertain the source of the Department's claim recorded in The Times of Monday 25 October 1982 that the Prime Minister's office was informed of the imminent invasion of the Falkland Islands earlier than 31 March 1982.
  Some of us have had the good fortune to be called before the Franks committee to give evidence. I believe and I hope that sooner or later—later or sooner—the truth will emerge. It will be much better to tell the truth at an early stage rather than to have it come out, as it assuredly will, over the months and over the years in dribs and drabs.
  8.13 pm
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I doubt whether the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell)
  190
  expects me to follow his remarks. As he said, the truth will come out, and I am not sure that the truth will endorse his statements tonight. However, we shall have to wait and see.
  I want to concentrate my remarks on three lines in the Gracious Speech—those that relate to national security and peace. The first is:
  "My Government consider the security of the nation and the preservation of peace their highest priority."
  The next is:
  "They will work for balanced and verifiable measures of arms control."
  The last is:
  "They strongly support both the United States proposals for significant reductions in nuclear forces and the other Western proposals on conventional forces."
  Needless to say, I wholeheartedly support the sentiments in each of those sentences and the order in which they are listed.
  I should like, first, to say a word about the security of our nation. Lord Carrington, in his Churchill Memorial Lecture in October 1981, on "The Foundations of Peace in Europe", stated:
  "The price of freedom is untiring vigilance. The first duty of the State is to ensure protection from external assault."
  I would argue that the Government's willingness to increase expenditure on our defences has given weight not only to our belief in a strong national defence policy but to the need to modernise and re-equip our forces if they are to be able to play a proper part in deterring any would-be aggressor. That our forces are capable of doing that was brilliantly illustrated by the Falklands campaign. For me the frightening aspect of that campaign lay not in our ability to meet the aggression that we found but in the fact that a supposedly friendly country such as Argentine should, out of the blue, and with little, if any, sign of increasing tension between Buenos Aires and London, launch a full-scale invasion of British sovereign territory and, having done so, attempt to absorb that territory within its own frontiers.
  Some of us may like to believe that before any outbreak of war there will usually be a period of tension in which defence forces can be deployed. The Falklands campaign should make us think again and realise that defence must be of the moment. But then, of course, history has shown us through the ages that dictators can and do take arbitrary action, as democracies do not, and that nations living alongside dictatorships have to expect to live dangerously.
  That is one reason why the preservation of peace in Western Europe since 1945 has been an uneasy living together of two armed blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Yet, despite that uncertain peace, half the people living in Western Europe today have been born since a shot was last fired there in a war, and we should all give thanks for the 37 years of peace that we have enjoyed since 1945.
  When, therefore, I am confronted with a women's peace camp in my constituency, or am told that there are to be marches for peace, or that some strange creation called a cosmic peace festival is to be held outside the gates of Greenham Common RAF base, or more generally that there is a growing peace movement in Western Europe, I sometimes wonder what is the peace about which the campaigners demonstrate which is or will be so markedly different from that of the past 37 years.
  No doubt the answer from the peace campaigners is that it will be peace that is not secured by dependence on nuclear weapons. Certainly the nature of those weapons

  191
  makes the case against them persuasive. But if parting from nuclear weapons were to increase the probability of conventional war, we might all ask ourselves where would be the gain. None of us should forget that since 1945 about 10 million people have died in conventional wars, of which there have been 140.
  Those who talk about getting rid of the nuclear deterrent, as if in some magical way that will make the world a safer, more peaceful, place, should ponder on those statements and ask themselves whether those precious 37 years of peace since 1945 in Western Europe may not owe rather more to the nuclear deterrent than they are prepared to give credit for.
  As the Prime Minister said at the United Nations special session on disarmament in June:
  "We believe that wars are caused not by armaments but by the ambitions of aggressors, and that what tempts them is the prospect of easy advantage and quick victory."
  To that extent, temptation would not rule out the use of nuclear weapons by our enemies against us simply because we had forgone our nuclear weapons—any more than the Americans refrained from using atomic weapons against a conventionally armed Japan when a quicker victory seemed possible.
  It may be argued that the Soviet and United States nuclear arsenals have reached world-shattering proportions and that with 7,000 nuclear weapons with a destructive power of 50,000 megatonnes jointly owned by those two great countries they have reached the point of overkill which must make us all pause for reflection. To be told that in TNT terms there is now the equivalent of 15 tonnes of TNT for every man, woman and child in the world locked up in those nuclear weapons, should make us ask whether such vast arsenals are necessary to preserve the peace of the world.
  If Great Britain and France together have approximately 500 separate nuclear weapons—either as missile warheads or bombs—and have an independent nuclear deterrent which, to quote President de Gaulle's description of the French deterrent, is
  "powerful enough to tear off a limb from the Russian body politick."
  and the British view is that we could inflict unacceptable damage on an enemy, why should the United States of America and the Soviet bloc continue with such a massive overkill? It seems to me that proposals for arms limitation in those terms alone would make sense. Surely we must hope that the negotiators in Geneva involved in START will recognise that that sort of overkill does not add to the defence of either East or West and that they could safely reduce the numbers of nuclear weapons without weakening their national security.
  I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary at the beginning of the debate about the current round of nuclear arms limitation talks in Geneva between the Americans and the Russians. He described them as being a dialogue of the most far-reaching and comprehensive kind. I suspect that all of us in the House hope that there will be a successful outcome.
  Purely in terms of the INF talks, I know that the West European members of NATO, through the special advisory group, can and are making an input into those talks, and that the United States is not only negotiating on its own account for the reduction of the theatre of nuclear weapons, but is speaking for Europe.
  192
  As I have said before, I should have liked to see a higher European profile in those talks. If that is not possible, I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we should remember that, while diplomacy, by its nature, is a secret busines, and therefore the talks will have to be carried on behind closed doors, in East-West relations there is a propaganda dimension which can sometimes be more important than the actual outcome of such talks.
  Whether the INF talks reach a satisfactory conclusion, and whether a zero option is attainable, or merely a reduction in the number of theatre nuclear weapons, I hope that we in the West will not lose sight of the opportunity to win that propaganda war at least by explaining to our people and those of the East the difficulties put in the way of the negotiators by the Soviets.
  I end my speech by quoting Mr. Eugene Rostow, the United States negotiator at the INF talks at Geneva last week. He said:
  "We in the West should not expect any Soviet move until just before the deployment of the missiles."
  I believe he meant the cruise and Pershing missiles, the first of which are to come in December 1983. He continued:
  "If they"—
  the Soviets—
  "should make a move, that would be politically important. If they don't, it would have other implications. It would be very serious evidence indeed that they are determined to maintain their present superiority in this category of weapons for obvious purposes of political blackmail."
  Mr. Rostow is warning us of what the INF talks can lead to. God willing, they will lead to a reduction of theatre nuclear weapons. Whatever happens, let us ensure that we have told people the truth about the negotiations and have shown our willingness to reach agreement with the Soviets, and that our efforts, if they are thwarted, have not been thwarted by our wish.
  8.25 pm
  Mr. George Foulkes: The right hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart), with apparent eccentricity, referred to the absence of devolution from the Gracious Speech. Perhaps it is not such an eccentric point of view, because, if the domestic affairs of Scotland were transferred, as they should have been, to an assembly in Scotland, we should have had more time to discuss the important subject of foreign affairs. It is an appalling indictment of Parliament that the Foreign Secretary should state that this is the first time he has participated in a full-scale debate on foreign affairs since he became Foreign Secretary.
  The Gracious Speech talks about looking for solutions to problems in the Middle East. I am glad that the debate has not disintegrated into the sort of Israeli-bashing session that we sometimes see at Question Time. None of us would defend those who condoned the massacres in Beirut. An inquiry is investigating that matter. We should be careful to direct our criticism at the Government of Israel, not at the State or the people who, in their tens and hundreds of thousands, are protesting more vociferously than anyone here against the actions of their Government.
  Israel is a unique democracy in the Middle East because its people are able to express dissent. I was pleased that the Foreign Secretary and the Opposition spokesman on Foreign Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for

  193
  Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), spoke about finding a solution in the middle ground and about the recognition of Israel within secure frontiers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo), in an eloquent and touching speech, talked about the Palestinian people. His recognition of the needs of the Palestinian people is the kind of constructive discussion that we should welcome.
  It is unfortunate that the understandable problems and demands of the Palestinian people have overshadowed the fight of the Polisario Front in the Western Sahara. I see the Minister nodding with immediate recognition. Morocco has illegally taken over part of the Western Sahara and holds the capital and part of the territory, although the Samrawi Democratic Republic has been recognised by the United Nations and the OAU as the legitimate Government of the Western Sahara and controls much of the land mass of the Western Sahara. It represents the people of the Western Sahara. Since the Minister responsible is to reply to the debate, and since I detect some degree of sympathy in what he has said on previous occasions, I hope that he will give some positive indication that the Government are at least looking at the situation with a view to joining other countries in the United Nations in recognising the SDR as the legitimate Government of the Western Sahara.
  Further south in Africa, there is another struggle for independence. The Gracious Speech talks about a lasting solution in Namibia. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is not present, because his account of what is happening in Namibia was a travesty of the facts. He talked about the legitimate representatives of the people, but they are the puppets of South Africa in Namibia. He did not mention that the South Africans are not only in military control there but are making incursions into Angola.
  How do the Government reconcile their wish for a peaceful, just and lasting solution to the situation in Namibia with their decision at the International Monetary Fund to support a major loan to South Africa which inevitably will be used for funding the purchase of oil for use principally in weapons of war against the people of Namibia and Angola? It is impossible to reconcile that with the sentence about Namibia that appears in the Gracious Speech.
  Her Majesty says in the Gracious Speech that she looks forward with great pleasure to various visits, including one to the Cayman Islands. We still have 13 pieces of Empire dotted round the globe, and they are not areas of which we should be proud. Some of them are playgrounds for the Royal Family from time to time, but they are not areas about which we should be too pleased, especially the Cayman Islands.
  I have spoken on a number of occasions about the tax dodgers on a number of islands, including, nearer to home, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The responsibility for the Cayman Islands is quite clear. It is a dependency. How do this Government and, for that matter, how did previous Governments tolerate the fact that there are many people dodging United Kingdom tax and that we provide havens for those tax dodgers and for many other undesirables on one of our dependent territories? There are problems in maintaining the infrastructures of small
  194
  islands, as we see in the Falklands, but one solution is not to provide havens to which people can go to set up hundreds of companies, as they do in the Cayman Islands.
  Talking about small islands and countries under threat, the hon. Member for Macclesfield compared the Falklands with Belize and Guyana. Two better parallels are Gibraltar and Hong Kong. The Government should be warned that if they do not learn some lessons from the Falkland Islands they will have very serious problems in both Gibraltar and Hong Kong. The new Socialist Government in Spain have made no secret of the fact that, like their predecessors, they have a claim on Gibraltar. In my view, there is much more legitimacy in that claim than there is in the Argentine claim to the Falkland Islands. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow said about the Falklands, we cannot give a veto for ever to the people of Gibraltar and say that we shall never negotiate some kind of arrangement with Spain. I know that discussions have been suspended because of difficulties over the Falklands, but I hope that the Government will get back speedily to the negotiating table and find a negotiated solution for Gibraltar.
  Similarly, I was horrified to hear the reports of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East described as a "bargain basement Boadicea" sailing her way through China, Hong Kong and Japan. The right hon. Lady's comments about Hong Kong showed a remarkable lack of understanding of the difficulties that we face. We have a lease which is due to expire in a few years, and the hours are ticking away. We do not seem to be tackling with any sense of urgency the real problems which will arise.
  I was talking to some of my colleagues about Gibraltar and Hong Kong recently, and I remember saying that the one action that the present Prime Minister was unlikely to take was to send a task force to deal with difficulties in either place. The quizzical looks that I received in return made me think twice. Perhaps the "bargain basement Boadicea" is the very person who would think of sending a task force, even under such circumstances.
  My main point refers to the Falkland Islands. The Government have still not come to terms with reality. First, there is the geographic reality. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) referred to the difficulty of reaching the Falkland Islands and of getting the injured out and so on. He well illustrated the geographic realities and the difficulties that the Government face in garrisoning and supplying the Falkland Islands in future. Indeed, the Government responded on 21 October 1982 to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Woolmer). They were asked about the provision of a longterm ferry service between Ascension Island and the Falklands. They said that they hoped to provide one and hoped
  "to use a British company provided it is not too expensive."—[Official Report, 21 October 1982; Vol. 29, c. 198.]
  That does not demonstrate any great commitment to the Falkland Islands. After all, essential links used to be provided through Argentina. No British company is likely to be able to provide an economic form of communication with the Falkland Islands. The Government will have to face the fact that a sensible link can be provided only through Argentina.
  Sooner or later, the Prime Minister will have to swallow her pride and start negotiating with Argentina. From the Falkland Islanders' point of view, it would be better for

  195
  that to be sooner rather than later. I have read all the proposals for oil development, but that cannot be carried out when the situation is unstable. The proposals about fishing are impossible as long as there is a constant threat from Argentina. The development of alginate is also impossible and Alginate Industries and those who know about it have said as much.
  The Government are in severe difficulties when it comes to enabling the Falkland Islands to develop properly. They must come to terms with the political reality. The Foreign Secretary put up a brave defence of our position in the United Nations. Despite that brilliant rhetoric, I wanted to ask the Foreign Secretary—although he did not allow me to do so at the time—how many of our allies he had convinced to vote with us in the United
  Nations. He does not seem to have convinced our European allies and he has certainly not convinced our supposedly staunchest ally, the United States of America. Ultimately, we must accept the political and geographical realities of the Falkland Islands and it would be better sooner than later.
  My next remarks may not please my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I have great respect for him and he is one of the most thoughtful of hon. Members. In all sincerity, I wish to ask him about the Labour Party's commitment to withdraw from the EEC. I am no great supporter of its present bureaucracy. I have many criticisms to make and they are sometimes much more stringent than the criticisms of those who dislike the overall structure of the European Community. However, how does my hon. Friend answer the arguments put forward by those, such as Barbara Castle, who now realise that our future is inextricably tied up with our partners in Europe? How does he answer the arguments put forward by Francis Cripps and Terry Ward who argue in the New Socialist magazine that a more positive attitude towards the EEC would weaken our link with the United States of America, which, they say, is responsible for the world recession? What about other people, such as Bob Rowthorn who writes in Marxism Today—not one of the publications that I read regularly, although the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) obviously does, because he quotes it in The Guardian—and states:
  "Traditionally the Left has seen the EEC as a body with the independent power to block a Socialist advance in Britain, and this is often used to justify the demand for our withdrawal. Such a view is wrong."
  He outlines the potential of France and Britain working together for Socialist objectives which would transform European politics and alter the whole direction of European economic development. That is what we should be looking at.
  At a fringe meeting at the Blackpool conference a member of the Socialist Party in France said that membership of the European Community had been no barrier to the implementation of Socialist policies. Conservative Members have more reason than we to worry about European countries becoming increasingly Socialist. I hope that we follow the examples of France, Spain and Greece. If an election took place in Germany, I think that a Socialist Government would be returned.
  We can unite and transform Europe. That is the challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Walton has the ability to deal with that. He will agree that our future lies inextricably with out colleagues in the wider Europe. If cooperation is not through the European Community, what
  196
  structure will we use to co-operate with our colleagues in Europe? If my hon. Friend the Member for Walton can tell me that, I shall support him in his constructive alternative.
  I have been accused of being the most unpopular Scottish Member. If I continue, my reputation will spread beyond Scotland.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The debate has been so wide-ranging and fascinating that it requires superhuman control to speak shortly about only one subject. I shall try to confine my remarks to the Arab-Israeli conflict in the Middle East.
  I do not agree with everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his predecessor have done, but I thought that my right hon. Friend's speech today was impressive and commanding, and, above all, had the obvious support of a united party. It contrasted starkly with the speech by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) whose knockabout remarks, belittling the undoubted contribution to world leadership by the Prime Minister, were as wide of the mark as they were unrelated to his party's policy. I do not wonder that he yearned for recognition from his colleagues. He is as likely to get that as he is to get recognition from the Government side of the House. If ever there was a man whose future lay behind him, it is the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
  I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will not mind my saying that they should reassess their position on the Middle East. I believe that Lord Carrington was beginning to do that when he resigned. Of course there must be recognition of Israel's right to exist behind secure borders. There is nothing between the Government and me on that. Of course we must recognise that the Palestinian Arabs have rights to self-government. There is nothing between us on that. But it is no use talking about Israel's unjustifiable invasion of Lebanon, as my right Friend did today, about the need to have dialogue with the PLO before it renounces terrorism or the idea of the destruction of the State of Israel, or about an independent Palestinian State on the West Bank—as fewer people are now doing. It is no use because Israel simply will not talk to its would be murderers. It will not have a PLO Marxist State on its borders. Why should it? Israel will not pay the slightest regard to what Britain advises if its people are led to think that we are unsympathetic and unfriendly to them.
  My right hon. Friend is going everywhere in the Middle East but to Israel. Why does he not go to Israel? Lord Carrington's visit did a world of good to broaden mutual understanding and to strengthen our credibility with Israel. But since then there has been talk of an independent State, talk of support for Fez, opposition to Camp David and talk about the Lebanon invasion being utterly unjustified when we now know that the PLO and the Syrians can have been planning only a large-scale invasion of Israel. Why else in that tiny area should 500 missile launchers and other artillery be found intact and goodness knows how many destroyed? That compares with 876 guns belonging to the entire British Army. For all these reasons Britain seems to be slipping back in the regard in which it is held in Israel.
  Everyone except the PLO wants peace. How are we most likely to secure a "just and lasting" solution, which is referred to in the Gracious Speech? The Lebanon conflict was an horrific episode but it seems to have removed a log jam that was frustrating peace. Let us consider what has been achieved. First, there was the

  197
  destruction of the PLO army and the dispersal of its soldiers to secure accommodation out of harm's way. Its leader is now strutting the world stage like King Lear after his world collapsed and with about as much real power. Secondly, there is the realisation of the wider Arab community that Israel would rather go to war—and it would go successfully—than accept armed Arab forces on its boundaries. The Arabs are beginning to talk about something less than an independent Palestinian State on Israel's border. Surely that is the most encouraging development.
  Thirdly, world reaction against Israel was so strong that it may have weakened its determination to lay claim to all of the West Bank. That may have led to the conviction that to achieve peace there will have to be some compromise. Fourthly, there is the Reagan plan, which nobody seems to like very much. However, nearly everyone seems to like it better than the alternative of doing nothing. It is a move in the right direction, rather like the rocket booster which falls away once the peace vehicle moves into orbit.
  Fifthly, there is the move, by Arabs and Jews and Western Governments, towards a Jordanian involvement in the peace process, an option which appeals especially to the Israelis. They see it as a logical development of the Camp David process, which has already brought peace between Israel and Egypt.
  All these developments give us much more hope for peace in this part of the world than ever we could have had when Parliament went into recess at the end of July. However, the ember of peace has not yet become a flame. It is my plea that Britain should do nothing to blow it out. Let us not forfeit any reasonable influence that we may have by alienating one side, Israel. Let us not blunder again with our European partners by fanning the self-importance, the hopes and the ambitions of the PLO by backing its claims to discussion, to recognition and to an independent State. For one school of thought is convinced that if the PLO had not been encouraged in its aspirations by the Venice initiative it might have settled peacefully some time ago before so many lives had been lost.
  Israel and Egypt were miles apart at the start of their negotiations but they came eventually, by delicate discussion, to achieve peace. Let us not condemn or interfere with the Israelis in their wish further to pursue Camp David and with their wish to resume autonomy talks, to give the Palestinian Arabs more and more control over their everyday lives and to leave the final outcome of a full settlement until a five-year transitional period of autonomy has mellowed and cooled everyone's anger and extreme postures.
  In five years, the Reagan plan may appear very different, the settlement policy of the Israeli Government may appear very different and the Palestinians may be less hostile to the existence of the State of Israel than they have been under PLO leadership. Israel has promised talks with no preconditions; let us support them. Let us help, not hinder, the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs to peace in their section of the Middle East. I seldom agree with the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) but, as he said, if the sort of stability that a democratic pro-Western State could alone provide does not come to this part of the world soon the other Middle East conflicts and wars may spread and a third world war could be the inevitable result.
  8.49 pm
  Mr. Bruce George: Had I not been fortunate in being selected to be part of a delegation to the Falkland Islands, I was going to speak on the theme that democratic Socialism was not necessarily incompatible with a viable defence policy. I was the instigator and joint author of the minority report on nuclear weapons by the Select Committee on Defence. I am opposed to Trident, but I do not regard the corollary of that as a drift towards pacifism and neutralism. Many Socialist Governments do not regard being in office as the cue to disarm. I hope that there will be a Labour Government after the next general election. If we renounce nuclear weapons, I hope that we shall still play a major role in NATO and not spark off what could be a disintegration of the alliance by a policy that would benefit the Soviet Union.
  I propose to talk about my visit with nine other hon. Members in a delegation, amiably and ably led by the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck), to the Falkland Islands. The Select Committee on Defence is going in February. We did not intend—unlike that Committee, of which I am a member—to produce a report, but we had discussions with the military and civil commissioners, we met members of the legislative and executive councils and we spoke to troops and ancillaries about their conditions and morale. We considered the future defence of the Falkland Islands and spoke to people about future economic development and whether the Shackleton recommendations that were produced would be properly implemented.
  I must declare an interest. I was not one of the greatest devotees of the sending of the task force. I expressed my views clearly. I regarded the Argentine claim as nothing other than spurious. I thought that our contribution to NATO would be diminished and that we ran a grave risk of being hammered. In the Falkland Islands I saw the incredibly strong Argentine positions that were thrown away, although the Argentines were better armed in some cases than we were and had two months to dig in. My original diagnosis that we were at a grave risk may have been wrong. Our losses were much fewer than most people feared. I was wrong about the risks and I admit that. However, it was a damned close thing. Had luck gone against us, the task force would have returned humiliated and the consequences would have been disastrous for this country. I expressed my views clearly at the time. One can see my analysis of the Falkland Islands in that perspective.
  When we arrived at Stanley we could see, even stepping out of the plane, that the islands were not in a normal post-war phase. The Falkland Islands are very much a war zone. Before we reached the centre of Stanley, three miles of rocky road away, we knew that it was a war zone and that the economic costs of rehabilitating the islands after the war and starting economic development, in some cases for the first time, would be high. We are aware of the high costs and problems of maintaining a garrison and fortress on the Falkland Islands indefinitely. We are aware of the high cost in international terms of our policy. However, we are in the Falkland Islands. The public support us, and it is obvious that we shall remain there for the foreseeable future.
  The British people will, however, have to pay a high price for the continuation of a Fortress Falkland Islands policy. If they are prepared to do that, any Government

  199
  will have to recognise that fact and act accordingly. We must recognise that the cost of maintaining a garrison and of following the Shackleton report will be high.
  No Government would survive any immediate negotiations with Argentina. The time may come, not in the immediate future when there is a democratic Government in Argentina, tempers will have cooled in the Falkland Islands and the British public will perhaps say that within the supervision of the United Nations, and not under Argentine terms, there is an agreement possible that is of benefit to all. It must be with the consent of the islanders.
  I admire not just the soldiers, sailors, airmen and ancillaries who fought in the war. Everyone expressed admiration for and belief in the high competence of those who fought. War tests political, social and economic institutions. If one loses the consequences can be disastrous. The adrenalin may not flow as freely when one is operating a forklift truck, building a house or repairing a road as when one is fighting, but I have great admiration for those who are doing what in some cases are humdrum but vital jobs in appalling circumstances and without the praise that they deserve. People ought to pay tribute not only to those who fought, but to those who stayed behind, came after, or will go out to the Falklands in the future, probably for some years to come, to develop the infrastructure and to perform normal garrisoning duties. That is my overwhelming impression. It is the one that I want to pass on to my colleagues here.
  There are important military lessons to learn. I am a member of the Defence Committee. We have begun and will continue our investigations. No doubt some of the findings of the Ministry of Defence's own inquiry will be published. Some of the lessons have been learnt and old lessons have been relearnt. I visited HMS "Brazen" off the Falklands this week. It is quite remarkable that many of the lessons that we have learnt were obvious 25 years ago. HMS "Brazen" not only had missiles on board, but the sides of the ship were filled with machine guns, just as they were in the Second World War. If an aeroplane approaches, more than sophisticated missiles will be fired at it.
  I shall not deal with the events that led up to the war or with what I believe was Government ineptitude. I should like to ask what many people on the islands asked and I shall pass my comments on to the Franks committee. Is it true that an attache to the Argentine embassy purchased 500 copies of a map of the Falklands last November from either the Stationery Office or another Crown agency? If that is true, was that information passed up the system, or is it yet another example of a bureaucracy receiving information but being unable to process it? Perhaps the Franks committee will shed some light on that matter.
  I return to my original theme of the professionalism of the troops. They are doing a difficult and unglamorous job. Before one reaches the Falklands in a Hercules one is aware of the expertise of those who perform in-flight refuelling. When one arrives at Stanley airport, one sees that there may be 800 people extending and defending the airport. An incredible task is being accomplished. The Sappers, who tend to be forgotten, ought to be commended.
  I shall not say where the Rapier units are, but on the Falklands the personnel are out in the cold, living in tents, to defend the buildings and areas that we fought so hard
  200
  to regain. We should also commend not only those who fly the Phantoms and Harriers, but those who are responsible for keeping them in the air. They are operating in such low temperatures that it is impossible for them to do their jobs as well as they should.
  The Logistics Battalion should also be complimented. There are 35 bakers. One of the ovens that they use was brought out from the Royal Corps of Transport Museum. Apparently it is their best oven. The infrastructure that the armed forces may find elsewhere is simply not there on the islands.
  I also pay tribute to the professionalism of the sailors. I visited HMS "Brazen" out in the firing line. Those people are doing a difficult job. They are not as appreciated as they should be. We also met such people as Pat Short, who is from San Carlos and tends the beautiful graveyard there. These are examples of some of the unsung heroes. We should remember them as well as those who fought and died.
  We were eager to examine the accommodation problem. There has been much criticism of it, much of which is justified. I visited the "Sir Tristram" and tent cities around the island. I am sure that next winter will be less uncomfortable than this one, because of the Portakabins that are being erected. I hope that the Government develop as good a housing policy in my constituency as in the Falklands. The "Coastel", which is a floating hotel, should arrive by Christmas. That will alleviate some of the problems.
  Morale is important. It is a function of housing, salary, role and the way in which one is perceived and appreciated. At present morale is reasonably high, but men are working very hard in extremely difficult circumstances in accommodation that is not really satisfactory, though better than portrayed, and with entirely inadequate entertainment. Thank God for the Japanese. Hon. Members may ask why I say that. Without the video revolution, our people out there would have virtually nothing to do. It is important that the Ministry should recognise the need to provide proper entertainment. I shall not go into a sexist argument, for which the women's liberation movement would chastise me, about getting women out to the Falklands to keep the troops happy. That is not the purpose of women in the Armed Forces.
  Once the runway has been extended and the airport completed, it is important to build squash courts and football pitches. Otherwise, a tour of duty in the Falklands will be regarded as purgatory, morale will drop and once people come home and tell their parents what it is like people's willingness to cough up the necessary money will diminish. Therefore, proper housing, which I believe is on the way, and proper facilities are absolutely essential, to efficiency and morale.
  On economic development, I hope that the Shackleton report, unlike the last report, will be speedily implemented. There are 1,800 people on the islands. By the time one has subtracted the number who are economically inactive—the elderly, the youngsters and the disabled—there are not many left to undertake the task of resuscitating agriculture and developing tourism and a fishing industry and the other things that Shackleton proposed. It is amazing that an area surrounded by the sea has such a small fishing tradition. If money is to be spent, as it must be, we must try to bring into the islands people

  201
  who can supplement the limited expertise that is there. In this regard, Shackleton's recommendations about a Falkland Islands Development Board are very important.
  The considerable amount of captured equipment on the islands includes a Bell-Huey helicopter which has been serviced and is ready to fly but cannot do so because the Civilian Aviation Authority says that it does not meet civil requirements. I hope that an exemption can be made for the Falklands so that some transport can be provided for the islanders, because without that mobility their economy will be dead.
  My visit had a profound effect upon me. I have great admiration for the people operating there in adverse conditions. Certainly I should have no desire to live there. One thing, however, is vital. Whether or not it is popular to say this, for that economy to be sustained and for our military presence to continue there must be negotiation of some kind at some stage in the future. It will not be undertaken in the foreseeable future, but unless it is eventually undertaken and is acceptable to all the alternative must be a Fortress Falklands policy, which will drain our economy and be of no long-term benefit to the islanders.
  9.3 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: It would be impossible to refer to all the interesting points that have been raised. I have found the debate absolutely riveting. Like the Minister of State, I have been here for almost the entire debate, slipping out only for a cup of tea. I have therefore heard the comments of almost every hon. Member who has taken part.
  I found the contributions of those who have just returned from the Falklands extremely interesting. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) about the affair of the maps going to the Franks committee should certainly be taken on board. That should certainly be done, as this is a very interesting effort, and we should look further into matters of this kind.
  Hon. Members may wonder why my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) is not present in the Chamber. There is nothing sinister about his absence. He has informed me that he has a long-standing engagement, but that he will return as quickly as he can. I hope that no one will try to make any political comment on his absence.
  The Labour Party's objective is to ensure that Britain has a foreign policy that helps to bring about conditions that free the world of poverty, inequality and war. Britain should work within the United Nations, the Commonwealth, NATO and other international organisations to strengthen detente, reduce tensions between States and create a Europe free of all nuclear weapons. In time, we hope to see both the Warsaw Pact and NATO dissolved.
  The question of nuclear weapons has been the central part of the debate, and that issue featured strongly in the Foreign Secretary's speech. The right hon. Gentleman welcomed widespread debate on the issue, but could not accept that it was a moral issue. By saying that, I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was rejecting the interesting report of the Church of England working party which says that it is a moral issue.
  202
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that the debate on this issue was marred by hypocrisy and humbug. He cannot have it both ways. One cannot say that it is an important issue and debate and that sincere people hold differing views, and at the same time talk about hypocrisy and humbug. The fact is that the question of nuclear weapons has created many divisions in this country.
  The Labour Party's position was made clear at this year's Labour Party conference, as, indeed, it has been at previous conferences. We believe in multilateral nuclear disarmament, but also that we must make a start by getting rid of nuclear arms in this country. In saying that, we are in no way in disagreement with the fascinating Church of England document.
  The hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) made an interesting speech on the question of nuclear weapons. I should like to quote one sentence from the Church of England document:
  "If the deterrent is to work, you have to convince an enemy that you are willing to use it; but if you have to use it, it has failed."
  We ought to take note of that statement. The recommendations of that working party state:
  "The present balance of terror is plainly not a secure way of keeping the peace. It becomes more precarious month by month, and will become more difficult still if horizontal proliferation of nuclear weapons proceeds. There is a need for new disarmament strategies which care about security and stability, but which will also break the log-jam in which we seem to be caught.
  The Labour Party believes that the time has come for us to break the log-jam in respect of nuclear weapons.
  My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked some powerful and important questions, in particular whether the Prime Minister knew about the nuclear weapons on board the ships. If not, why not? Where does it leave us if the Prime Minister is not aware of the position? We need an answer. If the Minister cannot give us an answer tonight, we nevertheless deserve one to be given in the House. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian will receive the answer.
  Labour Party objectives include a new world economic order and a fair system of world trade. We are therefore deeply concerned about the plight of the Third world. That is why the Labour Party wishes to see the Brandt report taken off the shelf and positive action taken to put it into effect. Brandt suggests an aid target of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product. We should like to see the figure reach 1 per cent. of GNP.
  Since May 1975, the Government have persistently cut back the aid budget. One of the Chancellor's first acts was to lop a gratuitous £50 million from the aid spending programme—a cut of 6 per cent. In August the Government published the aid figures for 1981. Total overseas development aid disbursements were only 0·43 per cent. of GNP. In 1980, our overseas aid was 0·35 per cent. of GNP, which was abysmally low. Consequently this year the figure for aid appeared better, yet that figure was still very low. Unlike the Chancellor, we believe that we should be ashamed of those aid figures.
  The Labour Party believes that the world's resources should be used for the benefit of the people of the world, not for a small powerful minority group that dominates Western society.
  The Opposition want more progress towards international agreement, a strengthened North-South dialogue and a just and fair distribution of resources. Our policy is

  203
  truly internationalist. At the same time, we must concern ourselves with the true national interests of the British people within an international context.
  It is my firm belief that if one is to be a true internationalist in foreign affairs, one must begin from the position of loving and respecting one's own country. That is the basis on which we build our internationalist approach. That is why the Labour Party is so firmly in favour of Britain's withdrawal from the Common Market.
  There has been press speculation that the Labour Party is weakening its position on withdrawal from the EEC. It is not. Labour's programme was overwhelmingly carried at this year's Labour Party conference, and it reiterates what the two previous conferences had agreed:
  "The Labour Party and the Labour movement in general is firmly committed to Britain's withdrawal from the EEC … we shall put the issue to the British people in the Manifesto; and if elected on that basis, we will take it as a popular mandate for withdrawal."
  The Labour Party is not saying that withdrawal from the EEC will take place a day, a month, six months or possibly much longer after a Labour Government take office. Withdrawal will take time and there will need to be proper negotiations. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, at the Labour Party conference, said:
  "We are committed as a Party to come out of the Common Market — We are also committed as Socialists to our international obligations both in our own interests and the interests of other countries … we must carry through our commitments in a manner that is in proper conformity with our international obligations and our obligations as Socialists to other people in other lands."
  My right hon. Friend made it clear that the second commitment—to do our duty as international Socialists—does not weaken the first commitment. I do not believe that there is a contradiction between the commitments.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: How true is it that some important sections of the trade union movement disagree profoundly with the concept of our withdrawal from the EEC?
  Mr. Heffer: If important trade unions had wanted to table resolutions at this year's Labour Party conference to reverse party policy, they could have done so. They did not do so, and the party programme was overwhelmingly carried. Therefore, the trade unions must have voted for it.
  I wish to make it clear to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) that when we argue for coming out of the EEC we are not turning our backs on Europe. I should be the last person to agree to such a policy.
  I welcome the fact that a Socialist Government have been elected in Spain—I was at the Spanish Socialists' conference last year—and I welcome the fact that there are Socialist Governments in Greece and France. However, we must remember that there are Socialist Governments in other countries that are not members of the Common Market and do not appear to wish to join the Common Market. As internationalists and Socialists, we have to look beyond the Common Market if we are to mobilise the forces of all those in Europe with similar views to try to deal with the problems of Europe on a much wider basis.
  In rejecting the Treaty of Rome and the institutions of the EEC, we are not denying that we are a European country with European interests and perspectives. We say that the treaties and institutions are not a suitable
  204
  framework within which either to create the sort of Britain that we want or to carry out our obligations as international Socialists.
  Mr. Lawrence: Will the hon. Gentleman explain what effect he thinks coming out of the Common Market will have on jobs in this country?
  Mr. Heffer: I should not have given way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I was intending to mention jobs.
  We have been a member of the EEC for 10 years and we have not particularly gained from our membership. The promises made by the Conservative Government who took us into the EEC were false. Their 1971 White Paper said that they were
  "confident that membership of the … Community will lead to much improved efficiency and productivity in British industry, with a higher rate of investment".
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), who was the Government's negotiator with the EEC, said:
  "the result of our entering the Communities — will be a positive and substantial contribution to our balance of payments, and will not result in any deficit at all."—[Official Report, 20 June 1972; Vol. 839, c. 318.]
  The reality has been very different. Industrial output in Britain has dropped by 16 per cent. since we entered the EEC. We have a massive trade deficit with the other EEC countries and unemployment has soared to over 3 million. At the beginning of the 1970s real national income per head in Britain was equal to the EEC average. By 1979 it was 6 per cent. lower and would have been 10 per cent. lower if North Sea oil had not been propping up our economy. According to the logic of pro-Marketeers, none of this should have happened.
  We are not saying that all unemployment has been caused by our entry into the EEC. It has been helped along considerably by the policies of the Government whether we were in or out of the EEC. No one denies that there is a crisis throughout the Western world. Certainly, however, our membership of the EEC has not helped.
  The Government's attitude towards the EEC has always been consistent. Unfortunately, it has brought consistent failure. In the first Queen's Speech of this Government in May 1979, hon. Members were told of the Government' s
  "strong commitment to the European Community"—
  almost the same words that are used in the Gracious Speech now before us. The Government were going to play
  "a full and constructive part in its further development and enlargement, and in the co-ordination of the foreign policies of member States."
  We were told that the Government would
  "seek to make significant improvements in the operation of the common agricultural policy in the interests both of the United Kingdom and of the Community as a whole."
  On fisheries, mentioned again in the Queen's Speech now before the House, the Government were going to
  "work for an agreement on a common fisheries policy which takes account of the need to conserve stocks in the interests of our fishermen."
  We were also going to get
  "a fairer pattern of budgetary and resource transfers in the EEC."
  What have we seen over the past three and a half years? In agriculture, this Government, in marked contrast to the Labour Government, have pursued a dear food policy. The common agricultural policy is heading for record surpluses. This year £2·8 billion will be spent on dumping

  205
  surplus production on to the world market and £1·4 billion on disposing of surpluses internally, while administration and storage costs will absorb another £1 billion.
  On fisheries, the Government's recent sell-out will be fresh in the minds of all hon. Members. It was interesting to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie), when we were discussing the matter recently, say how much he approved of the Government's policy. He has since been home for the weekend. He has met the fishermen. I noted that his attitude today was somewhat different from the attitude he took the other day. He is an extremely chastened individual. The reality is different from what we were told.
  The Shetlands Islands council has put its views before hon. Members. The council and the Shetlands Fishermen's Association have voted unanimously to reject the so-called new policy. I believe that their views are the views of the majority of British fishermen.
  I do not wish to bore the House with all the problems connected with the budget. I should, however, like hon. Members to read an excellent publication entitled "The budget problem" which the Government have circulated in Brussels. What does this document say?
  Mr. Michael Cocks: It blows the gaff.
  Mr. Heffer: That is right. It blows the gaff.
  The document states:
  "The cost of Community policies to Britain is more than just its net budget contribution. Britain is a net importer of food. It buys food from other member States at Community prices which are higher than world prices because of the price support mechanisms of the CAP. The resulting cost to Britain is not matched by equivalent gains on the industrial side because the Community does not have a comparable system of price support for industrial products. Britain is, in any case, a net importer of manufactures as well as food from the rest of the Community."
  The steel workers know that very well when 67 percent. of steel imports come from the EEC. I should like to say much more about the EEC, but I feel I should move on to other points that should be mentioned.
  First, the Middle East. My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) made a first-class speech. All hon. Members listened to it with great interest, even if they did not entirely agree with every aspect of it. He stressed that the Labour Party had four points of view about Israel and the Middle East—one statement, one programme and two resolutions—and that they were all different. They are different in certain aspects, but they are not different in one important aspect.
  The most important of these points of view was the national executive's statement, which was carried unanimously. The others were not carried unanimously, and therefore showed up the divisions. The national executive's statement became the policy of the conference, and in it we state two things. One is that the people of Israel and the State of Israel have a right to live in peace within secure borders. Secondly, the Palestinian people have a right to a State of their own.
  That has meant a slight shift in our point of view, because in the past we talked in terms of self-determination. However, the one thing that we have learnt is that, unfortunately, the State of Israel, no matter how much we support it, does not always have wise political leaders.
  Mr. Mikardo: Nor does the State of Britain.
  Mr. Heffer: Exactly. However, some of us thought that the State of Israel always would have wise political leaders. Perhaps we were asking too much of them.
  We now have a Government in Israel, led by Begin, who have made the position in the Middle East far more difficult because of their policies. In attacking that Government, we are not attacking the people of Israel or suggesting that they ought not to have secure borders and be able to live in peace guaranteed by the rest of the world.
  Equally, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East said, the Palestinian problem will never be solved until the Palestinian people have a State of their own. I agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) that saying that in itself does not solve the problem, because we then have to discuss what sort of State and the question of militarisation. However, unless the people of Palestine have a State of their own, there will not be a solution to the problems in that part of the Middle East.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow was right in saying that that was only one aspect of the Middle East problem. Another aspect that was not discussed today relates to Turkey, which is a member of NATO. However, it is a military dictatorship. It is true that there have been changes there, but anyone who has looked clearly at the new constitution knows that there is no real change. Why are the Government not prepared to put pressure on Turkey, through NATO, to change its attitude?
  A genuine Labour and Socialist foreign policy means working consistently for peace in the world and for the freedom of people, irrespective of the part of the world from which they come. Our party conference was unanimous in its condemnation of what has happened in Poland, just as it has been of what has happened in Czechoslovakia and other Eastern European countries. There must be no double standards. If we are to criticise what has happened in Poland, I ask the British people to be equally critical of dictatorships whether in Chile, Argentina or anywhere else. That is the basic position that we should take on human rights.
  9.30 pm
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) protected me as well as himself when he said that it would not be possible, in replying to the debate, to cover all the points, often fascinating, which have been made on perhaps a wider range of subjects than is usual, even in a foreign affairs debate.
  I shall not follow the hon. Gentleman in what he said about the European Community. We have often debated the EEC in this House, and the particular questions that he raised. The EEC was hardly mentioned in the debate today. I do not complain about the fact that he felt compelled to make most of his speech about it. I am not absolutely sure that it is a sign of strength and confidence in policy that the hon. Gentleman has to make a speech every few days saying that the policy of his party has not been weakened in any respect, but that is what he is doing.
  My reply is bound to be rather discursive, but I shall try to answer some of the specific questions that were put to me. Although the questions put to me were important, one is not always able to reply in a very definite way. Wise and clear decisions will be forthcoming, but they are not

  207
  yet in place in every instance. That applies to the question put to me by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) concerning the Law of the Sea conference. The hon. Member for Waltham Forest (Mr. Deakins) also spoke strongly about that matter. The balance of argument is not at all easy to strike, and I think that the hon. Member in particular rather over-simplified the proposition before us. It has been a very complex negotiation. The draft treaty is very complex, covering not only the deep sea mining provisions but a wide range of issues concerning maritime law. Given the split vote with which the negotiations concluded, it is not easy to decide whether it will be in the interests of the United Kingdom to sign the treaty when it is open for signature. Obviously, the Government will need to inform the House when they have come to a decision about it.
  Several hon. Members spoke about the Middle East, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked me about the Lebanon. In reply to his question about a British contribution to an international force, I say boldly what he asked me not to say, that we have not received any formal request to contribute. We are in close touch with the Lebanese and the American Governments about the plans that they have, with others, to help to bring about something which we certainly support—the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon. There are obvious difficulties, which will occur to everybody, about agreeing at this time to a British military contribution. But, as I have said, that is not a question formally before us at the moment.
  The right hon. Gentleman rather decried the idea that we might contribute to training the Lebanese forces. But one of the difficulties is that the Lebanese security forces have been too small for their job, and that they have not so far—I think that the Lebanese Government would accept this—developed the kinds of characteristics which are needed to maintain impartial order in a country such as Lebanon. There is a tremendous role for training and it may be that we can help in that respect. In a way, that is more at the centre of the problem than is the temporary provision of an international peacekeeping force.
  I entirely agree with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) about keeping open a dialogue with Israel. I think that we have such a dialogue. He was a little harsh in that respect. Lord Carrington's visit reopened some channels which had become a little blocked. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary saw the Israeli Foreign Minister recently in New York, and in different ways we are keeping the dialogue open. I agree that that is necessary.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made the same point. I was a little sad to hear some of his remarks about the invasion of Lebanon, but I agreed with what he said about the need for new thinking. It has to be done on the Israeli side as well, of course, and I think that he accepted that. One cannot say that the Israelis will not put up with this or that and that is an end to the discussion. Some fresh thinking has to come from Israel as well as others on the nature of the Palestinians and the PLO.
  The hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) made a remarkable speech entirely without notes. He was entirely right to stress the complexity and turbulence of the whole area that he described, and to make the point, which is familiar but true, that even if the Israeli-Arab dispute did not exist it would still be a difficult
  208
  and turbulent area. I was afraid that he might make the point that one sometimes hears from Israel that therefore we should not worry too much about the Israeli-Arab dispute. He did not do that. He developed his own ideas and called for fresh thinking. Broadly speaking, and rather unexpectedly, I agree with much of what he said.
  People have been jerked by different events out of the intellectual trenches in which they had sunk. That is a good thing. It is something to which we have contributed and will continue to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Howden (Sir P. Bryan) spoke interestingly about Hong Kong and from my limited knowledge of the colony I sympathise and agree witth much of what he said. I noted what he said about the need for progress reports as discussions with the Chinese continue.
  I hope that it will not be long before we can give an answer about our conclusions on the report of the Overseas Students Trust which he praised. He is right to say that the Hong Kong Government have made a preliminary proposal for fund sharing. That is one of the matters that we are looking at.
  My hon. Friend was right also to raise the point about what is written on passports. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has not forgotten what she said on that subject in Hong Kong. Officials are looking at that matter with a sense of urgency derived from that fact. I hope that it can be sorted out and disposed of fairly soon.
  If I can skip across the globe, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East chided us a bit about our relationships with the Irish Republic. We want to see normal, friendly relations with the Government of the Irish Republic. Naturally they have strong views on the future of Northern Ireland. They know our view of our responsibilities and of the rights of the people who live in Northern Ireland. Those views have been explained often directly to them and in the House. We want to keep in touch with them on a wide range of matters. That has not changed. They are partners with us in the Community. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and, to some extent, I have been consulting in recent weeks with all our European partners on Community matters. I was in Dublin yesterday consulting with the Irish Foreign Minister. It was a friendly and useful discussion which I use simply to illustrate the fact that we want to keep open friendly discussions with the Irish Government on a wide range of matters.
  Mr. Healey: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that during the debate on the last Queen's Speech the Prime Minister said that she attached great importance to the series of joint discussions that she then planned with the Government of the Irish Republic which she saw as possibly creating a framework that might help solve the problems of Northern Ireland. That was completely absent from what she said yesterday and the right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Minister has not referred to it today. Surely the Government have not forgotten so soon all the views they expressed to the House?
  Mr. Hurd: I do not think that there is a contradiction there. Within the Anglo-Irish framework which Mr. Haughey, the Taoiseach, and my right hon. Friend created, we discussed a wide range of matters, as I was doing yesterday. But yesterday was not an occasion to discuss Northern Ireland.

  209
  There have been references throughout the debate to Namibia. I refer especially to a matter raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who chided the Government for not taking proper account of the views of the internal parties in Namibia. We accept that they have a role to play. The British Government and all the five members of the contact group keep regular contact through our embassies in South Africa, and we take what opportunities exist to keep in touch with them, including at ministerial level. My hon. Friend the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow), saw Mr. Mudge in London earlier this year, and these contacts are normal.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked me a specific question about the British garrison in Belize. It remains there. It is there to defend Belize against external attack, and, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, no date has been set for the withdrawal of the garrison.
  I turn to the Falklands, about which a number of very interesting speeches were made. I refer especially to the speeches of the two Opposition hon. Members who came back from the islands recently. Both the hon. Members for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) and for Walsall, South (Mr. George) made speeches raising a number of specific matters arising out of their experiences which all those concerned in the Government will need to study carefully. I have no doubt that there will be other speeches and statements by others of my hon. Friends who went there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) and the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) referred to specific personal cases about the visits of bereaved relatives to the islands which I shall make sure are taken account of and dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) made a specific and practical speech about the air runway, and other hon. Members referred to it. We are still looking at this obviously crucial question and are taking into account the civil needs and the military needs. Obviously they cannot be considered separately when we are looking at that. I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about the French experience in their Pacific islands. The island diversion scheme is one of the ideas being looked at. When I read my hon. Friend's speech tomorrow, I am sure that I shall find that it contains specific matters which we shall need to consider.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) returned forcefully to a number of matters at which he has quite legitimately been hammering for some time. He pressed today, as he did yesterday, for more information about the carriage of nuclear weapons. He will not be surprised if I repeat what he has been told before. We do not mean to depart in any way from the unequivocal practice of successive Governments, rooted in a very clear perception of our interests and our security, neither to confirm nor deny the presence or absence of nuclear weapons in a particular place at a given time. However, we have pointed out already that there was no question of our using any form of nuclear weapon in this campaign.
  The hon. Gentleman went on from that to develop a point about the possible loss of nuclear weapons, and he sketched a very serious scenario which no doubt will be widely reported. He linked that especially with HMS "Sheffield", which was sunk. In preparing his speech, he
  210
  may have neglected or forgotten an answer to a written question on 23 July by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence. My hon. Friend said:
  "HMS 'Sheffield' sank under tow in heavy weather because sea-water entered the hole in her side caused by the Argentine missile that struck her. To clarify any possible misunderstanding, I can state that there has never been any incident involving a British nuclear weapon leading to its loss or to the dispersal of radioactive contamination."—[Official Report, 23 July 1982; Vol. 28, c. 340.]
  That answer, which was given at the end of July, deals with one of the important points raised by the hon. Member for West Lothian.
  Mr. Dalyell: Does that include nuclear depth charges?
  Mr. Hurd: When the hon. Gentleman studies Hansard I think that he will find that I have quoted my hon. Friend the Minister accurately and that he referred to:
  "any incident involving a British nuclear weapon leading to its loss or to the dispersal of radioactive contamination."
  That deals with the essence of the hon. Gentleman's case.
  It was sad to listen to part of the general speech made by the hon. Member for West Lothian, just as it was to listen to the comments made by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes). They talk about the realities of the Falkland Islands and of the need to face them, as if one reality was not the war and as if another was not the war's effect on those who live there. I have not been to the Falkland Islands, but those who go there have that as their overwhelming impression. Such an attitude might be forgivable on the part of some members of the General Assembly of the United Nations who have not been through the experiences faced by all Members of this House. However, for hon. Members who have been through that experience, to start talking again so lightly—
  Mr. Foulkes: Not lightly.
  Mr. Hurd: —about negotiations over sovereignty and so on is both sad and distressing.
  I shall not discuss in detail our aid policy and the North-South policy.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Has my right hon. Friend any evidence to show that the United States of America was in discussion with the Argentine Government over the possible use of the Falkland Islands as a base for the security of the South Atlantic? That has been highlighted. Indeed, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) raised the matter some months ago. Has the Foreign Office any evidence to show that the Americans have in the past been in negotiation with the Argentine Government over the Falkland Islands?
  Mr. Hurd: I cannot add to what has been said in various debates. I know that that issue was raised and I am sorry that I may have slid over it in my reply. I have nothing very useful to add. The point may be relevant to the Franks inquiry—I simply do not know. However, I shall consider it carefully and if there is anything that we can usefully add one of us will write to my hon. Friend.
  Much of the debate—as is normal, on the part of the Labour Front Bench—was devoted to a discussion of aid policy. I do not want to go into the details, because it is a big subject and it has been debated frequently since the publication of the Brandt report. However, most people in Britain would feel that an aid programme of more than £1 billion was not negligible or was something to be cast aside in that way. Last year, only four OECD countries gave

  211
  more money, in actual money terms, than we did. I refer to the United States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, France and Japan. They are all countries with a substantially greater national wealth than Britain. Labour Members do not do Britain, or the international cause that they plead, any service by running down the quality or quantity of our aid.
  Indeed, 68 per cent. of our aid goes to the poorest countries. The hon. Member for Waltham Forest spoke as if we gave all our aid for political and commercial reasons. We have frankly explained to the House the shift in emphasis. However, it has not prevented an overwhelming proportion—more than two-thirds—going to the poorest countries. That is not a bad record and we could hear more about it.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, East spoke about the International Development Association. Last year, after discussions with the Government of India, we took the lead in helping to bridge the gap caused in the finances of that essential organisation by a shortfall or hiccup in the American contribution. We took the lead. The president of the World Bank acknowledged in public that the British lead caused others to follow and helped out. We do not mind criticism, but it would be nice occasionally if, laced in the criticism, there was some understanding and acceptance of the good things that we are doing.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and many hon. Members referred to the state of the alliance and its relationship with peace. It is an alliance of free States with no sergeant major to give orders to turn left or right or to drill in a particular way. As a result there will be disputes. As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, disputes always happen. He said that they are worse now. I am not sure that that is correct.
  The House must discuss the best way to tackle the disputes. First, we must fence them so that they do not spread and undermine the basic co-operation of the alliance. People must see them for what they are. They are limited disputes, sometimes about important subjects, but they do not mean that the alliance is in decay or that its death is imminent.
  We have just settled the steel dispute between the United States and the European Community. I agree that the settlement was not on glorious terms because the problem was extraordinarily severe and difficult, but the dispute was settled.
  When a settlement cannot be reached quickly, one must go back to the principles on which the alliance is based. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East spoke of the Siberian pipeline dispute. An agreed framework within which the alliance can conduct its dealings with the Soviet Union is needed. It should cover credit, technology and perhaps other matters. We have had understandings, but clearly they are not enough. In the absence of an agreed framework a dispute blew up and the Americans acted in a way which Britain and its European allies were bound to find unacceptable.
  There are signs of progress towards a settlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has quietly played a part in taking the poison out of the dispute and bringing it closer to a solution. Given the inevitability of occasional disputes, that is how they should be tackled.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that 1983 will be a crucial year for the alliance. That is so, partly because of the debate which my hon. Friends the Members for Aldershot and for East Grinstead (Sir G.
  212
  Johnson Smith) sketched in two interesting speeches about in-treaty areas and out-treaty areas and the debate about the right balance between conventional and nuclear forces. Both those topics will take wing in 1983.
  Next year will be crucial also because of the agreement reached in 1979—necessary and perhaps even overdue—when NATO decided to discuss with the Russians the possibility of agreement on intermediate nuclear forces and to modernise our own deterrent in that sector, replacing older weapons with cruise and Pershing.
  That 1979 agreement, involving talking and modernising in the absence of agreement with the Russians, comes to its climax in 1983. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that if it is to succeed NATO requires the continuing consent of public opinion. This is the big difference between it and the Warsaw Pact. That consent will be forthcoming, provided that our policy through the alliance is reasoned and reasonably and energetically presented to those who elect us.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport advanced an argument which he has deployed and emphasised before about battlefield nuclear weapons. I apologise for doing so but I shall quote briefly from what I said to the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly about 10 days ago in New York. On behalf of the United Kingdom, I said:
  "We are not only concerned about strategic and intermediate-range missiles. There are in Europe many thousands of shorter-range weapons of immense destructive power. The British Government with its allies will continue to look for ways to raise the nuclear threshold and reduce our reliance on nuclear weapons. We will seize every opportunity of doing so provided that we can do this without jeopardising peace, which is our overriding objective."
  I agree that that is not very specific. It is still early days in this particular round of these particular discussions. However, the right hon. Gentleman will see the way in which our minds are moving.
  I do not share the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of American policy in this general area. There is no evidence for supposing that the Americans are abandoning the concept of deterrence and substituting the concept of nuclear war. Indeed, we know that that is not so. For example, in a comprehensive speech which the United States President made in announcing the zero option, the policy of deterrence and negotiation is spelt out clearly.
  During the past 12 months the Americans have acquired an arms control policy and a Middle East policy. Both policies owe something to the advice of their European allies. The alliance works more comfortably on both issues as a result.
  The twin negotiations that are taking place in Geneva on intermediate and strategic nuclear weapons are, in our view, taking place seriously. They are taking place behind closed doors and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury said, that creates problems. They are proceeding slowly because the issues are enormously complex. On the Soviet side they are backed by a propaganda campaign and by pessimistic statements which seem to have persuaded the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, in one of his more gloomy moods, that the negotiations are empty, hopeless and about to break down. That is not our impression. We are in close touch with the United States' negotiators in both sessions. It is not our impression and it is not theirs.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a careful piece of analysis. He quite rightly took no cognisance of the

  213
  official policy of the Labour Party, with which he disagrees. That policy was expounded, conveniently for us, by the hon. Member for Walton. The chances of these crucial negotiations would be worsened and it would be much less likely that the Soviet Union would make concessions at the negotiating table if it knew that in one important respect, and from one important member of the Western alliance, it was going to get what it wanted anyway, which is the consecration of its superiority.
  In our judgment, the Soviet Union has come to the INF—the intermediate negotiating table in Geneva—because of the NATO decision to modernise. If it had felt that it could continue deploying SS20s with no matching Western response, it would have continued with that deployment and would not have negotiated. That is a lesson for the future. We must not despair of reaching agreement with the Soviet Union. The chances of agreement depend on its believing that in the absence of agreement we will not take the sort of advice that is pouring out of the Labour Party and that we shall be resolute and strong.
  Mr. Healey: I think that the right hon. Gentleman has purposely missed my point. I said that the British Government's decision to acquire a missile system with the same destructive capacity as the SS20 is bound to prejudice the chance of negotiations for the removal of the SS20. That is because the Soviet Union is not prepared to discuss its missile system or the British deterrent in the context of the negotiations.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman was a senior member of a Government who decided to maintain the Polaris system and decided, without telling the House, to modernise it through the Chevaline system. I do not know
  214
  what decision a Labour Government would take now, but history suggests that a Labour Government would take a position very different from that which is now proclaimed by the Labour Opposition.
  This is the crucial issue. It will be tackled successfully only if we deal with the world as it is. The world portrayed by Opposition Members and by some peace movements is two dimensional and unreal. The world with which we must deal when we are negotiating, if we are to have any chance of success, is three dimensional. That work takes a great deal of patience, effort and time. It is easy for people to become impatient, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East and the hon. Member for Walton did during their analysis. Patience, provided that we can show the people who elect us—
  Debate adjourned,—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

  Foreign Affairs

    EUROPEAN LEGISLATION, &c
    Ordered,
    That the Standing Order of 2nd July 1979 relating to the nomination of the Select Committee on European Legislation, &c. be amended, by leaving out Mr. James Hill and inserting Sir Russell Fairgrieve.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

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

  Carron Company
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  10 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: I wish to raise the Department of Trade's refusal to conduct an inquiry into the affairs and presentation of accounts of the Carron company of Falkirk, which is based in my constituency.
  I wrote to the Secretary of State for Trade on 14 September following disclosures in the Sunday Standard of 12 September. Articles in that newspaper alleged that the Carron company, which had gone into receivership on 3 August this year, had had links with one of its largest customers, the firm of Kennedy-Woods of Southampton. If the allegations in the Sunday Standard are true, those links with that firm should have been stated in the company's final accounts. Furthermore, that disclosure would have materially affected the view of the Royal Bank of Scotland and the County Bank, which between them had lent about £12 million to the company.
  In his reply on 12 October, the Minister of State said that, following an examination of the various companies, his officials could find no connection between Kennedy-Woods and the Carron Company. He further stated that Carron's auditors did not discover any connection and that the company's directors gave an assurance that no such connection existed. It must be emphasised that had the auditors, Ernst and Whinney of Glasgow, uncovered such a link, they would have been obliged to draw attention to it in their report on the final accounts and the balance sheets. The directors for their part would have been admitting that they had not disclosed highly relevant information to the shareholders.
  However, as the source of the allegations was in the first instance the three Sunday Standard journalists, Mr. Ray Perman, Mr. Alistair Balfour and Mr. David Scott, why were the officials not instructed to approach them? As far as I can gather, up to today none of those gentleman, or the publishers of the newspaper, has been issued with any legal action for libel by any of the accused parties.
  I hope that the Minister will tell the House when his officials first approached the firm of accountants that prepared a report on the state of Carron in March this year. That firm, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, conducted an investigation into the current trading position of Carron at the insistence of the Royal Bank of Scotland and with the agreement of the firm. Did the Minister's officials approach the members of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, who subsequently became receivers for Carron, before writing to me on 12 October? Had he taken steps to obtain a view of the report? Had the Minister or his officials done so, I am confident that his reply of 12 October would have been different.
  Carron's largest customer was the builders' merchants Kennedy-Woods of Southampton, which was owned by Euryalus Investments which, in turn, was owned by Shavelynn Ltd. Of the 1,000 Shavelynn shares, 900 were held for Carron by N.C. Lombard Street Nominees Ltd. Those shares were preferential, which meant that Carron had the right to a return on capital in the event of liquidation. They were non-voting shares but Carron had the right at any time to convert them into voting shares.
  216
  All that information was disclosed in the report prepared by Deloitte, Haskins and Sells. That report drew the conclusion that, to all intents and purposes, Carron, through N.C. Lombard Street Nominees Ltd., Shavelynn and Euryalus, could own Kennedy-Woods at any time. That meant that Carron's major customer, a firm that took some 20 per cent. of its output, was effectively an almost wholly owned subsidiary of the Carron Company. One must ask whether the Royal Bank of Scotland and the County Bank would have extended credit facilities to the tune of about £20 million if they had known about that. My understanding is that they would not.
  I should not like to speculate on Carron's board's intentions in developing such a scheme. That is not helpful. Nevertheless, it is important to take account of the fact that the report was prepared by the firm that subsequently became the receiver. That strongly suggests that there was a link. Had knowledge of that link been available to the lenders of the considerable sums of money involved, the Royal Bank of Scotland would not have been as helpful as it was.
  My anxiety is that by failing to make adequate disclosures Carron was able to carry on trading without the type of effective outside help that would involve a restructuring of management, which might have involved a more direct inclusion of finance. It might have been able to organise the affair in the way for which the Scottish Development Agency and the Scottish Economic Planning Department are ideally suited.
  Following the receiver being called in, the other local Members of Parliament—my hon. Friends the Members for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) and for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing)—and I have received exemplary assistance from the officials of the SDA and the Scottish Economic Planning Department. I recognise also that the efforts of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland have not been inconsiderable.
  It is of great credit to the Scottish Office that it has backed a firm in such regrettable circumstances through the institutions that it has at its disposal. Had sufficient knowledge been available beforehand, the rescue operation that has been mounted with some success would not have been necessary.
  As late as May this year, some 215 jobs were sold from under the workers' feet when the appliances division that made cookers was passed to Cannon Ltd. The transaction went through for about £2 million. The consequent redundancies resulted in my colleagues and I having to approach the Department of Employment as the Cannon management was trying to avoid the requirements and responsibilities of employment protection legislation to give due notice.
  We know of the Carron board's anxiety to ensure that as much of the £2 million proceeds of the sale as possible should go to the banks that had lent the money. That was not possible. We also know that, as late as the end of July, immediately before the receiver was called in, the Royal Bank of Scotland loaned £100,000 to pay for the work force's wages.
  I am extremely concerned that only about 300 people are left of a work force of about 1,100 at the beginning of the summer. The firm has a special place in Scottish industry. In many respects, it is unique. It was credited with starting the first iron foundry in Scotland and to all intents and purposes it established the industrial revolution in Scotland. For many years it was the largest employer

  217
  in central Scotland and the plumes of smoke from the furnaces dominated the landscape. Carron owned coal mines, ships and vast estates. It produced the connonades for Nelson's fleet at Trafalgar and to this day has supplied mail and telephone boxes for post offices throughout the Commonwealth.
  The chairman of the company until the receivership was Mr. Colin Strathearn of Ropner Stroyan, a senior partner is one of Scotland's most distinguished law practices—Brodies of Edinburgh. Its managing director, John Lambie, is a leading Scottish business man, sitting on the boards of some 19 companies. Even after the receivership, he was able to enjoy the backing of the merchant bankers, Noble Grossart, in an attempt to act as an adviser to an interested group which at one stage seemed willing to take over part of Canon. Whether it was due to the Sunday Standard disclosures or no, the Walter Alexander Group of Falkirk decided not to adopt the scheme whereby Mr. Lambie's shares would have been bought out eventually for £100,000, a profit-sharing scheme under which he would have received £10,000 for every £1 million of profit earned by the new company and engagement as a two-day-per-week consultant at £15,000 per annum.
  The individuals involved are no shady fly-by-nights lurking in the undergrowth of the building industry. They are eminent pillars of the Scottish commercial establishment. They enjoy the confidence of the financial community in Scotland. I believe that their standing and the confidence that they enjoyed would have been greatly diminished had the arrangements to which I have referred been more widely known. Their fitness to run and to be responsible for a once-great firm, which until recently employed many of my constituents, would have been questioned and many of the poor people now languishing in the dole queue might still have been in employment.
  I therefore ask the Minister to consider again whether there should be further inquiry into the affairs of Carron. It is my contention that the initial inquiry was superficial. A number of people seem not to have been consulted when the letter that I received was prepared. The information that I have presented today suggests that a deeper examination is justified of the circumstances surrounding the financial circumstances linking Carron with its major customer, Kennedy-Woods. I believe that these matters are worthy of further consideration by the Department because there is great anxiety in my constituency about the name of the firm and the arrangements that were involved, and about the fact that if those arrangements had not been in train the good offices of organisations such as the Scottish Economic Planning Department and the Scottish Development Agency might have been brought to bear at an earlier stage and might have saved more of the jobs and retained the good name—now sadly besmirched—of an important firm in my constituency.
  10.13 pm
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I have listened extremely carefully to what the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. O'Neill) has told the House and I shall certainly study it in the Official Report. I assure the hon. Gentleman that if there are points that the Department should take up we
  218
  shall gladly do so. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern about the company and particularly his concern about the loss of jobs—a concern that we all share.
  When the hon. Gentleman brought his case to the notice of the Department in a letter dated 14 September, as he reminded us today, he enclosed a copy of an article in the Sunday Standard newspaper of 12 September. The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing) had written a similar letter the previous day.
  This well-known company has been operating since a Royal Charter of 1773, and it is a matter of deep concern to everyone—not least the employees, most of whom are constituents of the hon. Member—that poor results in recent years culminated in the appointment of receivers a few weeks ago. I understand that the receivers have been able to sell off at least part of the company's operations and that as a result some jobs at least can be saved.
  The Sunday Standard article alleged that the company had failed to disclose to its bankers and auditors that its major customer, Kennedy-Woods Ltd. of Southampton, which owed the company about £1 million, was effectively controlled by the company itself so that the full extent of its financial difficulties was concealed; also, that an attempt by the receivers to dispose of the company's stainless steel sinks and baths manufacturing division had been unsuccessful because the company's managing director, Mr. John Lambie, had asked for a substantial financial stake and future income which were not acceptable to the potential purchasers.
  The relevant statutory provisions, which would give my Department power to appoint inspectors to investigate a company's affairs, or ownership in certain circumstances, are contained in sections 165 and 172 of the Companies Act 1948. Section 109 of the Companies Act 1967 is also relevant. Briefly, section 165 may be invoked if there are circumstances suggesting fraud, misfeasance or misconduct by or towards the company; or that its affairs have been conducted in a manner unfairly prejudicial to some part of its members; or that members have not been given all the information with respect to its affairs which they might reasonably expect. An investigation of the ownership—shareholders—of the company under section 172 may be initiated by the Department if there is considered to be good reason. Reports of investigations under sections 165 and 172 may be published. That is important.
  Section 109 of the 1967 Act gives the Secretary of State power "at any time" if he thinks that there is "good reason" to require a company to produce books or papers for inspection by an officer of the Department and to provide an explanation of any of them. This section enables discreet inquiries to be made in order to establish whether a full-scale investigation under the 1948 Act is warranted, or other action—for example, a petition for the company to be wound up or the institution of criminal proceedings—is called for. Reports of such investigations are not published, and information thus obtained cannot be disclosed except in the very limited circumstances specified in section 111 of the Act.
  In substance, we have not had sufficiently good reason put to us to justify inquiries of this kind. The report prepared for the company and the bank by Deloittes was private and confidential, and, in the absence of an order for a formal inspection, the Department's officials have no

  219
  power to call for a sight of it. Officials have therefore not requested the report or seen it. The auditors were spoken to after the receipt of the hon. Gentleman's letter of 14 September and before the reply was sent.
  With regard to the allegation that Carron Company Ltd has not disclosed its control of Kennedy-Woods Ltd, Carron's auditors have informed my Department that their close investigations have not revealed any connection between the two companies other than that of supplier and customer.
  Nevertheless, my Department is making use of the powers granted to it by section 173 of the Companies Act 1948 to make some inquiries into the beneficial ownership of Kennedy-Woods Ltd. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that. This section, as amended by section 90 of the Companies Act 1981, provides that where it appears that there may be good reason to investigate the ownership of any shares in or debentures of a company and that it is unnecessary to appoint an inspector it may require any person whom it has reasonable cause to believe to have, or to be able to obtain, any information as to the present and past interests in those shares or debentures and the names and addresses of the persons interested and of any
  220
  persons who act or have acted on their behalf in relation to the shares or debentures to give any such information to the Secretary of State. That is what we are looking into.
  As for Mr. Lambie's position, the sale of the company's assets is a matter for the receivers and not something in which my Department can intervene. I was pleased to note from a newspaper report on 29 September, however, that the receivers have now sold the sinks division, with a consequent saving of 130 jobs.
  I well understand why the hon. Member has raised this issue and it is right that such matters should be ventilated, if only to allay the fears of the work force about their future employment. Unless some new information comes to light—it would have to be substantial—I do not consider that the appointment of inspectors to investigate would be justified and I sincerely hope that the receiver's negotiations to dispose of the remainder of the Carron Company's business assets—and the future trading of new owners—will be successful.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes past Ten o'clock.

DEFENCE
  Royal Ordnance Factories
  Royal Ordnance Factories
NATIONAL FINANCE
  £1 Coin
  £1 Coin
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers (Redundancy)
  Teachers (Redundancy)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Newcastle Disease
  Newcastle Disease
TRADE
  Contraceptives (Report)
  Contraceptives (Report)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Electricity Service (Efficiency Audit)
  Electricity Service (Efficiency Audit)
ENVIRONMENT
  Tenant Management Co-operatives
  Tenant Management Co-operatives
  Local Authorities (Block Grant)
  Local Authorities (Block Grant)
TRANSPORT
  Lorries
  Lorries
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons

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

Mobile Homes Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to make new provision in place of Sections 1 to 6 of the Mobile Homes Act 1975. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

International Transport Conventions Bill [H.L.]
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to give effect to the convention concerning International Carriage by Rail signed on 9th May 1980; and to make further provision for the amendment of Acts giving effect to other international transport conventions so as to take account of revisions of the conventions to which they give effect. 1 beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Bellwin.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Amendment Bill [H.L.]
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable citizens of the Falkland Islands to acquire British citizenship. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Baroness Vickers.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Juries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to disqualify certain convicted persons for jury service. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Wigoder.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

The Queen's Speech

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Debate resumed on the Motion moved yesterday by the Lord Lucas of Chilworth—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
  3.9 p.m.
  The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, it was my privilege yesterday to congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Address for their excellent speeches. Today I rise to make my own speech on the humble Address and the subject of today's debate is, of course, home and social affairs.
  But before I begin my speech I would like to say a word of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who for the first time this afternoon sits on the Front Bench opposite as Leader of the Opposition. He has not been a Member of your Lordships' House for all that many years but I think I can say that in the time that he has been here he has gained the respect and affection of all parts of your Lordships' House. I look forward very much to working with him, and 1 am sure the whole House will wish to join me in wishing him well as the Session begins.
  I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who appears for the first time as Opposition Chief Whip. I hope that, both through the usual channels and at other times, we shall enjoy many discussions on our business. We wish him every success and happiness in his job.
  My Lords, I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Peart. As the House well knows, he has been Leader not only of your Lordships' House, but of another place. I so well recall the time that he came to this House as Leader in 1976. That was not an easy time and I think all of us admired the way in which he learnt our customs and procedures so quickly. He has been Leader of the party opposite in this House for six years. I would like to thank him for all that he has done, not only for the Benches opposite, but for the House as a whole.
  Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Baroness Young: At the general election three years ago the Conservative Party set out clearly the aims and purposes which it would pursue in government. We spoke then of our determination to bring to an end the long decline which our country had suffered at home and abroad in both material and moral terms. Attitudes, particularly, and values had to be reappraised and reshaped not just on the factory floor and in the boardroom, but in the home and in school. Our economic policy plays a very large part in providing a basis for recovery. But the fresh spirit of endeavour, responsibility and initiative that this policy is designed to encourage is by no means limited to that one department of our domestic affairs. It forms a common thread running through all our policies at home.

  21
  The tasks which this Government have set themselves are immense—the restoration of real prosperity, self-respect and stability to our country. None of these tasks is easy. Yet the very size of our task reinforces our determination to succeed. And in pursuing our goals, we carry with us the support of all those, the great majority of our country, who in 1979 showed that they recognised the need for a clear reaffirmation of the standards and values that had for too long been overshadowed and obscured by transient and passing fashions of the last generation which undermined our faith in ourselves. At the last election, we gave high priority to the maintenance of the rule of law. It is all to easy to lose sight of the simple truth that crime is committed by individuals; that acts of lawlessness are not carried out by "environmental and social factors "; nor can responsibility be shuffled off on to the police force or on to the Government. Upholding the law cannot be left to someone else. We believe that all our citizens share a direct personal responsibility for ensuring that the law is respected and maintained.
  It is in that spirit that all our legislation concerned with law and order has been framed. There must be a true and lasting partnership between the community at large and the police force who are not, and never should be, an arm of Government but a part of a wider community, belonging to the people, in tune with the people and drawing their strength from the people. Without such a concept of policing, we shall not have in society that commitment to the law which alone can give us the vital framework that binds a society together.
  We shall underline the importance of mutual confidence between the police and the community they serve in our legislation this Session. The gracious Speech made reference to the Government's intention of bringing forward a Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Its principal sections are based firmly on Part I of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure to modernise the powers of the police, and at the same time to safeguard the rights of citizens.
  The essential task of binding together the police and the community they serve will also be carried forward by the other provisions of this legislation. Where the police are believed, rightly or wrongly, to be at fault in any set of circumstances, grave damage can so easily be done if complaints that are made, whether frivolous or serious, are not dealt with efficiently and authoritatively. In order to strengthen the confidence of the community in its police force, an improved system for handling complaints against the police is to be instituted.
  When the complaint is of a minor character, it is our firm conviction that it should be dealt with as informally as possible, without resort to a huge array of formal regulations. On the other hand, however, when the complaint raises a really serious issue, there is a real possibility that public confidence in the police may be fatally impaired, if justice is not seen to have been done in the clearest possible terms. For that reason, we are proposing that more serious complaints shall be investigated by an independent assessor. The task of the assessor will be, in the words of our recently published White Paper, to ensure that complaints are investigated "expeditiously, thoroughly and impartially".
  22
  The police force needs and deserves public support and public involvement springing from a clear acceptance by the public of its duties and responsibilities. But it needs more than that. If it is to do its job properly, it must have a full and sufficient range of powers to respond to the many problems it encounters. The Philips Commission recommended that gaps which exist in the law at present—for example, in such areas as search and arrest—should be closed. Therefore, the commission's recommendations that the police be given adequate powers to stop and search for offensive weapons and stolen goods will be given effect under the Bill. Furthermore, these new powers will be standardised, taking exactly the same form throughout all areas of the country. And the police will also be given new powers to help them search for evidence where they believe that a serious offence has been committed.
  It is because we recognise what crime means for individuals, for the innocent people on the receiving end, that for this Government the maintenance of law and order will always be among the first of our priorities. Since 1979, we have enormously strengthened the ability of the police force to face the serious challenge of rising crime which Britain, in common with almost every other country, has to tackle. At the same time, we have laid great stress on the contribution that all law-abiding members of the community can make. We inherited a criminal justice system that failed to provide the courts with the wide range of powers that they need to deal adequately with the great variety of offenders—especially young offenders—who come before them. Our criminal justice legislation in the last Session altered the balance. In our legislation this Session, the task of reshaping our system of criminal legislation will be continued.
  The development of rights and duties for members of our community should go hand in hand. In our forthcoming Data Protection Bill we shall be providing members of the community with new rights to protect them against the misuse of information held on computers. We seek to provide reassurance that personal information held on computers will not be abused or misused. It will put the United Kingdom in a position to ratify the Council of Europe Convention on Data Protection.
  The Bill will give effect to the proposals in the White Paper published in April, 1982. It will establish an independent registrar—the key figure in these new arrangements—who will maintain a register of all users of automatically processed personal data (subject to certain exemptions). The Bill will not apply to data held in manual form, and it will be limited to information held about individuals. It will become a criminal offence to use automatically processed personal data without being registered. Through the register, it will become possible to know the extent to which personal data is processed and enable citizens to discover who may be processing data about them.
  The registrar will be charged with the task of ensuring that users comply with certain general principles on data protection which are included in the European Convention. These principles concern the collection, use and disclosure of data, their accuracy and relevance and the measures taken to keep them secure. The registrar will be empowered to issue notices against a user breaching any of these principles, and non-compliance with such a notice will be a

  23
  criminal offence. The Bill will also provide a right for individuals to have access to data held about them, and to have the data corrected or erased if they are held in breach of any of the general principles. In addition, certain new civil remedies will be created by the Bill to enable a person who suffers damage to obtain compensation.
  It is increasingly important that the United Kingdom should make provision for data protection because of the action being taken among our trading partners. Eight European countries now have data protection legislation in force, and two have recently ratified the Council of Europe Convention. In some countries there may develop a reluctance to allow personal data to be sent for processing in any other country which does not have comparable safeguards. The British information technology industry, to which the Government attach such great importance, could therefore suffer if data protection legislation is delayed in the United Kingdom. Thus the Bill has an important role in protecting an aspect of privacy on which there has long been public concern. It has also considerable commercial significance. Once in force it will bring the United Kingdom into conformity with international standards on data protection, will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the European Convention and will safeguard this country's increasingly valuable trade in data processing.
  Many Members will be personally interested in the important National Heritage Bill, which will start in your Lordships' House. This Bill will establish a Commission for Ancient Monuments and Historic Buildings which will assume responsibility in England for a number of functions currently carried out by the Secretary of State for the Environment—in particular the preservation of ancient monuments in the Government's care, their presentation to the public and the conservation of historic buildings and areas by means of grants. The commission will bring together a number of organisations in this field, including the Historic Buildings Council and the Ancient Monuments Board for England, and will provide a central and dedicated voice for conservation. The Government see a major role for the new body in tapping the undoubted goodwill that exists towards this part of our heritage through private donations, sponsorship, voluntary assistance and other means. The new body would also be able to achieve better presentation of sites for educational and recreational purposes, and would be able to use private sector expertise in this area. The National Heritage Bill will also transfer responsibility from Government departments to new independent boards of trustees for the management and control of institutions charged with the care of some other parts of our national heritage—the Science and Victoria and Albert Museums, the Tower armouries and the Royal Botanic Gardens. As a result, they will be brought into line with other national trustee museums in England and Wales, acquiring a more satisfactory framework for their management and accountability. They will thus be better placed to play their part in preserving and extending the fabric of the country's heritage—a resource of great richness and diversity.
  There will also be two Health Bills. One, the Mental Health Amendment (Scotland) Bill, will extend to
  24
  Scotland the new arrangements now in force in England and Wales. The other, the Health and Social Services Bill, will have as its principal objective the introduction of more effective arrangements to permit more care to be provided in the community, rather than in institutions, for groups such as the mentally ill, mentally handicapped and the elderly. It will also provide the best possible services for children, particularly those most vulnerable or at risk.
  This represents an important development of our new approach to community care, which was discussed in our recent consultative document. Here again we are seeking to emphasise the responsibility of individuals by enabling people who do not need to be in hospital to be cared for in the community. We believe that the community should be able to exercise a greater degree of responsibility. Many friends and relations want to look after those in need of help whom they know personally. They must be encouraged and helped to do so.
  The aim of our housing policy has been to give as many as possible a direct stake in the community by owning their own homes. So far over 350,000 council houses have been sold, and over half a million tenants have applied to buy their own houses. Such figures demonstrate the success and popularity of this policy which we now seek to extend.
  Early in the Session we shall be introducing the Housing and Building Control Bill, which will extend the right to buy (already conferred on most local authority and other public sector secure tenants by the Housing Act 1980) to those whose landlord does not own the freehold of their dwellings. It will turn some 50,000 secure tenants of municipal leasehold property along with 80.000 housing association tenants in England and Wales into potential home-owners.
  So far I have talked about the need for individual and collective responsibility within the community. But there is a need for government to be responsible in its own operations, and that means being efficient and giving good value for money. And so I should like to conclude by drawing your attention to a small but significant part of the gracious Speech in which I have a particular interest. This is where it says that the Government "will promote efficiency and good management, especially in their own operations".
  The fact that it is mentioned in the gracious Speech is itself an indication of the importance and priority we attach to improved efficiency and better management throughout the Civil Service as a Government policy in its own right. This task involves identifying, supporting and spreading good management practice and systems in departments, as well as monitoring, questioning and auditing performance in securing them. We have made considerable progress since we took office. But we still have a long way to go. We need to sustain the momentum by building on the work we have done and extending it to new areas.
  First, we shall maintain tight controls over the total resources available. This is essential to provide the spur and pressure for greater economy and efficiency. Thus we shall continue to apply strict cash limits and ensure that our overall target of a Civil Service of 630,000 by 1st April 1984 is met. We are well on course for achieving this.
  Second, we have launched the financial management initiative. This is designed to ensure the

  25
  systematic application of higher standards of financial management across all departments by building on the work which many of them are already doing. The main aims here are to give managers at all levels a clear view of their objectives with appropriate means of measuring whether they are meeting them, coupled with well-defined responsibility for the use of the resources they control and the information they need to exercise their responsibilities. All departments are now drawing up their plans to give effect to this initiative, and these are due to be completed by the end of January next year.
  Third, we shall continue our programme of studies of particular functions and operations of Government. Experience has shown that, in pursuing greater efficiency, there is often no substitute for a detailed on-the-ground look at what actually goes on and why, to see whether it is necessary or could be done in a better way. The aims are to get down to the essentials, to streamline procedures as much as possible and to secure greater value for money and an improved service to the public. Such studies are not just concerned with immediate improvements, important though they are. They are also about bringing in arrangements for the efficient management of the operation in the longer term and contributing to general lessons on best practice which can be disseminated and applied more widely. As I have said, departments do much of this themselves. But we also initiate studies from the centre through our programme of Rayner scrutinies, service-wide reviews and other efficiency studies.
  Fourthly, we are vigorously pursuing the implementation of the completed work. Finally, and very importantly, we are tackling the personnel side of all this. Without the right managers in place and in prospect, we shall fall well short of what we want to achieve. We are therefore developing a more formal system of succession planning in the Civil Service, targetted on getting people with the right skills and experience into key jobs. In making such moves and, in particular, in filling the very top posts in the service, we shall be placing more emphasis on an individual's track record and abilities in management. We are also putting more effort into our arrangements for identifying and bringing on the potential senior managers of the future from amongst our younger and more junior staff. Linked to this is the question of training, where we are expanding our courses in management skills and techniques, particularly in financial management. But I would like to say this. The progress we have made so far is largely due to the civil servants themselves, both in carrying out the programmes I have outlined and in translating them into action on the ground. Future progress will similarly depend in large measure on their efforts, and I know that they will not be found wanting, and we are very grateful to them.
  Some of our political opponents believe that the institutions of the state should direct and control the social and economic affairs of our country. This Conservative Government have a different view. We believe that the state and its citizens should work together in close harmony with a common sense of purpose accepted by both but not imposed from above. Towards the old, the sick and the deprived, the state has a very direct and special responsibility; it must and will be retained. But in our view the state is
  26
  one constituent element—a vital one, certainly—of the wider community with which it must at all times be associated. The state has no exclusive responsibility. It must be shared by members of the wider community who wish to accept and discharge responsibilities for themselves.
  That view of our society has directly influenced the shape and content of the domestic measures announced in this gracious Speech. Those who think that this Government are concerned only with a narrow range of economic questions mistake our fundamental purpose. We seek a new spirit of responsibility and determination throughout the community; only when they have been achieved will the purposes for which we were elected in 1979 be accomplished.
  3.32 p.m.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness the leader of the House for her characteristic courtesy in referring in such amiable and generous terms to my noble friends Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede on undertaking the great offices in Opposition, which I am sure they will conduct with relentless propriety as time goes on. May I also thank the noble Baroness for her appropriately generous tribute, in which we all shared, to my noble friend Lord Peart.
  Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: His service to the state and to Parliament, to the people and to my own party has been quite unique. He has been Leader of both Houses and holder of some of the great offices of state. We owe him a great deal and we rejoice, of course, in the knowledge that he will continue to be among us and no doubt will continue to take part in our future proceedings.
  This is the first day of the debate on the Queen's Speech in its consideration of home and social affairs. We note among the list of distinguished speakers the name of my noble friend Lord Rea, and we all look forward to hearing his maiden speech.
  The paragraphs in the Queen's Speech dealing with home affairs begin:
  "My Government are deeply aware of the anxieties and distress caused by unemployment".
  I have no doubt that that is so; what we find disturbing is how little that concern is reflected in positive steps to deal with the problem. What is said is:
  "My Government will maintain the monetary and fiscal policies necessary to achieve these ends, including continued restraint in public spending".
  The Opposition case, which will no doubt be developed in detail by my noble friends during the economic debate on Wednesday, is that those very policies have in large part been responsible for creating the present deep economic depression and have contributed substantially to creating the continuing rise in the levels of unemployment.
  Overall, we submit that the proposals in the gracious Speech appear to do little to bring relief to the jobless up and down the country. In September of this year unemployment rose to a record 3·34 million people—or 14 per cent. of the workforce. This is the

  27
  highest total ever recorded in the United Kingdom. According to the OECD standardised figures, Britain's unemployment rate is higher and has risen faster during the recession than that of any other major developed country. In the first quarter of this year the percentage out of work in the United Kingdom—then 12·5 per cent. and now 14 per cent.—was far higher than that of Germany at 5·5 per cent., France at 8·2 per cent., Italy at 9·1 per cent. and the United States of America at 8·6 per cent.
  Long-term unemployment is also growing rapidly. The number of people who have been out of work for more than a year rose to more than 1 million in July of this year compared with 627,000 in July 1981 and 364,000 in July 1980. The real job shortage, which takes into account the unregistered unemployed and those kept off the register by short-time working and special job measures, is now more than 4 million and can be expected to continue to rise, according to the forecasts, to 5 million. There are now 31 people registered as unemployed for every notified vacancy.
  The pattern of unemployment is spread unevenly. There are marked disparities between social groups, occupations, industries and regions. Tragically, Northern Ireland consistently has the highest unemployment level in the United Kingdom—now more than 20 per cent. In the North it is more than 18 per cent. and in Wales it is more than 17 per cent. While unemployment is rising faster in manufacturing industry, it is still proportionately higher in the construction industry and related industries. One in four construction workers is unemployed, at a time when housing conditions in some of our big cities are appalling.
  All this is happening while in June of this year manufacturing output fell to its lowest point since 1967. Production of industry as a whole has been stagnant since the beginning of 1981. Sir Terence Beckett, the director-general of the CBI, said on 30th July:
  "Things look decidely worse than they did a few months ago. Bumping along the bottom is no longer a fair assessment of what is happening. The evidence of no upturn is overwhelming".
  I make no apology in a debate on home affairs for emphasising this part of a sombre story because it lies at the root of a great deal of the other problems and difficulties we are facing as a society. Some social groups have proved to be more vulnerable than others. Over past years the number of women unemployed has increased three times as fast as that of men. Incidentally, in this connection I welcome the reference in the Queen's Speech to proposals to amend the law on equal pay, in the light of a judgment of the European Court, and to introduce the concept of equal pay for work of equal value. I am sure that will give particular pleasure to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who indeed does work equal to that of any of us.
  Perhaps even graver than the damage done to the position of women at work has been the damage caused by unemployment to young people. The number of young people under 25 constitute 40 per cent. of the total of jobless. More than a quarter of a million of the young have been out of work for longer than a year. Unemployment among the ethnic minorities has risen even faster than the national average, with dangerous potential consequences.
  28
  Discrimination against job applicants from the ethnic minorities makes the position worse. The resultant racial tensions and feelings of alienation among the young blacks are facts of life which we would be unwise to brush aside or ignore.
  This is a witches' brew. All of those who, like myself, were brought up in working class homes in the '20s and '30s in industrial South Wales will remember unemployment as a grim social evil. It can tear families apart, unemployed father from employed son or unemployed son from employed father. Few things are more destructive of family life than unemployment. Yet the health, security and indeed holding together of the family as a unit is crucial to the sustaining of our society, and above all to that consensus that the Leader of the House was referring to as a hoped-for achievement. Unemployment is humiliating, an affront to a man or woman's self-respect and dignity.
  In the debate on the Address two years ago, at a time when unemployment in Wales stood at 12 per cent.—it is now 17 per cent.—I ventured to draw the attention of the House to the warning given by the House of Commons Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, the majority of whose members, incidentally, were Conservative. It read:
  "The Committee warns Parliament of the risks of serious social disorder if chronic levels of unemployment endure, particularly among the young, and stresses that if condemed to suffer the worklessness of the 1930s Wales is unlikely to respond with the apathy and despair of those days."
  Happily, it is not in Wales that the deplorable outbursts of social disorder, like those in Brixton and Toxteth and other places, have occurred. But the need to heed the warning still applies in Wales, as elsewhere in the country.
  Now I come to the theme of law and order, upon which the Leader of the House very properly concentrated. Already unemployment has made its impact on law and order in our society. As to whether it is justifiable to lay the whole of the blame on the Government is a proposition about which there will obviously be different views in different parts of the House. But may I venture to draw attention to what was said in February 1978, when the Labour Government was in Office. Mr. Whitelaw, the present Home Secretary, said then:
  "There has been a dramatic rise in unemployment among boys and girls. That is the responsibility of this Government."
  No qualifications, no courteous generous possibilities that other factors may have been at work, no world recession, no economic depression over which this country had no full control, were raised. Then this statement continued:
  "Let no one have any doubt about the danger that that has created in terms of crimes of all sorts, violence and vandalism. If boys and girls do not obtain jobs when they leave school they feel that society has no need of them. If they feel that, they do not see any reason why they should take part in that society and comply with its rules. That is what is happening, and wherever we sit in this House that is what we have to recognise."
  At that time there were only 1 ½ million unemployed men and women; today there are more than twice as many. Earlier, in October 1976, Mr. Whitelaw—he is a man of normal generosity—said when both crime and unemployment were even less prevalent than they are today,
  "A Government that cannot protect its own citizens from attack in the streets of its towns and cities, that cannot protect property

  29
  from damage or homes from intrusion has failed to live up to the basic duties of government."
  It was a fierce indictment addressed to those of us who then had the responsibility of Government. But the scene is far darker today. The number of serious crimes committed has increased year by year since this Government have been in office, and it began before that. After the reduction in crime recorded and welcomed in 1977 and 1978, the figures rose from 557,000 in 1979 to 631,000 in 1981. These were serious crimes. At the same time the number of arrests fell, and there was a big reduction in what the police call crimes cleared up, from 119,000 in 1977 to 106,000 in 1981. There was a serious decline in the detection rate.
  Last week the Home Office figures of criminal statistics for England and Wales showed that in 1981 almost 3 million notifiable offences were committed, 10 per cent. up on 1980, and the highest figure recorded since such statistics were first published. The Select Committee of the House on Unemployment, in its report of May 1982, said this:
  "We believe unemployment to be among the causes of ill-health, mortality, crime or civil disorders."
  The Home Secretary recognised that certainly it was a key factor in the volume of crime that was existing in those far less troubled days. The Select Committee added this:
  "From the evidence we conclude that it is unrealistic to confine the costs of unemployment to those which directly affect the economy, to Exchequer costs or to losses of output and personal deprivation. We must seek to include some notional sum to reflect burdens laid on the National Health Service, the social services, the police and the judicial system, not to mention damage to persons and property."
  They estimated an additional charge to the Exchequer amounting to at least some hundreds of pounds for every person employed, that to be added to the cost of keeping men and women on the dole.
  A further problem to which I think it right to refer is that young unemployed offenders are at a disadvantage in getting a job. A vicious circle is created—conviction makes it difficult to get a job; unemployment leads to further offences. Furthermore, perhaps understandably, magistrates are more inclined to pass custodial sentences on young people who do not have a job to go to.
  To turn to perhaps a parallel and certainly relevant matter, I note that the Queen's Speech makes no reference to the crisis in prisons. There are now about 44,000 prisoners. We discussed this festering sore in our penal system at length during the debates on the Criminal Justice Bill. I understand that the Home Office forecasts that on present assumptions the prison population will reach 52,000 by the end of this decade. I shall not traverse again the ground that was covered in debates on the Criminal Justice Bill and the exposure then of the intolerable and inhuman conditions prevailing in so many of the prisons for so many of the prisoners. But I should like to ask the noble Minister, who so nobly bore the heat and burden of the Bill, to tell the House when he winds up whether the Government are to use the power to lower the period which a prisoner must serve before release on parole is possible. It is now 12 months. The exercise of that power could make a contribution, however modest, to relieving the intolerable prison pressures and limit the risks of disorder in our prisons.
  I note the reference in the Queen's Speech to the
  30
  support of the work of the services for the prevention of crime. This touches upon the fact that the major problem of crime is not so much the inadequacy of sentencing power given to the judges and the magistrates—they have plenty, particularly in the matter of fines, since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act—but that criminals are too often confident that they will neither be caught nor punished. The surest way to reduce the crime rate is the certainty of the criminal being detected, caught and convicted. For that the police need as much help from the public as they can get. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who opened the debate, that tackling crime is not just a problem for the police or the courts but for all of us in society—families, schools, churches and voluntary societies. It is a struggle to which we must all contribute.
  We certainly await with interest to learn of the new arrangements for consultation between the police and the community, to which the Queen's Speech referred, and what is proposed by way of reform of the police complaints procedures. One of the difficulties of debating the Queen's Speech is that the Minister knows what the detail of the provisions are, or many of them, knowing the industry of the noble Baroness, but, on the whole, we have to wait and see. But there is probably common ground that too big a gap has grown in many places between the police and the public and it is excellent that a new attempt is now to be made to bridge that gap.
  Before I end I shall refer to one constructive proposal in the Queen's Speech which appears to me and the Leader of the Opposition, as a Welshman, to be a positive proposal to reduce unemployment. That is, the proposed Bill to provide for the construction of a road tunnel across the Conway Estuary, where that great castle was built by Edward I who was, I regret to say, a king that no Welshman ever has loved for reasons of sordid detail that I shall not this day enter into. At any rate, the building of that road tunnel will not only relieve greatly the congestion in the Colwyn Bay-Conway area but will also provide much needed employment there. I hope I may express the wish that preference will be given to the local unemployed.
  In this connection, the Leader of the House referred to the passage in the Queen's Speech about the protection of our cultural heritage. I did not notice any reference to the cultural heritage of Wales or Scotland. They have it. My goodness, they have it in a big way. Therefore, when there is time to deal with equally important aspects of the preservation of our culture, Wales and Scotland are entitled to consideration.
  I end by returning to the theme on which I began. We believe that the only real remedy for the rise in unemployment, poverty and destitution in Britain, and for the increase in crime which has in part resulted, is to take steps to put the unemployed back to work and not to rely on temporary palliatives. We do not accept the attitude of despair that nothing can be done to stem this dark tide.
  3.55 p.m.
  Lord Wigoder: My Lords, my noble friends on the Liberal and SDP Benches would, I know, want me to begin by offering my congratulations to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on their election. They will make

  31
  formidable associates as we attack together from time to time, I hope constructively, the policies of Her Majesty's Government. They will make formidable oppponents as we attack, equally frequently, the policies, or lack of them, of Her Majesty's Opposition. We wish both noble Lords well in their uphill task. We also associate ourselves with the tributes that have been paid to the noble Lord, Lord Peart, who has held such high offices of state, always with distinction, charm and courtesy.
  Perhaps I might at the same time say to the noble Baroness the Leader of the House how grateful we are to her for the indication that she gave yesterday that a number of measures are to be introduced into your Lordships' House. I think she named three. There has now been some elucidation as to what they are. I know that we are all eagerly looking forward to spending many stimulating hours discussing the issues, first, of mobile homes, secondly, of ancient monuments, and, thirdly, of international transport conventions.
  I want to devote my observations this afternoon to two Bills which will be introduced and are foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech, both of which affect, and are affected by, the relationship between the police and the community. I think that that relationship is one of the fundamental issues with which we must deal if we are to create a law-abiding society. Those are the two Bills extending the powers of the police in relation to stop and search and, the other, dealing with the complaints procedures against police officers. I think that it is self-evident that confidence between the public and the police is at a all-time low. The reasons for that, I suppose, are first the comparatively small number but very well publicised cases in which there has been substantial misconduct by police officers relating either to corruption or, sometimes, to perjury and the creation of evidence. Unhappily, the result of that, as anyone who practices in the courts knows, is that there are grave difficulties in persuading juries to accept police evidence unless it is substantially corroborated from other sources. That is one cause of the difficulty.
  The second cause—one must face up to it—is the fact that something of a minor industry has grown up of people who are quite deliberately fabricating complaints against the police, and the media are deliberately publicising those complaints. I have no doubt there is a section of our community who are indulging in that sort of activity because they regard that as a helpful way, from their point of view, of attempting to overthrow one of the basic components of our society. Indeed, there was a particularly bad instance of that only a few weeks ago when one of our more distinguished Sunday papers devoted a vast amount of publicity to an appalling complaint alleging misbehaviour by police officers, which subsequently turned out to be completely fabricated from start to finish. That fact was dealt with by only a small notice in the corner of the newspaper withdrawing totally what had been given such publicity a few weeks earlier.
  The third problem perhaps—I mention it with a little hesitation—is that individual police officers are intelligent, restrained and disciplined individuals, yet when they come together under the auspices of their federation only too often they appear to behave in a way which would arouse the curiosity of any peace-
  32
  loving member of the Manchester United Supporters' Club. These are all issues which I believe must be faced. We must take positive steps—there is no short-term solution—to try to get the atmosphere right as between the police and the public.
  The noble Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report stressed the importance of community policing and in particular of setting up statutory liaison committees between the police and local authorities and local organisations. I know that the Government have taken that message very much to heart and I am delighted that they have done so. I do not think that we should accept that simply to set up a structure of organisation in that way, will in itself solve the problem; it will take many months of very hard work by everybody concerned before we can seriously increase the confidence as between police and public. It will require an on-going programme of contact at all levels between the police and the public, starting I think in the schools and extending outwards and upwards so that we can reach a stage—and we certainly have not begun to do so at present—where the police are accepted by the community as being members of the community and where there will be full, active, happy co-operation between them in the interests of law and order and of combating the increase in the crime rate.
  There is one other way in which I believe that confidence in the police can be very much increased; that is by the Government pressing forward—and I know that they are taking steps in this direction—to consider how an independent prosecuting solicitor service can be set up which will cover the whole of the country, and which will take away from the police the burden that at the moment they have, of not merely investigating offences but also of prosecuting them. That seems to me to place a wholly unnecessary burden—not only a manpower burden, but a burden in general terms—on the shoulders of the police. I doubt whether they want it, and I think that it gives rise to a great deal of mistrust and misconception as between the public and the police. I know that there is a committee sitting at present to consider the extent to which such a national service can be implemented, and it may be that in due course the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to say a little about how that is going. At present the absence of such a system very much sours relationships with the public.
  The stop and search measure that is proposed will require consideration against that background, because if the powers of the police to stop and search are increased in an atmosphere of hostility between the police and the public, it will do nothing but harm. That is why I believe that it is absolutely essential that we get the atmosphere right first, before we begin to proceed to extend those powers.
  I do not think that, in themselves, the proposals to extend the powers can seriously be challenged. Beyond any question the present powers are ineffective. On the last figures which I saw there is no doubt that as regards those cases where people are stopped on suspicion of having stolen property about them, in some 10 per cent. of the cases that turns out to be correct. There is no doubt that on the figures as regards people who are stopped on suspicion that they have drugs in their possession, in something like a third of the cases that turns out to be correct. I do not think that it would be responsible to suggest for one moment

  33
  that those powers could or should be diminished.
  The problems with which I hope the legislation will deal are, first, that the present powers are very patchy—they are not uniform throughout the country and depend very much on local by-laws; and secondly, for what may be reasons of historical accident, although there is power to stop and search for stolen property, for drugs and various other odd things such as stolen birds eggs, that there is no power to stop and search in relation to the possession of offensive weapons, and that I should have thought is clearly a power which ought to be in the possession of the police.
  However, all those powers—and I hope that the legislation will provide for this—must of course be exercised only where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the offence has been committed. It is important, and I hope that the legislation will make it clear, that the test is to be an objective test, decided by the courts, as to whether the grounds were in fact reasonable or not. Obviously, it should not be sufficient for a police officer simply to say, "Well, I honestly believed it". There really must be reasonable grounds decided in an objective way. Thirdly—and again in a sense this comes back to what I was saying earlier—if those powers of stop and search are tidied up and somewhat extended, as I think there is a strong case for doing, then it is absolutely essential that they should, so far as possible, be exercised in a reasonable way and not in an aggressive, bullying or oppressive way.
  The other measure which relates very much to the position as between the community and the police, is the reform of the existing complaints procedure. I think that it is common ground that the great criticism of the present system is the commonly made one that it is only the police investigating themselves. However well they do it—and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that usually they do it very well and very thoroughly—it is quite inevitable that many citizens would take the view that that system is in itself simply not fair. In those circumstances, obviously there must be an increase in the independent element involved. Again, I am a little sorry—and I am reverting back once more to something that I said earlier—that this legislation is coming forward before we have set up our national network of independent prosecuting authorities, because I believe that that would be of enormous assistance and could be worked into the scheme for the investigation of police complaints. At present we shall be very much handicapped by trying to build up such a system without having that assistance by such people.
  I would welcome of course the proposal that the noble Baroness indicated, of maximising the conciliation process between the citizen and the police officer. I can see, too, the force of the suggestion that is apparently going to be made, that some independent supervisor, probably the chairman of the Police Complaints Board, should have an active role in the investigation of the more serious complaints. Obviously that will help. Equally obviously, it will not remove the main grievance of those who allege that it will still be essentially one police force at best investigating the activities of another police force.
  When we reach that Bill we shall no doubt want to give careful consideration to the suggestion that there
  34
  might perhaps be some totally different investigative force and that it should not be police officers who investigate allegations of malpractice by other police officers. I say that we shall no doubt want to discuss the matter because I see at once that there are problems. There are problems as to who will comprise that other investigative force. If it is to be, as is the obvious suggestion, ex-police officers, then perhaps it will not do very much to remove the main complaint that is being made about the present system. I can see that there are problems about resources, too, that will need careful consideration. I can see, indeed, that there will eventually, I suppose, be problems as to who is going to investigate the complaints against the new investigative force as regards the way in which they carry out their duties. I suppose that the process can go on almost indefinitely. These are matters that we shall want to consider when, in due course, that Bill comes before your Lordships' House. But, again, I think it comes back to the situation that the greatest step forward we can take in dealing with the investigation of complaints against the police is to build up the confidence that exists and should exist between the public and the police.
  Just as we have to build up that confidence, so I believe we also have to build up confidence in our trial procedures. I want to conclude by raising very briefly two short matters about that, which I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Elton. First, some five years ago, in 1977, we passed the Criminal Law Act, under Section 48 of which the Minister was given power to make rules by which in magistrates' courts the prosecution evidence would be made available in advance to the defence. This is not only a matter of elementary justice; I believe it is a matter that would save a great deal of expense, because it would mean that a very large number of defendants would not then exercise their right to go for trial. That was five years ago, and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, could indicate that there are prospects of some movement in that direction, at least before the end of the next five years.
  The other matter that I should like to raise again deals with our trial procedure. It is manifestly wrong that criminal cases should be tried by criminals. It is I think clear, first, that in the result it distorts the whole process and, secondly, that the existence on juries of people who would, in ordinary parlance, be called criminals, is an inducement to various people in the course of a case to indulge in what is generally known as jury nobbling, with the most disastrous results. Can the noble Lord, Lord Elton, say whether the Government are proposing to take any steps this Session to bring forward any such legislation—they made noises to that effect only a few months ago—and secondly, if the answer to that is "no", what attitude the Government would take towards a Private Member's Bill, such as, indeed, was the one that, by a happy chance, was introduced only two hours ago into your Lordships' House?
  This is the first effective day of the debate on the Queen's Speech. It does not always happen that we take home affairs first. I think that this is rather more than a happy chance on this occasion. It may be that the measures that deal with home affairs will be the most important and significant ones as we approach this Session. We on these Benches will look forward to

  35
  the introduction of these and to scrutinising them, I hope carefully, sensibly and constructively as the Session goes on
  4.14 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I am sorry to have to disappoint your Lordships that you are not to hear my noble friend and distinguished namesake Lord Rochester, as a misprint on the list of speakers might suggest. I hope that your Lordships will be ready to accept that anyone speaking from these Benches at the beginning of a new Session of Parliament, when the gracious Speech directs our attention to the future, naturally hesitates before first looking back to the events of the summer and to the "silly season" in the media and the press which followed it. But those of your Lordships who have followed the attempts to suggest that Church and state are moving towards a confrontation may even be surprised that I still speak from these traditionally independent Benches and not with my back to the wall on the opposite side of the House. If the Church of England is not the Tory Party at prayer, it is also not the Alliance at Communion or the Labour Party in meditation. The delicate balance that a proper relationship between Church and state requires is certainly not helped if entirely unrelated, if unhappily coinciding, events are magnified out of all proportion to their importance.
  It is no new thing for bishops to be berated by Members of Parliament or for archbishops and politicians to be engaged in lively debate. I recall listening to Archbishop William Temple 40 years ago proclaiming the right of the Church to lay down principles for great corporations of people as well as principles for the government of individual life, and arousing intense hostility in certain quarters. But he, like all the four Primates who have succeeded him, was a zealous trustee of the unique inheritance that is ours in this country in the relationship between Church and state.
  In the era of rapid change, from which no one should expect the Church of England to be exempt, it is quite inevitable that from time to time there should be matters which strain relationship and give grounds for concern. But these are offset by creative developments, such as the very signficant modification in the system of Crown appointments which the leaders of all the political parties and successive Prime Ministers agreed to five years ago in response to the Church's request.
  I believe that we must do everything possible to avoid unnecessary confrontation between Church and state because both Church and state have more important things to do in the demanding days of 1982. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has suggested this afternoon, we are all of us equally involved and concerned in the grievous matter of unemployment.
  There is one area of our national life which—sadly, I believe—finds no mention in the gracious Speech; namely, that of community and race relations (unless it be thought to be covered by the final paragraph referring to the police). I find this particularly sad since the British Nationality Act will come into operation on 1 st January next year and its effect on community relations will call for great care and understanding.
  36
  Your Lordships will recall that we on these Benches did our best to take a full part in the long discussions which preceded the passing of that Act. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury concluded the second speech he made in this House on the Bill with these words:
  "The Churches, for reasons that I have referred to, remain profoundly unhappy about this Bill . . . If, and when, this Bill becomes law, we shall seek to help people to understand it and to claim their rights under it".
  He went on:
  "The test will come in the way in which the legislation is operated. I pray that Ministers, and the officials who operate in their name, will bear this in mind, for this is an area where sensitivity and humanity are desperately needed".—[Official Report, 20/10/81; col. 718.]
  I say at once that we are grateful to the Government for the proposed changes in the Immigration Rules published in the recent White Paper, and particularly for the change that will make it possible for the husbands and fiancés of women who are British citizens to enter Britain for the purposes of settlement. This change will enable such people to pursue their married and family life together in Britain, and it removes the rule which was seen to be discriminatory against women. I hope that the Government will stand by this proposed change and will consider extending the provisions to women settled in this country but who are not citizens. If they do not do this, they will be perpetuating a rule that is discriminating on the grounds of sex, for it does not also apply to men. Moreover, it will be a cause of deep disappointment and no little hardship to a number of women in this category. Indeed, it may put some of their marriages at risk, and surely not only Christians will be concerned at such a threat to the stability of legally and properly contracted marriages.
  I believe that unless these rules are amended they are likely to cause anxiety to minority groups in our country, and not just to those of Asian origin. I would urge the Government to remember that members of the ethnic groups who will have to apply for citizenship are often to be found among the most disadvantaged groups in our society. High levels of unemployment, of people in low income employment and thereby of people affected by poverty, are all to be found in these communities. It will be a matter for great regret if application should be inhibited because of the difficulty of finding the charge of £70 per person payable at the time of application. There is considerable anxiety about this, and I would hope that discretion will be permitted that will enable this charge to be reduced in certain circumstances.
  I hope it is not too late to remind the Government of the Archbishop of Canterbury's hope that the British Nationality Act will be carried out with sensitivity and humanity, and that they will see this as an important contribution to the strengthening of relations between the races in countless communities up and down the land.
  4.21 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, I am most honoured to be given this opportunity to speak so soon after I have taken my seat. Yesterday I listened to the gracious Speech and was relieved in more senses than one, considering my topic, that legislation was to be introduced to improve the health and social services.

  37
  This legislation was outlined by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House just now, and I welcome the fact that the Government intend to strengthen community care because this makes good sense on both economic and humanitarian grounds.
  This afternoon I want to talk to your Lordships about the National Health Service, and about the nation's health—something which you will realise, as I continue to speak, is a rather different matter and dependent upon a lot more factors than simply good health care alone through the National Health Service. Governments tend to be so preoccupied with how to feed this large, voracious beast, the National Health Service, that they have not always been aware of the direction in which it has been going, and perhaps not even sure of the direction in which to lead it in any case. But as health beasts go it has a smaller appetite than comparable beasts of the same species in other developed countries.
  Here I should say that outside this House I have a special interest in health matters in that I am a National Health Service general practitioner working in a busy inner city practice; in fact, I held a normal, full surgery this morning before coming on to the House. I have also worked in a developing country, Nigeria, for about three years looking at the health problems of young children. I have also spent another three years in social and preventive medicine in this country, mainly working in the august institution across the river, looking into the health of whole communities rather than caring for individuals.
  The health problems of the children of Nigeria, where one child in four may die before reaching the age of five, make ours, where only one out of 60 or 70 dies before reaching the age of five, seem perhaps trivial. Nevertheless, things in this country are not as good as they should be. But there is one thing in the health field in this country of which we can be very proud, which is that we have the most useful set of health statistics in the world. A particularly useful aspect of this is the analysis of births, deaths and some illnesses by occupational class. Class I consists of those in professional occupations; Class II, managerial; Class III, skilled; Class IV, semi-skilled; and Class V, unskilled workers.
  Those who scrutinise these returns have noticed that the greatest improvement in health over the past 30 years has been among those at the top of the social scale. In fact, "to those who have shall be given". Those at the bottom have also improved but not so rapidly, so that discrepancy between Social Classes I and V has remained constant and in some cases has even increased during the lifetime of the National Health Service. This disturbing finding has prompted much interest and research and led to the setting up by the last Government of a working party on inequalities in health, of which many of your Lordships will have heard, though you may not have been able to read its report because it has been difficult to obtain. It was only printed in mimeograph form and in the first place a relatively small number of copies were printed. It is also very expensive at £8.
  Because of the considerable interest in this document, however, a Pelican paperback edition has now been printed on the instigation of some of the members of the working party. It was chaired by Sir Douglas Black, the president of the Royal College of
  38
  Physicians, with three other eminent academics; one a professor of social medicine, another a professor of social administration, and the director of the Social Science Research Council. They reported in April 1980 with this impressive document, which has 400 pages and contains 234 references to learned works on this topic. This report has become known as the "Black Report" after its chairman. The Minister of Health at the time did not welcome the report, which is a pity since it is a remarkably helpful document which should be welcomed by those of all parties, or none.
  I should like to give your Lordships a few examples from the report. Here you must bear with me because I am afraid I am going to give some statistics. I should have liked to be able to use some visual aids here, but I am afraid the only visual aids that seem to be available in your Lordships' House are spectacles. This country has fallen from the eighth to the 15th position in the world with regard to the infant mortality rate, commonly used as a most useful statistic for measuring the health of nations; that is, the number of children who die within the first year of life for every thousand that are born. This fall from the eighth to the 15th position took place between the years 1960 and 1978. Your Lordships may be interested to know that Hong Kong and Singapore have now overtaken us. Japan has been ahead of us for some years.
  From 1930 to 1970 the infant mortalitv rate in Social Class I fell from 32 per 1,000 to 12 per 1,000 live births. In Social Class V the rate fell from 80 to 31 per 1,000 in the same period. The ratio between the two groups has remained constant; in fact it has slightly increased from 2·5 to 2·6. In Sweden the infant mortality rate for the country as a whole is very similar to that which prevails in Social Class I in this country, and there is little difference between the occupational groups in that country. It is thus clear that the way back to achieving our former leading position is to decrease infant deaths in the lower social groups.
  It is not only with young children that the inequalities are to be found. Mortality rates among adults show a similar contrast. For example, among men of working age between 25 and 44, those in Social Classes IV and V—semi-skilled and unskilled workers—had a mortality rate 45 per cent. higher than those in the professional and managerial classes in 1950. But in 1970 they had a rate 85 per cent. higher than those in Social Classes I and II. In this period the mortality rate for those in the top two social classes fell by 30 per cent., but those in Social Classes IV and V by only 15 per cent. This pattern is found not only with deaths as a whole but with many individual causes of death, in particular with diseases of the respiratory system, cancer and accidents, where the social class gradient is even greater. Rates for serious disabling illness not resulting in death show a similar pattern, with many more manual workers having to take early retirement on health grounds than in Social Classes I and II.
  The causes of these persisting differences are complex but are analysed carefully in Sir Douglas Black's report. Unequal distribution and use of health care is important, but it is only part of the story. The root causes go further back—to the social circumstances in which people live and work. Those of us

  39
  fortunate enough to be in the professional classes eat better quality food—not more, but better—smoke less, live in better heated and ventilated homes, in nicer, less polluted districts, and we have more resources with which to care for our children. We also have more pleasant places in which to work and are less likely to be exposed to poisonous fumes or dusts, (although sometimes we may have a hot air problem in this House.)
  There are important differences in the use of the National Health Service by the different occupational classes. Manual workers and their families more often land up in hospital, which is scarcely surprising since they carry a larger burden of serious illness. However, they make no more use of general practitioner services despite their greater need and they make considerably less use of the preventive services. This is not due to stupidity and fecklessness but because powerful social factors prevail against their making full use of the services available and make them persist in habits which are socially acceptable within their own group. In addition, it is true that the services are less easy to obtain for those in working-class areas. Here I quote a colleague, Dr. Julian Tudor Hart, who works in a South Wales former mining village; (the mine has been closed). He wrote:
  "In areas with most sickness and death, general practitioners have more work, larger lists, less hospital support and inherit more clinically ineffective traditions of consultation than in the healthiest areas, and hospital doctors shoulder heavier case loads, with less staff and equipment, more obselete buildings and suffer recurrent crises in the availability of beds and replacement staff. These trends can be summed up as the 'Inverse Care Law'—that the availability of good medical care trends to vary inversely with the need of the population served".
  That was written in 1971 and it is possible that things have improved a little since then, but the general statement still applies, and my own experience bears this out.
  There is a need for much more information on these matters, both on the social and environmental causes of illness, about the use of the health service by various sections of the community, and one of the recommendations of the report is that much more research should be funded. The report ends with a set of imaginative and practical plans for action under three headings. The first is that children should have a better start in life. This includes an improvement in the child allowance, provision of school milk and meals for every child as a matter or right and incereased preschool provision, and there are other useful recommendations for children.
  The second is that disabled people should be able to improve their quality of life and be less dependent on institutional care. For that reason I welcome the remarks of the Leader of the House about the Government's proposed legislation. The aged are not mentioned as such, but are included in this category of the disabled, since most old people are perfectly able to manage on their own resources; it is only those who are disabled, physically or mentally, who need help. They do not need help because they are old but because they have a higher proportion of disability. By the time the age of 75 is reached, about 25 per cent. of the population can be classified as disabled.
  The third heading proposes that more preventive and educational action should be promoted. Again, practical examples are given as to how this should be
  40
  done. In all, there are 37 recommendations. If all of these were to be adopted, the package would indeed be expensive—upwards of £2 billion per annum—which is one of the reasons the Government gave for taking no action on the recommendations of the report. But, as the authors are at pains to point out, the measures could be introduced in phases, and in any case, 20 of the 37 recommendations would not require additional funds and a number of others could be achieved by diverting resources.
  I commend this document, which not only demonstrates clearly the health problems we in this country face but explains their multiple causation and sets out a battery of practical measures to cope with them. It is by bringing measures such as are outlined in the report to the attention of Government that Parliament is most likely to be able to improve the quality of life and decrease the unhappiness of many thousands of people on whom we depend for our basic comforts; in other words, to turn a disabled. Disease Service into a true National Health Service.
  4.36 p.m.
  Lord Perry of Walton: My Lords, it is my first and pleasant duty to congratulate, on behalf of noble Lords in all parts of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on a very notable and erudite maiden speech. It is a particular pleasure for me to welcome another medical man into this House and to note the happy coincidence that I am welcoming another medical man who shares with me experience in Nigeria. I am sure we all look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
  In undertaking to speak for my party in today's debate, I confess that I found myself in some difficulty, for the gracious Speech sets out aims in the fields of home and social affairs that are, for the most part, unexceptionable. Who could possibly cavil at the proposal to introduce legislation to enable improvements to be made in the health and social services', or to modernise police powers; or to protect personal information held on computers? And who, indeed, for centuries has not remained,
  "determined to create conditions for a peaceful and prosperous society in Northern Ireland"?
  Even after the explanations offered by the Leader of the House, we still do not know the details. One can criticise such laudable aims only if one assumes that the Government will try to implement them in unacceptable ways. I shall not criticise the aims at all, but I must make it clear that my restraint does not stem from a belief that the Government will come forward with wholly acceptable proposals. They have given little indication in the past that that is probable. Rather does my restraint stem from a belief that to attack hypothetical situations is always a mistake; it leads to confrontation that may turn out to have been unnecessary.
  We have far too much confrontation in our lives already. Politics always involve some confrontation. In the equivalent debate on the Address last year, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
  "There are times when the electors must choose between mutually exclusive alternatives and not seek a fudging of issues or a meaningless compromise between them".
  Of course that is true. Certainly there are such times. But we must not run away with the idea that because there are some such times, there are necessarily many

  41
  such times. I contend that, in most cases, issues are not fudged by seeking a meaningful compromise between alternatives. However apparently irreconcilable two attitudes may seem, rational exploration often reveals larger areas of agreement between them than the areas of disagreement.
  The public has not seen either from Conservatives or Labour much evidence of such rational exploration. They are tired of mindless confrontation and they are bewildered by it, and that is why they rallied to the vision of the Social Democratic and Liberal Alliance. Last year in the speech from which I quoted, the Lord Chancellor was able to poke fun at the Alliance, and at the Social Democrats in particular, when he said:
  "I do not think it is a coincidence that they have achieved these successes without a leader, without a policy, without a party and are thus admirably placed to follow the divine injunction to be all things to all men".
  At that time we had offered a vision of sweet reasonableness. It may not have been all things to all men, but it was certainly a great deal to a great many who were tired and bewildered by confrontational politics.
  Things have changed in a year. We now have a leader, we have a constructive policy spelled out in great detail, we have a party. During the year we have been indulging in introspection, and the vision that we offered has misted over a little for lack of time to polish it—if one can polish a vision. But I give warning that we in the Alliance have raised our eyes from the contemplation for a year of our own navel and that we shall be polishing away at our vision, so that it shines out brightly once again, as it already shows signs of doing.
  And how badly society needs sweet reasonableness and tolerance! In these days of instant communication it sees the mindless and violent intolerance and cruelty of unholy holy wars; it sees the violent intolerance of minority groups campaigning for apparently worthy causes; it sees the intolerant violence of football crowds and of players; and, I fear, it listens to the increasingly violent intolerance of debates in another place.
  The media thrive on violence and on confrontation. It is also regrettable that all too often when they do try to provide reasoned debate, they still end up with confrontation. They never have enough time for rational argument. It is easy and quick to make an assertion—however outrageous. It takes a very long time patiently to refute step-by-step any assertion, and it often takes longer the more outrageous has been the assertion. So since there is not any time to refute, the only available answer becomes an equally outrageous counter-assertion; and we end up with more confrontation.
  More and more people have become weary of it all and long for someone to show them a middle course, a sensible compromise. It is in this spirit that for a moment I should like to look at the one issue that dominates—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said—all home and social affairs: unemployment. As the gracious Speech makes clear, the Government are of course,
  "deeply aware of the anxieties and distress caused by unemployment",
  and undoubtedly seek,
  "a lasting reduction in the numbers out of work".
  42
  So do we all.
  But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, spent a long time pointing out, and apportioning blame for, the public also knows that in tackling the problem of inflation, the Government deliberately chose as one of their tactics to let unemployment rise. On the other hand, the Labour Party promises to reduce unemployment by enormous increases in public spending. But the public already knows that that must promote further runaway inflation.
  Neither party will admit that there is any solution other than the one that it advocates. However, in a report entitled, Back to Work, the Alliance has produced a policy that is a constructive compromise between the two apparently irreconcilable extremes. There is no slick slogan that can be invented to describe that policy. It is very difficult indeed to explain it in simple terms, because it involves a complex series of steps. But we believe that the electorate is sufficiently sophisticated to get the message. It is a public that is certainly fed up with slick slogans.
  Let me end by looking still a little further ahead. While I wholly endorse the short-term policy in Back to Work, I think that we are all—in every party—working against a longer-term trend that is quite relentless. Technology and automation will progressively reduce the amount of work that has to be done, even for greatly increased output. That will be true of both the productive and the service industries.
  In the long run we shall have to redesign society in a radical way. For example, if there is full-time work for only half the workforce, society cannot tolerate a situation where half the people work full-time and half remain perpetually unemployed. It is barely tolerating the current situation in which one in seven is unemployed. In those circumstances, we must find a way—possibly by later recruitment and earlier retirement, by job-sharing, or by other means—whereby all the workforce work for half the time. It is a challenge that we shall have to meet—and have to meet soon. We, too, shall await with great interest the detailed plans of the Government to implement the aims set out in the gracious Speech. Until then we shall reserve our judgment, while commending the aims.
  4.46 p.m.
  The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this afternoon I should like to offer my apologies to the noble Lords who are set to follow me in the course of the debate. I am in somewhat difficult domestic circumstances through illness and must be home by six, which means that I must leave here at about a quarter past five. I shall not be able to stay throughout the course of the debate, but I can assure those who are to follow me that tomorrow morning I shall read their contributions in Hansard with double attention.
  I have always thought that this Chamber is increasingly becoming a life senate of the professional classes, and what an admirable addition thereto is represented by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, whose maiden speech I listened to with the very greatest of interest, albeit with some apprehension, because having looked him up in Who's Who, I realised that he would be talking about medical affairs, which is what I, too, was going to address your Lordships about. But mercifully our two speeches are complementary, and

  43
  there will be no cause for either of us to disagree with the other when I have sat down.
  I wish to refer to the difficulties that the Government at the moment are in over the pay policy regarding the National Health Service. I feel that I speak with some knowledge of the matter because in 1974—that is, eight years ago—it so transpired that I was chairman of the Doctors' and Dentists' Pay Review Body, and at the same time was asked to take on the chairmanship of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry into pay of nurses and midwives in the National Health Service.
  No sooner had that started, than Mr. Clive Jenkins put on his devil mask and started dancing around, making fierce noises at the Government and calling strikes in hospitals among the professions supplementary to medicine. So I was asked to take on that, too, and for a brief period I had the entire salary structure of the National Health Service under one hand. If I occasionally speak in the first person singular, it is not the indulgence of vanity, but is for the avoidance of prolixity. I cannot explain from moment to moment as I go on just exactly how the work was divided between myself and my colleagues, all of whom had different terms of reference in the three different types of inquiry. It was of course a collective effort by people who were working closely together and who were unanimous on all issues.
  The tempo of the investigation into the nurses, midwives and professions supplementary to medicine was formidable. The Secretary of State was a lady who does not take '"No" for an answer, and when she said that she wanted the answer yesterday, I realised that there was only one way to give her what she wanted. That was to give up our holidays, if the committee was willing to do so, and dedicate them to the nurses, midwives and paramedical staff in the National Health Service. That we did, and the knowledge that we had done so went through the service like wildfire. Wherever we went—we visited about 50 hospitals in the course of the August holidays—the news that at last they were being visited by somebody with power to recommend something that the Government had pledged themselves to accept, raised morale through the service as nothing else could have done.
  Time and again we were told by the nurses, "Never before have we been visited by anybody with power to do anything or listen in an effective way to what we have to say. Yes, we get Royal visits when a new wing is to be opened. Yes, it's delightful to see members of the Royal Family. Yes, we get ministerial visits, and it's delightful to know that Ministers realise that we exist. But nothing ever happens as a result of all this".
  Let me give your Lordships an example of the kind of nonsense that we found out in this egg-bound bureaucracy that we were investigating. I refer to only one hospital. It had two nurses' hostels. One was built approximately in the period of the Boer War, the other was built after World War II, and so the architecture and styling of each was quite different. Because of that it was felt appropriate that the toilet paper issued to the nurses in the two hostels should be different, and that one should represent the toilet paper of the Boer War and the other the modern, tissue toilet paper. Nobody could accept the fact that you were dealing with nurses with a common training and with a common pay scale. Death is said to level all men, and you would
  44
  think that the loo did the same—but not a bit of it. If you are a nurse, it depends on the particular hostel in which you are living. There is a tradition that what passes between public servants and Ministers within the four walls of a private office should remain private, and I will not tell you what the Secretary of State said when I reported this to her as a matter of fact.
  The first thing you have to do when tackling a problem of this kind is to try to get an approximate scheme of differentials and then start fixing it into other differentials. You have a certain latitude here. You look at the pay of doctors, and you look at the pay of nurses and midwives. You obliterate the distinction between nurses and midwives, as we did; and you have, as it were, a certain amount of latitude, because it is right, I think, that an experienced ward sister should earn more than a junior houseman. Eventually, he will catch up and overtake her, but the actual age and date at which he does that builds a little element of elasticity into your judgment.
  The next thing you have to cater for is the teaching salaries in colleges of higher education, because sooner or later you must provide some nurses, at their salary levels, with an incentive to leave the practice of nursing and enter the practice of teaching other nurses how to nurse. So you have three scales that you have to work into one another. I was lucky in that my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby was engaged in an investigation into the salary scales at colleges of higher education at the same time as I was doing the nurses and midwives, and because we were working through the same secretariat, the office of manpower economics, we were able to correlate all this in a satisfactory way. I am very glad to see that the noble Lord has joined us. I do not know whether he heard me pay him a compliment a moment ago, but I hope it was a satisfaction to him. We do not always agree, but on this occasion we worked together very harmoniously indeed—and not for the first time.
  Finally, you have to choose how you are going to level-peg this structure that you have built up into the salary structure of the rest of the community. This is an act of judgment. You have to look at a lot of job descriptions, and at some level in the hierarchy that you are trying to settle you have to ask: How does this compare with some other profession altogether? What is the justice of all this? We decided, after looking at many professions other than nursing, that we would do justice if we equated a ward sister in a hospital with a station sergeant in the police force.
  It took us a lot of time and trouble to reach this equation, but we felt it was right; and it gave universal satisfaction. There was not a single complaint by the police that, "If that is what you pay the nurses, we want some more for ourselves". No; they were content. The nurses got a rise out of all proportion to anything they had ever had before, and they were content. In addition, the public were delighted that we had come up with a solution that seemed to make sense. Having done this, I had to give some informal advice to the machine that had inspanned me into it and say, "The mess I have got you out of is one that you will get back into unless you reform the entire system".
  The reason we got it right is that we were independent of the Treasury, and the Government had pledged themselves to abide by what we said. The

  45
  reason the thing is wrong now, that it has gone wrong again, is largely because of the attempt to use the Whitley Council system, which is designed for one purpose, to settle salaries in the National Health Service, which are an entirely different problem because the National Health Service is a man of straw in between the hospital staff and the Treasury. It is exactly like a Dickens novel. The great task of the Treasury is to say, "No", nicely. They are the only body of men in the country dedicated to the proposition that Her Majesty's Government should spend less. Everybody else wants them to spend more provided they spend it on their pet hobby, and the Treasury is there to say, "No". Alas, they get into the frame of mind where they do not care what you do not spend money on so long as you do not spend it; and from time to time this lands them in trouble, and the nation with them. They are an admirable body of people without whom we would all be bankrupt, but this particular matter must be taken out of their hands.
  Ever since we equated the nurses with the police force the nurses have gone steadily backwards and the police have gone steadily forwards. One reason for this is the importation into the police structure of the concept of the X factor. If you are stormed at by shot and shell you have a high X factor, and it is thought that you should be paid more in peacetime because of the hazards you may be running in wartime. If, instead of being stormed at with shot and shell, you have beer bottles filled with petroleum and pieces of cotton wool being thrown at you, so that your clothes catch fire, then again, you have a high X factor.
  But nobody thinks about the X factor of the nurses. What about the haematological unit that was wiped out in Edinburgh through virus hepatitis as a result of having to treat patients with infected blood? What about bubonic plague in Birmingham University? Has anybody looked at the X factor for nurses? No. They had better inspan Sir Harold Atcherley, who understands all about X factors and has been doing the armed forces of the Crown for years and years, and get him to have a look at the X factor for nurses and put a figure on it.
  I have reached the end of my 10 minutes, and think I have said as much as I want to say, with one exception. Let us have a look at what has happend to my equation. The figure in those days for a police sergeant and a ward sister was £3,000 a year. That was the equation. The present figures for a police sergeant, minimum and maximum, are £8,493 and £9,744, and for a ward sister they are £6,050 and £7,756. Relatively speaking, they have gone back to before the mess I got the Government out of eight years ago, and the Government are now in the mess which I predicted they would get into unless my advice was followed, the Whitley Council system was abolished and some kind of independent review body was introduced.
  The question now is how to finance all this. The Government are committed to economy and to no pay rises. I have no sympathy at all with purely inflationary wage claims enforced by industrial muscle. I have every sympathy with wage claims consequential upon the injustice that they produce . The Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he is a hawk—and I hope he is—has a perfectly simple remedy for all this, which is to put a whacking surcharge on the National Health stamp payable by the employee, not by the employer, as a
  46
  deduction to finance proper pay for the nurses. That is the remedy the Government have in their power if they choose to use it, and I hope they will.
  4.58 p.m.
  Lord Ferrier: My Lords, there are two particular mattters arising out of the gracious Speech to which I seek to draw attention tonight. The first is in regard to the proposed measures to reform the Telegraph Acts, read with the paragraph in the gracious Speech referring to the improvement in social services. Some of your Lordships may recall that in March 1977, in a debate on an Unstarred Question, I urged that the telecommunications authorities review their policy regarding installation and standing charges. These two gravely concern the aged and the retired and handicapped people who may live at a distance from a village or the like—the shops, a post office, the doctor, et cetera. Let me refer to the cases that I have in mind as "granny up the glen".
  The virtual disappearance of public rural transport, the high cost of petrol and the absence of regular contact with tradesmen's vans, et cetera, have meant (and we have said this several times in this House in the last month or two) that the telephone is today's lifeline. Since that debate some years ago the telegram has disappeared. One cannot send a telemessage unless one has a telephone; yet the cost of installing a telephone is very, very substantial—the more so the further one gets away from civilisation.
  I have urged in correspondence with the Government, that financial assistance should be made available so that this form of deprivation is minimised. Their reply has been that, whereas Telecom services should be priced at levels related to the cost of supply, there is a provision in the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 for local authority social services to help in cases of need.
  It seems to me—and I imagine that a number of your Lordships on all sides of the House will agree—that this is no longer good enough. When the telephone service is knocking up profits on the scale that exists today, I suggest that considerations which the gracious Speech forecast should accept that. As matters have developed since 1977, a new opportunity now presents itself to bring the telephone, today's lifeline, within the reach of everybody. Indeed, the debate to which I referred is deserving of study for various technical reasons if only for the informed speech by my noble friend Lord Redesdale with his comparisons with what happens in other countries in the world. I beg to contend that the forecast from the gracious Speech that there will be legislation to enable,
  "improvements to be made to the health and social services",
  must contain some arrangements to meet this need.
  It is not only in the field of installation charges that the telephone is out of the reach of "granny up the glen". The standing charge structure must be changed because, as it is, it bears more and more heavily upon the user who makes fewer and fewer calls. It must be changed because it bites so hard. The telephone which is used only on occasions is very expensive to use and sometimes, one must remember, such an occasional call may be a lifeline one. Ask the doctor; ask the police; ask the electricity supply people. They all know what it means. I was talking to a noble Lord opposite who is extremely knowledgeable on the problem of

  47
  social services and, in supporting what I am saying, he said, "Do not forget that there may be an economy in seeing to it that potential invalids have the telephone available to them; for there may well be an occasion when, not having a telephone, they may find themselves involved—and involving the state—in expense quite beyond what may arise from this provision".
  My Lords, so much for that. The other matter that I have in mind comes under the heading:
  "Other measures will be laid before you".
  I want to know what is going to be done to insist that the broadcasting services report the proceedings of Parliament adequately and impartially to the people. This is a necessary commitment, in my view of the world we live in, if Parliamentary democracy as we know it is to be sustained today. As one who has for years supported the "Today in Parliament" and "Yesterday in Parliament" programmes broadcast on radio under the obligation imposed upon the BBC by the terms of its licence and agreement, I have been amazed at the sudden change which took place only a week or so ago whereby "Yesterday in Parliament" is no longer a programme on its own. It used to come on at 8.35 a.m. and last for something like 25 minutes—admittedly a few minutes less than "Today in Parliament", but nevertheless a substantial period at a fixed time. But now it is no longer at a fixed time. It is merged with the "Today" programme, which has a chatterbox character of its own far removed from the serious task which Sir John Reith visualised in the years gone by. It is similar to what traders call a "loss leader" in a general store. This morning the parliamentary section started at 8.37 and ran for 15 minutes. Coverage for the two Houses was very fair, but it was only 15 minutes; and it had been a busy day. The other day, just before the end of the Session. I timed it at 14 minutes, of which 10 minutes went to the Commons and four minutes to the Lords. We had had a busy day the previous day and the only reference made to this House was a useful and interesting Answer by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale to a parliamentary Question but there was no reference to the debate that we had carried on.
  But that is not the point. It is an altering of the system which has worked fairly well for years to which I feel we ought to draw attention. Has this change arisen from the new incumbent of the "throne" at Broadcasting House? Is it realised that whereas "Today in Parliament" has a limited rating due to it being broadcast at the late hour of 23.30, "Yesterday in Parliament" used to attact a rating of more than one million listeners—far more than ever were attracted to "Today in Parliament". This is because "Yesterday in Parliament" attracted commuters, it attracted women in their kitchens, it attracted all those, whereas there are many who like to be in bed by eleven at night.
  My Lords, I should like to know—and I think we are entitled to ask—whether the usual channels had been consulted before this change was made. Do they approve? Have they any powers, in any case, to ensure that the BBC interprets its obligation in a matter satisfactory to the Secretary of State? It is because I have these questions in mind that I mention this matter in connection with the gracious Speech, where, if other people agree with me that this is a matter of
  48
  very grave importance in terms of supporting our parliamentary democracy as we know it today, opportunities may arise to consider whether such powers might be established. I am not talking about censorship. Far from it. That is quite another matter—although, of course, the BBC operates its own censorship. But I will not go into that.
  My contention is that the arrogance of the BBC should be controlled. I use the word which the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, used not only in his speech on 9th December last year but on 20th May this year—an attitude which eventually culminated in the now famous scene where Her Majesty's Minister of Defence was compelled to walk out on the redoubtable Sir Robin Day, throwing his "mike" on the table. My patient, tolerant wife said: "Robin deserved that". That was her comment. However, that may be another matter and we may hear more of it in the debate on Tuesday. But how dare journalists take on themselves as of right to hector other citizens? In saying that, I wonder how some journalists—particularly the photographers—dare go on the way they do interfering with the life of ordinary people?
  Has anyone ever heard a BBC interviewer call a Minister of the Crown, "Sir"? I have not. Is there any wonder that people say: "I never listen to BBC television news now; I have changed to ITV"? Ever since I crossed swords with the late Lord Normanbrook on the broadcasting of Parliament I have been in trouble with the BBC. However, I shall not be surprised if this problem of the news media comes up again before the debate on Her Majesty's gracious Speech is concluded.
  5.11 p.m.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should first of all like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Rea on an extremely interesting maiden speech. It brought great knowledge to one, at any rate, and luckily also for me bore some relation to what I am going to say. When one starts to think about what is fundamental to a debate on home affairs, surely one immediately thinks of the family—the family unit—which, after all, must be the ultimate focus to all home policies. Remembering, as I am sure we all do—and will never forget—the claim of the Government before their election of being the party who championed the rights of the family, we had every justification in waiting to see what there would be in the gracious Speech for this country's least favoured families.
  Now we know that we waited in vain. There was no mention of either the family or indeed the child throughout the gracious Speech. We ask ourselves whether this could be because the Government feel that all is well with Britain's families. If that is so, I should like to take the opportunity of this debate to try to point out that this indeed is not always the case. As so many of your Lordships know, there is undeniable proof of the plight of many families in this country today. Evidence of this comes from all those social workers and those organisations concerned with family problems, and the final confirmation of the continued and increasing existence of these cycles of deprivation comes from the findings, recently published under the title of Despite the Welfare State, of a research programme into aspects of deprivation carried out over the past 10 years by the Department

  49
  of Health and Social Services and the Social Science Research Council.
  So may I point out to your Lordships how in my view Government policies are failing to accommodate changes in the family structure, while pointing out what I feel are some remedial actions that could be taken to relieve the plight of some of the children in the categories of families which are suffering most at the moment. First, do the Government really recognise what constitutes a family these days? Do they realise that in ever-increasing cases the sterotyped family group consisting of the breadwinning father, the full-time housewife mother and at least two or three residing young children is entirely misleading in contemporary Britain? Instead, a majority of family households in Britain now consist of other combinations: couples (married or unmarried) without accompanying offspring; single-parent households; dual worker families; no-worker families and a variety of kinds of "reconstituted" families.
  So, what provision, I wonder, do the Government make for these new categories of families. I also wonder whether their social policies are really focused on the true needs. First, I should like briefly to look at the one-parent family and see how it is faring. Sadly, the number of one-parent families in this country has now risen to nearly 1 million. Out of these, nine out of 10 are headed by a lone woman. Ever-increasing numbers of separations and divorces account of course for a very great number of these families. England and Wales have the highest divorce rate in the European Community, and present trends indicate that one in three marriages in the United Kingdom will end in divorce. Another group of single parent households is headed by widows and a further group is headed by young mothers who elect to stay single to bring up their child or children.
  The children coming from all these categories of families will undoubtedly suffer in varying degrees from greater financial restrictions than other families. The children of young, single mothers are the most likely to suffer from extreme deprivation, bad housing and child abuse, while running the major risk of being put into care. But the weight of evidence suggests that the children of separate and divorced parents suffer considerably from anxiety and emotional upset brought on by their parents' conflict and the disruption of their home. These children often feel alone and very frightened. Indeed, one of the tragedies of divorce is that, although it dissolves marriage, it does not dissolve parenthood.
  So what can be done to counter some of the cruel effects of divorce on the major victim, who is of course the child? In my view, there is overwhelming evidence that one important framework to operate in the interests of the child is the conciliation service. In the first place, embattled couples are sometimes actually reconciled through these services. But failing this, the conciliation services play a crucial role in effecting a smooth transition from marriage to divorce and to single parenthood. In the interests of the children the service provides invaluable advice on custody, access and maintenance, and so on. Finally, from an entirely practical and economic point of view, these services in many cases avoid the expensive legal confrontation which is so harmful to all those
  50
  concerned and which costs the taxpayer so much.
  On the question of conciliation services, I should like to ask the Government whether a decision has yet been taken as to the publication of the report by the Interdepartmental Committee on Reconciliation. The Solicitor-General, in a Written Answer to a Question in another place in June, said that no decision had yet been taken. But with the ever-growing scale of divorces the Government should allow publication of this report to enable public debate on the proposed measures to take place.
  On another more precise and urgent point, I should like to ask about the future of the Bristol courts' family conciliation service, which is threatened with closure at the moment. Would the noble Lord not agree that, with the present scale of divorce and the fact that this scheme is not intended to be parochial but more to serve as a prototype for the development of conciliation services nationally, it should be safeguarded? In 1981 one in six of the cases referred to this Bristol service moved from conciliation to reconciliation even though in many cases solicitors were filing divorce petitions at that time. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that that is a very impressive record. What can be the purpose of closing a service which is in some cases saving marriages and in others helping to bring about civilised divorces with the minimum pain and upset for the children, and in all cases avoiding the astronomically expensive legal confrontation between warring spouses? May I put it to the Government that the recommendation in the Finer Report most helpful to the interests of the children involved, though disregarded by successive Governments, would be the one regarding family courts and the establishment of a national conciliation service funded by central Government. The scale of present divorce and the ensuing pain to children demands a new structure such as this in which to try to deal with the problem.
  Regarding economic benefits to one-parent families, with the exception of widows the lone mother seems to lose out all round. The system fails to provide for her situation. If she goes out to work and earns more than £12 a week, she will lose her supplementary benefit and if she stays at home, thus denying herself the important remedial and therapeutic effect that a job has on a lone parent, then there is no real financial recognition in tax or benefits of her vital role in child rearing.
  Surely, in order to remove the disincentive to earn provided by supplementary benefit and in order to stabilise these family incomes a little, it should be recognised that all one-parent families have a special financial need and they should receive one-parent family benefits, non-contributory and non-means-tested, and in line with widowed mothers. This would remove some of the dangers of falling into the poverty trap, would provide some small measure of security, and would also leave undisturbed the incentive to go out to work and in this way somewhat redress the balance for all the children involved. At the present time there are 392,000 one-parent families, involving 660,000 children who are dependent on supplementary benefit. Thus, there are getting on for three-quarters of a million children in this country who suffer the penalty of having a lone parent.
  My final point relates not only to children in one-parent families but to all the other children who are

  51
  suffering from social hardship, either through their fathers being out of work or because they belong to big families where the mother is prevented by the lack of pre-school provision from going to earn a little extra. In my view, and I believe many noble Lords would agree with me, the best method to relieve that poverty is, first, to raise the child benefit. This was put forward in very strong terms by the publication Despite the Welfare State. Secondly, we should restore free school meals. The Government, when in Opposition, were in favour of child benefits. It was, the said, the best way of helping the families, of easing the poverty trap and of helping poor families in work. They also said at the time that the cost of higher child benefit should be accounted for in the same way as a reduction in direct personal taxation, and not as public expenditure at all. Now their views have changed, despite the fact that, resulting from so many of their policies, the most vulnerable families have lower incomes and lower real benefits and are either paying for school meals of a lower nutrional value or having their children suffer the stigma of claiming free school meals. Surely there is a gap between the rhetoric used by the Government when talking about the family and their refusal to put money into redressing the balance for our least privileged families and children.
  One can refer to social justice and the aspiration of a more equal society in either moral or practical terms; but, using practical terms, may I put it to the Government that, when we hear of an upsurge of violence by white and coloured youths in Brixton, do we not wonder how many of those young people are alienated by the brutality of a deprived childhood? When we hear of the young Catholic youth in Belfast's ghettos voting for the Provisional Sinn Fein—in other words, voting in as extreme a manner as possible—do we not wonder what his home was like in a city that is reputed to have the worst housing in Europe? Putting morality aside, is there not a very real possibility that the lack of additional provision for Britain's least fortunate families might well result in even more embittered young people wishing to get their own back on society in a way which is most destructive to that society?
  5.23 p.m.
  Lord Inglewood: My Lords, it is difficult to follow the previous speaker when the subject is as wide as home and social affairs. However, I believe I have found a link in the field in which the noble Baroness has been working. I have talked about the voluntary and professional elements which are needed to help one another in this field, because neither can work alone without the help of the other. I must again say that in these many services we need professionals and volunteers. We want to narrow the gap between the two fields if we can do so. We want to avoid the professionals looking down on volunteers and amateurs, which all too often happens, particularly in this technical age in which we live.
  I would mention just one field—civil defence. I mention it because we spoke about civil defence in another debate and we did not get many answers from the Home Office then. So I am hoping that perhaps in the fullness of time we might get rather more full answers. We may have to depend on water dropping
  52
  on the stone, which is one of the methods that we have to adopt if we cannot get more progress. Dropping water on a stone is something that we employ frequently, and it often works.
  The uncertainties in organisation for civil defence are big. We do not know the nature or the time when we may have to go into action. There are weaknesses in our organisation and I am sure that the organisation is less good than that which is taught at the Staff College at Camberley. In any case, we need men and women who are disciplined and, as far as possible trained; but all too little is happening in this field, and I would emphasise that.
  Recently I saw a reference in a work of reference to Scotland. I do not live in Scotland but I followed certain references and thought I would ask several questions and see what replies were received, not from the Home Office but from the Scottish Office. I asked first this question of Her Majesty's Government; How many special constables have attended the appropriate police home defence courses at Tulliallan over the last convenient year? None, was the reply. It appears that courses held at the Scottish Colleges on home defence matters are attended only by regular police instructors. Even two should be plenty if they have the qualifications and can benefit from it. I could ask many more questions but will ask only one more, and that is how many special constables were there in Scotland in the year 1960? They fell from the figure of 7,315 in 1960 every year to 1982 when the number dropped to 2,791. That situation really cannot be healthy.
  The field also shows that the numbers in England have been dropping. It could well be that the demand for volunteers is considerable. There is the question of pay but considerable training and increasing duty are becoming less popular. But I did have an idea a few days ago, which I am going to suggest to the Home Office, which is the revival of an old idea. Special constables have been used as a back-up for regular men and there were others who enrolled principally for limited duties in states of emergency or war. Those men could easily be trained in a narrower field. They would not be expected to do duty except for refresher training in their field, and they could live in their homes and not be moved. They would not be an expensive corps; the uniform could consist of an arm-band when required. They would have a warrant card which could be kept in the relevant force headquarters and issued only on occasions when needed.
  Surely there is an opportunity here of capitalising on these vast resources of goodwill and giving men the opportunity of service in this narrow field. Furthermore, when necessary they would be given the powers of a constable. These powers are required beyond those in so many different fields at different times. I should like to suggest again to the Home Office that they should hold a reseve of useful men who have the powers of a constable. This small amount of training would make it much more attractive for many older men living and working in their own area. The importance of volunteers applies everywhere, as was shown by the noble Baroness in her last speech. We need them in all parts of our governmental sevices and, most important of all, volunteers and professionals must work together for a happy and successful result.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, when the present Government came to power, their social policy could have been scribbled on the back of an envelope. Rolling back the frontiers of the state included—and, indeed, largely depended on—rolling back the welfare state. Welfare was seen as mollycoddling and general enfeeblement, through "handouts", of personal initiative. Personal responsibility and self-help were to be applauded and encouraged. The dispensing of welfare does not, in the neo-classical economists' view of the world, create wealth. First, we need more wealth and then can we afford the frills. That, broadly speaking, is what was scribbled on the envelope and the message has not changed much, though there have had to be certain adjustments to emergency conditions, such as the temporary short-time workers' scheme and the expansion of special programmes for the young unemployed. And the cost of unemployment has, of course, risen inexorably all the time.
  The back of an envelope approach, which extends to all the big spending departments other than defence, has its origin not only in neo-conservative philosophy, but also in a cold economic climate. I am not going to deny that there are economic constraints on public spending, but I am going to insist that the Government's analysis is faulty, and that their dangerous over-simplification of our problems is leading to an increasing polarisation between "haves" and "have nots" which is quite at variance with their claim to be a party of national unity.
  In 1950, Titmuss defined social policy as,
  "those acts of Government deliberately designed to improve the welfare of the civil population".
  "Deliberately" is the important word, because the action or inaction of Governments is at the centre of social policy. It cannot be argued, as some people do over economic policy, that there is little that Governments can do, other than set the tone or hold the ring. Nor can it be argued that any social policy is an undesirable form of interventionism. The Elizabethan poor law was exclusively concerned with social policy; so was the less charitable law of 1834.
  The British welfare system has grown slowly in a piecemeal fashion. In 1908, we had the Old Age Pensions Act, in 1909 the Employment Exchange Act—to promote mobility and pay the dole—in 1911, the Health and Unemployment Insurance Act, and so on. The present framework derives very largely from the Beveridge Report, with its contributory pension scheme. The 1960s saw the growth of a more complex superannuation scheme, in partnership with occupational pensions. In 1966, national assistance became supplementary benefit, on which so many people now have to live. In 1971, family income supplement was introduced for those with families in low-paid work. In 1976, family and child allowances were subsumed into a universal, non-means-tested child benefit.
  The social policy of a modern state is not confined to social security; it also embraces the health service and personal social services—which, in combination, are the next biggest spenders—and it is deeply affected by the fiscal régime, by the housing, environmental and recreational services of the local authorities and not least, by the education system.
  54
  Through the nature of its growth, the system has become very expensive to administer; that is one of the Government's fundamental quarrels with it. It is also one of the fundamental arguments for devolution. The Government have no hope of significantly reducing the Civil Service as long as they seek to exert a stranglehold on local government. The noble Baroness mentioned an aspiration of a reduction to 630,000, but some people would feel that that was still very high. It is a paradox of the present Government's position that, while striving to roll back the frontiers of the state, they are pursuing a highly centralist approach which quite simply defeats that end.
  I sometimes wonder why the Government have wanted to take all the reins into their own hands. I suspect that it is partly due to their distrust of the "caring society" approach of some Labour councils, which it is felt will sap some natural vigour or vitality on which we depend for national survival. It is, of course, true that the beneficiaries of the system are, in the main, passive recipients—clients, patients, tenants and consumers of the state's services. The Government seem to have noted this passive role with distaste, but not to have drawn the right conclusions.
  As in their approach to industry, they tend to draw an excessively rigid distinction between the evils of public finance and the virtues of the market place. But, just as it is absurd that a mixed economy should be characterised by a political frontier between the private and the public sectors, each constantly raiding the other's territory, so it is absurd that there should be a rigidly fixed frontier between public and private services in the welfare state. I was interested to hear the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for a closer approximation of statutory and voluntary services, with which I fully agree.
  We have issued a Green Paper called Fair Treatment, which I hold in my hand. It is certainly not gospel, but it contains some ideas which I should like to put to the House. First, the separate organisation of the health authorities and the local authorities' personal social services, which are so intimately connected, has long been the subject of criticism. Health authorities should be encouraged to contract out certain community and other services to the local authorities, and local authorities, in their turn, to the voluntary services. It should be made easier for the voluntary services to raise funds through VAT exemption, and all covenants to charities should receive a median rate of tax relief at 60 per cent.
  More generally, improved primary care should aim to keep people out of the expensive hospital sector. The independent status of family practitioner committees reflects the fierce independence of GPs. But there is a certain dislocation between their efforts and the hospitals; and there is a good case for experimenting with salaried GPs in inner city areas and, also, for rewarding those doctors who commit full-time to the National Health Service.
  Here I cannot help referring to the notable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea, with whom I am sure we shall have some very useful debates in the House on these and related themes. Prevention of disease and promotion of health at an early stage could make a big dent in the 350 million working days lost per year through backache, bronchial disorders and mere depression—17½ days per year per person in

  55
  work. Our whole tendency has been towards crisis welfare and crisis treatment. We must shift towards prevention.
  How do we go about it? In this area, I want to make two proposals which are drawn from this document. The first is for an employment and innovation fund for the welfare services. These services are notoriously labour-intensive and, with an increasingly ageing population, will need to become more so. The funding would come from my party's general economic and employment strategy proposals, not from the DHSS Vote, and when fully established would amount to some £500 million a year. The main thrust would be to strengthen those primary care and community services designed to prevent the need for institutional care. Bids for grants from the fund could be made jointly by health and personal social service authorities or by bodies outside the statutory public sector. Bids could be accepted both from major national voluntary agencies, such as, for example, Age Concern, and from grass roots community councils wishing to take on another worker. One of the objects would be to encourage pilot schemes and to learn from their successes or failures.
  Another proposal which came up at one of our conferences, and which I warmly endorse, is for the establishment of a new breed of small district family centres, which could include a crêche and a play-group for three- to five-year olds, and could also provide after-school and holiday care for slightly older children, while 15- to 16-year olds from local schools could put in some time at the centre as part of a course on parenthood or even as holiday jobs. The centres would be run by parents, who would employ some professionals. Here, again, there is the linking of the voluntary and the statutory sectors. These, also, should be eligible to bid for support from our employment and innovation fund.
  A cry might go up that "community care" is merely a euphemism for privatisation and would simply increase the burden on poorer families. This might well be the case without a deliberate act of public policy designed to assist and support self-help groups and voluntary organisations. This is a point on which we shall particularly want to scrutinise the Government's new Health and Social Services Bill, which the noble Baroness mentioned in her opening speech.
  Another objection which might be advanced is that most of these "mixed economy" initiatives would run into opposition by the professional interests concerned with the existing statutory provision. That is a possibility, but I repeat that what we are proposing is an enlargement of activity in this field; not a curtailment of what already exists. Rather than averting our faces from the "distressing" level of unemployment—I think that that is the Government's rather genteel word—we have seen unemployment as providing a real opportunity to involve people in their own welfare and the welfare of their neighbours and their communities, at a much closer and more intimate level than is possible at the moment. We seek to shift the balance from paternalistic provision to enablement and support.
  Before sitting down, I want to revert briefly to the question of social security. There can be no doubt that the greatest of all deprivations is the basic lack of cash to finance even the most mi nimally rewarding or self-
  56
  respecting existence. Social security benefits of one kind or another are the main source of income for several million potentially active people. If old age pensioners and the low paid are also taken into account, we are faced with something like one-third of the population hovering near or often well below the Government's official poverty line. Therefore it is going to be incumbent on us to redesign our creaking social security and fiscal system in such a way as to provide every person in this country with a bedrock security for which he or she does not have to come cap in hand, and to eliminate the poverty and the unemployment traps.
  If it is objected that this would be very expensive, there are three simple answers. The first is that the present jumble of ad hoc measures is extremely expensive to administer. It is also one of the reasons for the size of the Civil Service which the Government are finding it so difficult to reduce on any significant scale. The shift to computerisation of both tax and benefits provides a golden opportunity for reform here which we should be working on right now rather than waiting until the present system collapses about our ears. The second answer to the excessive expense argument is not a technical but a moral one. I quote here from page 280 of a book, published by the Department of Health and Social Security in conjucntion with the Social Science Research Council, called Despite the Welfare State:
  "Social policy . . . is primarily concerned with redistribution, with directing some of the benefits of growth towards the vunerable and needy, and sharing the prosperity around, or alternatively with sharing the privations more evenly when there is less to go round".
  It is the second half of that sentence which presents itself as a moral imperative in the situation in which we find ourselves today. The Government will ignore it only at their peril.
  Finally, there is the economic argument, which is simply that the demand side of the economy will break down if we allow millions of people to languish in poverty. Any genuine break-through on the lines I have just indicated would require an imaginative and coherent social policy which simply cannot be scribbled on the back of an envelope. The Social Democratic Party has, I believe, taken important steps towards such a social policy in its Green Paper on health and social security and in one which is shortly to emerge on poverty, taxation and social security. I commend them to your Lordships.
  5.43 p.m.
  Baroness David: My Lords, there was no mention of education in the gracious Speech. One can be relieved that there is no promise of legislation to enable student loans or a voucher system to be set up. There was an article by Mr. Edward Heath in Tuesday's Mirror which might well have been written, it seemed to me, by a Labour education spokesman. Mr. Edward Heath referred to "this crackpot scheme by those who think they can sell education with vouchers like canned spuds in a supermarket". I am entirely in agreement with him. But I had hoped that there would be a promise of legislation on further and adult education and on the youth service. In both cases, working parties have been set up by the Government to review the existing state of the law and to assess the case for amending it.
  In June 1981 a working party composed of officers from the Department of Education and Science and

  57
  from local authorities presented their report, The Legal Basis of Further Education. It pointed out a number of anomalies in the law as it stood, particularly in relation to the 16 to 19 year-olds: that much of further education as at present practised is ultra vires and that satisfactory provision for the special educational needs of those up to 19 was inadequate and highly necessary. It pointed out that certain sections of the 1944 Act were out of date and, indeed, had never been acted on and that these should not be left on the statute book.
  Interested bodies and organisations were asked to respond to this document by the end of October 1981, a year ago. Since then, silence. On 21st October last I asked an oral Question about when we could expect a response from the Government. I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, that there would be an early Statement. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord is not present. This made me hope there might be a promise of action in the gracious Speech. I was disappointed. It had been possible that the Government might have decided not to pronounce on the legal basis until the report of the review group on the youth service was published. The youth service report was published last week—Cmnd. 8686—and it was submitted to the Secretary of State in August. With it went a note from Alan Thompson, its chairman, which ended with the words:
  "We trust that the publication of this report will lead to specific action along the lines recommended".
  More of this report later.
  First, I should like to say a little more about the need for changes in the law where further and adult education are concerned. The 16 to 19 year-olds in further education are at present at a disadvantage compared with those in school. No fees can be charged for any pupil in a school. There is no legal restraint on the freedom of authorities to charge fees for those in further education. If a pupil is accepted for a school in a neighbouring authority, the home authority is obliged to pay the fee, whether it approves or not. If a further education student is accepted for a course in a neighbouring authority, the home authority is not obliged to pay the fee.
  These anomalies were pointed out by the Opposition while the 1980 Bill was in this House. The Minister, the present Leader of the House—who also is not present—admitted that they were anomalies but she did not accept amendments to remove them. There is a need for flexibility in the appointment and use of staff between the two sectors—school and further education. Tertiary colleges have to be under further education regulations, as some staff might not be qualified to serve under school regulations. The hours of attendance of teachers in a school are different—and, indeed, of students, too. And it is not clear whether students can attend part-time at schools, as they can at further education or tertiary colleges. This is very important when we are considering the provision which is going to have to be made under the youth training scheme. Some of it may well have to be in sixth forms of schools. We do need clarification.
  The legal basis document proposes the abandonment of the requirement under the 1944 Act that schemes of further education should be submitted to and approved by the Secretary of State. It is obsolete.
  58
  Because authorities have neither the duty nor the power to make provision except through schemes endorsed by the Secretary of State, much of the existing further education is almost certainly ultra vires. "It would be inadvisable", the authors say, "to allow such a situation to continue".
  Similarly, they ask for the repeal of Sections 43 to 46 of the 1944 Act, which provided for the setting up of county colleges. These sections have never been implemented. Sections 41, 42 and 53 of the 1944 Act, which give the statutory basis for providing adult education, are widely drawn and have stood the test of time pretty well. They give flexibility. But the savage cuts which education authorities have made in this area because of financial pressures from the central Government have caused people to ask what are the obligations they have under the Act. Section 41 says:
  "It shall be the duty of every local education authority to secure the provision for their area of adequate facilities for further education".
  The word "duty" is there, but what constitute "adequate facilities"? The obligations of local authorities need to be made clearer. Some authorities have withdrawn almost all provision and there have been threats of legal action against them.
  All those who work in this field of adult education know about the formidable needs of adults. They ask that it shall be a positive duty to make provision. At a time when more and more adults are unemployed and need the variety, refreshment and retraining which adult education can give, this is no time for delay and inaction. It shows a disrespect, I consider, for those working in that area. Their morale is low. The report, they think, is ignored. They feel that the Government are not really interested in that sphere, while the need is much greater than it has ever been. I ask, what are the Government going to do?
  The report of the review group on the youth service—Experience and Participation, it is called—was published only last week. The third of its terms of reference was to assess the need for legislation. It is interesting that during the 1970s there were four separate attempts by private Members to attack the statutory basis of the youth service and to make it more comprehensive and mandatory. The last attempt was that of Mr. Trevor Skeet in the 1979–80 Session, it attracted a good deal of attention, interest and support, but in the end it failed to win the Government's support. However, in a debate in July 1980 the Minister promised that a review would be set up to study this provision, including the need for statutory change.
  This report is the result of that review. There is a chapter titled The Need for Legislation. It surveys the past and shows that the term "youth service" is in no statute. It was first used in a Board of Education Circular No. 1486 issued at the beginning of the war, in 1939. That covered children up to the age of 14, which was then the school-leaving age. In November 1944 there was another circular, No. 13, which extended the concept of the youth service to cover those in full-time education, drawing authority for this from Section 53 of the 1944 Act. It is from two sections, Sections 41 and 53 of the 1944 Act, that local authorities take the power to provide a youth service. The review group recommends legislation, and proposes in Chapter 1 a possible clause. They say:

  59
  "it seems to us that all the essential objectives, as set out in the annex, could be comprised within a single (admittedly long and fairly complex) clause."
  They suggest that this could be incorporated into a Bill which would clarify the position of LEAs in respect of the provision of further education, and this I would strongly support.
  The press release issued a week ago underplayed the group's demand for legislation, which occurs not only in Chapter II but throughout the report, as the press release also underplayed the group's demand for adequate resources. The press release made much of the fact that perhaps better use could be made of existing resources with better planning, but in the chapter on resources the authors say that the youth service should be funded at a high level, and they stress the importance of local authority input. I would like to quote a few words from the report:
  "Although the local authority contribution constitutes only a small part of the Service's total resources, it is the keystone which provides strategic support for the voluntary initiatives which sustain the wider edifice. It would be wrong to assume that if local authority support were reduced, new voluntary effort would take up the slack: on the contrary, much of the current voluntary provision would fall."
  At the press launch the group's chairman, Alan Thompson, said that of every £1 of public money going into the youth service, there is £9 on the voluntary side—but that the public money was crucial. It might be appropriate to comment here on the effects of the changes the Government made in 1980 to the way in which capital building projects of local voluntary youth organisation could get capital grants.
  Before 1980, the DES would meet 50 per cent. of the cost budgeted, the LEA 25 per cent. and the voluntary organisations 25 per cent. Between 1975–76 and 1980–81 the total sum allocated by the department in capital grants decreased by about 45 per cent. in real terms, and there is reason to suppose that the decline has continued since. The DES has transferred funding to the RSG. As no part of this can be earmarked for specific purposes there can be no guarantee that funds are reaching local voluntary organisations, and responses suggest that they are not doing so in most cases. This emphasises the need for an injection of Government money to encourage and help the voluntary sector.
  While on resources, there is a recommendation that mandatory grants should be available to those taking initial training courses in youth work, and the importance of in-service training and proper standing for those working in the service is emphasised. The report proposes an advisory council as part of the national structure, which could advise the Minister who had responsibility for these affairs on the action to be taken, the allocation of resources and the monitoring of performance. It could provide a focus for policy-making and for certain of the management functions which need to be carried out at national level. It is amusing to remember that the Youth Service Forum was axed by the Government in one of their early quango-killing operations. The proposal for the advisory council, not surprisingly, was therefore made little of in the press release.
  The report places the responsibility for the youth service firmly in the hands of the DES at national level and of the local education authorities at local level, and it proposes that LEAs should be given a statutory
  60
  duty to create machinery to ensure regular and effective communication and consultation with voluntary youth organisations over the whole field. The need for this and for co-ordination of the many services that the agencies contribute to the youth service provision—social services, probation, police, churches—is important because of the varied and fragmented nature of the overall provision.
  I have concentrated on legislation, resources and structure, but it would be unfair to the report if I did not mention some of its other very positive recommendations. The service has a duty to help all young people and the report makes particular reference to the over-16s and to the handicapped. The age range it thinks right to cover is 11 to 20 years. The service should provide social education and social development and the report criticises the patchy and incomplete response to social needs in the past.
  I would like to give another short quotation from the report, in referring to what the MSC is now doing:
  "If young people were to retain employability through periods of unemployment and be able to respond to unforeseen job requirements, then vocational training would have to be complemented by a corresponding personal and social development to provide the necessary maturity for employment and the confidence and coping skills needed to retain this employability. It is in this area that the youth service has, in our view, a crucial role to play."
  The report says that there needs to be more political education and that there is very little; the majority of responses from local education authorities suggested very little activity. A typical comment was, "We have to be wary of that." The review group's response was:
  "We believe that this is dangerous. What is required is experience of such a kind that the young people learn to claim their right to influence the society in which they live and to have a say in how it is run. It is active participation in some form of political activity, formal or informal, which really counts. We have not found that such participation is at all widespread. . ."
  Youth workers should be aware of the international context of their work, and the needs of ethnic minorities and of girls should be paid more heed. That goes not only for those at the receiving end of the service, but also for those working in it—who in fact are predominantly male and white. That should be changed and the young should have far greater participation in decision-making, which could indeed form part of their political education.
  I have spoken at some length on this new report—and I should like to stress that it is a unanimous report—which I think is a very important report in these times, when there is so much anxiety about the alienation of youth and about youth unemployment. The report asks very firmly for legislation, as did the earlier report on the legal basis of further education. I hope, not only for the sake of the young people but also for the sake of the many hardworking and dedicated people in both the youth service and in adult further education (who often feel themselves underrated and under-valued partly because the service does not have a satisfactory statutory basis) that among the other measures which will be laid before us there will be a Bill—if only an amending Bill to the 1944 Act—which will show that the Government attach the importance and seriousness to this sphere of education that we on these Benches do. We have very grave doubts, to say the least, about the Government's attitude and the Government's intentions.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, from these Liberal benches, it is my first happy duty, which I discharge in his absence, to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rea, on his maiden speech. His distinguished predecessor and uncle was held in great affection and respect by this party, of which he was the parliamentary Leader in the House, and the quality of the contribution made by his successor to today's debate leads one to believe that he has in him the means of rivalling the respect and affection gained by his uncle over the years in this House.
  I should like also to mention in passing—I had not intended to do so—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ferner, when he referred to the necessity in rural areas for a telephone, which has become the lifeline. I live in a fairly remote rural area and I know how very important the telephone is. I entirely agreed with every word the noble Lord said on that subject. In passing I should say, as I am also a farmer, that farmers are able to get telephones because it is a natural business expense, and the cost to them is not as great as it is to, say, a farm worker or someone employed as a roadman in the area, though it is equally important because of the remoteness of their situation so often. I think the noble Lord called attention to a very important social matter in this country.
  However, I want to devote my very short contribution to this debate to that part of the gracious Speech which can be dealt with broadly under the heading The relationship of the police and the community. When I started at the Bar in 1950, I was a circuiteer and I still remain so to a very considerable extent, and it is right to say that the relationship between the police and the community varies in different parts of the country. In my experience, the police are held in much higher general respect in many of the rural areas, and certainly outside London, than they are in the metropolitan areas. Much of the difficulty has arisen in the metropolitan areas, particularly in London. But if 30 years ago one had canvassed the possibility that in the 1980s we would be actively debating, both in this House and elsewhere, the setting up of an organisation to police the police, which is virtually what we are talking about when we talk of complaints procedures and so on, it would have been unthinkable, because in those days I think it is right to say that there was mutual respect between the police and the community. I think it behoves us to look at the reasons why that mutual confidence has ebbed away in the intervening 30 years.
  Many reasons have been given, but I think that one of the chief reasons has been the mistaken police policies in many areas. I can see signs of it happening, and it has been happening now for the last two decades, in much more rural areas of the country. I remember as a young barrister once calling the attention of a very distinguished chief constable, alas now dead, to a piece in a newspaper, I think it was the Guardian, saying that a new chief constable had said in his opening address to the police authority that within two years he was going to have every officer in the force in motor cars, motorised. The very distinguished chief constable of who I speak said, "Silly fool; where will they get the gossip?" It was a very penetrating remark, because, when one thinks of it, so much crime is solved by gossip, and you tend to gossip to people you know.
  62
  If the person in uniform is remote, as he inevitably becomes when he is charging around in a motor car, you probably find that less crime is solved in those areas, even though they have all the modern electronic technological and other means to assist in the solution of crime.
  I should have thought that one of the bad aspects—and there are many good aspects—of policing in our generation has been the fact that police forces have tended because of police policy to become more remote. It is, I think, just as well if we are seeing signs of a reversal of this policy. Community policing is not a new thing at all. It used to be the accepted norm. It is now that its value is becoming recognised. In Devon in particular, and in the rest of the country, we are seeing signs of a return to community policing. The duty of the police in relation to the community is recognised now as being of equal importance to the need to develop all modern technological devices to enable them to undertake their undoubtedly great task of combating modern crime.
  One would like to feel that public opinion was still in the state today where we could leave the discipline of police forces entirely to the chief officer. That is the ideal state of affairs. One would have thought that any chief officer in any police force would be very glad to get rid of any officer who fell by the wayside and indulged in any form of crime or any form of serious disciplinary offence. He would be very glad to get rid of him. But such is the state of public opinion, particularly in the metropolitan areas, that it is no longer feasible, no longer possible, as the Government recognise in the gracious Speech, to leave it entirely for the police to investigate matters within their own ranks. This is highly regrettable, and I think the sooner we set upon the course of restoring mutual confidence between the police and the community the better it will be for this country.
  I entirely subscribe to he views which my noble friend Lord Wigoder suggested in his speech, that a very considerable contribution to this would be to relieve the police of the duty of prosecuting and that we should in some way emulate the admirable system that they have in Scotland of having a procurator fiscal in charge of prosecutions, so that this duty is discharged by an independent body and the police are relieved of that matter.
  Of course, we on these Benches are maintaining an open mind and not committing ourselves in any way to the view we may take of detailed legislation which is put before us to discharge the broad outlines of the matters suggested in the gracious Speech. But I think we ought to recognise the great dilemma which faces a modern police force and indeed the community in its relationship to the police. We have ancient privileges in this country, strengthened over the years, so that a man's personal freedom cannot be threatened by the kind of dubious police procedures we see in other countries. It would be a sad day for this country if the basic principles upon which our freedom in this country is based were to be eroded in any way. But whether those principles are properly discharged by dependence upon rules which were framed perhaps in the last century in totally different social conditions is another matter. We have to recognise, for example, that organised crime today is very often carried out

  63
  with a great deal of expertise, a great deal of organisation and a great deal of capital investment by those indulging in it. I have only to refer to the international drugs organisations to indicate immediately the kind of organisation I have in mind. Therefore, such crime has to be met by an equally sophisticated or a more sophisticated and adequately equipped police force. Of course, when people are arrested who are really big-time national or even international criminals it is very odd indeed that they are able to take the maximum advantage of our ancient rules which prevent people from incriminating themselves. This is a dilemma, a dilemma that I do not think we have yet sufficiently regarded in the legal profession or had a sufficiently open mind about. We want to look very carefully at the Judges Rules in a modern context. It is very important, in view of the disrepute in which verbals are now held in so many courts, that there should be adequate means of recording what a man says to a police officer. With modern technological developments surely we are able to do that. No one is suggesting that the police should be handicapped in any way in combating big crime by unnecessary restrictions on their right of search, question and so on. But there must be adequate safeguards, otherwise we can be quickly on the short and slippery slope that often leads to the destruction of our traditional values in this country.
  I illustrate for one moment the problem that arises. Nobody can say rationally that the police in our modern sophisticated society should not have the right to stop and search in certain circumstances. Obviously they need that right when they have proper and reasonable suspicion that a person is carrying drugs, stolen property, arms, and so on. It is right that we should rationalise that law. Nevertheless, bearing in mind the many allegations of harassment made against certain police officers in inner city areas, it is equally obvious that this power could be grossly misused. Therefore, the safeguards that the Government are to provide for this undoubtedly needed power—a power that must be rationalised—are all-important. If the safeguards are not sufficient, the power may do more harm than good in the long term.
  These are only some examples of the way in which the House must look very carefully at the legislation that is put before it. It is right that any Government should embark on the long overdue task of restoring police confidence in the community, the community's backing of the police and the community's confidence in the police itself. Until we restore the harmony that once existed, we are in for troubled times on this front.
  6.12 p.m.
  Lord Auckland: My Lords, the gracious Speech envisages some very important legislation in what could be the penultimate Session of this Parliament. The legislation itself is in some cases far-reaching. Certainly the legislation regarding relations between the police and the community is of great importance. So, I believe, is the legislation envisaged on the youth training scheme. I comment on this particular item of legislation because we do not know what form it is to take, but much will surely depend on the jobs available, on what we can sell and, as a result, where we can send apprentices and those who are to learn,
  64
  particularly in industry. The idea of a youth training scheme is certainly an excellent one.
  I just add that we must not only look at the very distressing subject of unemployment among youth. Those in their mid-40s and early 50s who are declared redundant or who may leave Her Majesty's Services and are unable to find a composite job also require some form of training. I hope that when the legislation is published attention will be given to that aspect of the matter as well as to the youth of this country.
  I want to concentrate a few words on the passage in the gracious Speech that states:
  "Legislation will be introduced to enable improvements to be made to the health and social services".
  I particularly refer to the health service.
  Now that the noble Lord, Lord Rea, is back in his place, I should like to add my congratulations on his most notable maiden speech, particularly as he has spoken with all the experience of a general practitioner, not only in this country but in the third world. I believe this is most important and his contributions on this topic, and on other topics, will be awaited with much enthusiasm.
  The wording of a gracious Speech is inevitably rather vague and we do not yet know what this legislation regarding the health service will be. All I can say is, let it come soon because it is vitally important. It is not my intention to make any comment on the current dispute in the health service because that would be improper on an occasion of this kind. All I hope is that some consideration in the envisaged legislation, whatever it may be, will be given to the construction of the National Health Service. We have had many inquiries, many blue papers, and other coloured papers, on the health service. We had a notable speech from the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who contributed a great deal in his own survey on the pay structure in the health service. That is an extremely important matter.
  Another very vital aspect is the staffing in the health service. I do not know whether my noble friend who is to reply will have any comments to make on the very vexed problem of administration within the health service. Anyone who has served on a hospital committee—and many noble Lords have given much more distinguished service than I have myself—will know that administration there must be. No organisation can be run without administration. But there seems to be a disturbing lack of cohesion (if that is the right word) between the therapeutic aspect of the health service and the administration. For example, I read of a well-known London teaching hospital in Hampstead where—I think I have my facts right—about 200 doctors cannot be taken on because the money for them cannot be found. They are skilled people. Again, this is not a matter for detailed comment in a debate on the gracious Speech. There will be other opportunities to look into this and at other hospitals where the same situation may exist. In some cases nurses are virtually being declared redundant.
  Of course, this is not the case throughout the country and it is not necessarily the fault of this or any other Government. But the fact is that priorities within the National Health Service seem to have gone somewhat astray. This is bound to cause problems to morale. Some of the conditions under which our

  65
  nurses and doctors work in National Health Service hospitals are, frankly, quite appalling. However, I must say that this is not the only country in which these conditions occur. Moreover, a brand new hospital is not necessarily more efficient than a very old one, because in most of the very old hospitals all the staff give very devoted service.
  Nevertheless, I would hope that the Government will have something to say—if not this evening, then when this forthcoming legislation reaches Parliament—as to what will be spent on new hospitals and on upgrading hospitals, because that is very important particularly for those who work in hospitals. At this point I declare an interest because I have a younger daughter who is a staff nurse at a hospital in Surrey. She is very devoted to her job, as are all nurses whether they are at times angry over the conditions under which they work—and many have a perfect right to be angry. This has been going on for many years. However, it does not need me or anybody else to remind your Lordships that we are, of course, under considerable financial restraints at present, as are most other countries in the world. Whenever I visit any country or whenever I talk to people from another country, one of the first questions I ask, if they are likely to know the answer, is: "What are the conditions in your hospitals? What are the conditions as regards pay for nurses and doctors?" It is a very strange and rather sad commentary that in the vast majority of cases the same pay problems—and I am talking about net pay—apply in countries besides our own.
  In conclusion, I point out that the National Health Service has come under criticism from the very day that it was founded. Much of the criticism has been justified, and that is no reflection on the devoted people who work within it. But whatever views one might have on private medicine—and I support private medicine to a certain extent—I believe that the National Health Service has an enormously important role to play. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in his final comment made a suggestion as to how the pay of nurses and doctors should be financed. While I would not off-the-cuff go the whole way with the noble Earl, he has at least put forward an idea. The fact of the matter is that these increases cannot be financed out of thin air. If we are to have a really efficient health service, and if we are to pay doctors, nurses and all within it the remuneration which they so richly deserve, then the money has to be found. However, we can discuss that and other vital aspects within this great service on another occasion.
  6.25 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, on two occasions this year I spent some weeks visiting Northern Ireland and I am therefore very happy to see that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his experience in the Northern Ireland Office, will be replying to this debate. The point that has struck me most forcefully, both this year and in previous years, is the great amount of absolutely normal life that one sees in the Province. I hope that is something which will encourage many noble Lords to visit Northern Ireland. If they do so they will find a most friendly and welcoming people, a highly creative people in a place where unemployment and economic
  66
  difficulties pose problems perhaps even worse and more complicated than those that arise from violence and terrorism. In this context I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government to study with every possible care the document simply entitled Unemployment, recently published by an ad hoc group working from the Ulster Polytechnic.
  In July this year I spoke in your Lordships' House of the importance of widening the common ground and strengthening the creative minorities in Northern Ireland. British Governments in the past have shown some sensitivity to this, and on many occasions have been able to adopt a non-sectarian stance—for example, over the matter of children's summer holidays. Today I should like to welcome publicly Circular No. 21 of 1982 from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. This concerned the contribution of schools to the improvement of community relations. There is surely scope for co-operation not only between schools in Northern Ireland, but also between schools in the North and the South of Ireland and between Britain and Ireland.
  There has in the past been much controversy about segregation and integration of schools. I should therefore like to quote the experience of Tanzania, where all the schools were nationalised and integrated in 1966. Ten years later a spokesman for the Education Secretariat of the Roman Catholic Bishops wrote;
  "My experience of integration in Tanzania is that now all denominations are happier than before the takeover of the schools".
  He went on to say:
  "There is more friendliness among individuals of different denominations. They respect one another, and this is so among both the student body and the members of staff".
  So much for that. In 1972 Mr. David Bleakley, a former Minister for Community Relations, wrote:
  "Without such a system"—
  that is, integrated education—
  "the men and women of the Province will continue to be a people who do not really know one another".
  I hope that all who are concerned with the administration of schools in Northern Ireland will ponder most seriously those two quotations.
  Turning now to higher education, I gather that the universities in the South are bursting at the seams while some university places both in Northern Ireland and in Britain are underfilled. I ask the Government whether they will make sure that fees which are in their control are not raised to prohibitive levels and that national grants are fully portable across frontiers, so that in this way the spare places may, perhaps, be taken up.
  I come now to the politics of the current situation in Northern Ireland. We have heard much lately concerning terror and violence and we have heard a good deal about the relative—and I stress the word "relative"—electoral success of Provisional Sinn Fein. I want to emphasise today that there exists, and has always existed, a large nationalist and republican tradition in Northern Ireland that is totally nonviolent in its approach/This is the tradition that goes back to O'Connell and emancipation, to the Land League, to Parnell and to such bodies as the Gaelic Athletic Association, the Gaelic League and the Irish Agricultural Organisation Society. This tradition has

  67
  no time whatever for the "physical-force men". It does not approve or condone terrorism: it condemns it as wrong in itself and as sterile because it leads to prolonged violence. This non-violent nationalist tradition is alive and well, and I have met it personally.
  Any Northern Ireland Government, however, must be well aware that within the Catholic community there still exists a strong sense of economic and social injustice. This, of course, varies from place to place and from person to person. But it is still widespread and strong in 1982 despite the O'Neill/Chichester-Clark/Faulkner reforms and the continued attempts at fairness through direct rule. I am bound to agree that there is evidence for continuing injustice in the proportionately, higher unemployment existing among Roman Catholics and in the proportionately longer waiting lists for housing and the lesser choice in housing, for Catholics. Even among those in employment, there is a tendency for Catholics to have the unskilled and clerical posts, while Protestants occupy the more skilled and responsible jobs.
  Will Her Majesty's Government make a full statement in reply to the report presented by Dr. McCrudden in February 1982 to its own Fair Employment Agency? Will the Government ensure that Roman Catholics have encouragement and equality of opportunity throughout the Northern Ireland public sector, especially in the electricity, shipbuilding and aircraft industries? Such affirmative action is the exact parallel of that asked for in this House only last week in respect of black citizens in Britain.
  Professor Lyons in his recent Ford lectures on Ireland wrote of:
  "Irreconcilable cultures, unable to live together or to live apart".
  It is in this context that I have spoken in the past of the necessity for new attitudes. Whether we are British or Irish, Unionist or Republican, we all need to accept our total poverty and bankruptcy. We are all incapable of solving the problem. To say, "If only they would do so and so", is no good in my view, because we are all equally involved. Even if Her Majesty's Government were tomorrow to come out in support, say, of shared Christian schools or full equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, we should still be faced with problems of allegiance, sovereignty and culture. We would still have to discover how the majority and the minority can peacefully co-exist within the same territory, remembering of course the "double minority" in Ireland as a whole.
  What we need are enabling attitudes. We need, for instance, liberation from partisan history and false myths. Whatever our background we need help to come to terms with the appalling crimes and injustices that our own side has committed either in the past or in the present. We need help to come to terms with fears and mistrust, fears sometimes so deep in Ireland as to be paralysing. We need courage to apologise on occasion to the other side. We need vision to see that Catholics actually need Protestants and vice versa, or that Anglo Saxon and Celts are complementary to one another.
  It is easy enough to see that some strident voices on either side of the conflict in Northern Ireland need each other—and here I shall mention no names—just indeed as the Dubliner needs the Kerryman. But more fundamentally the British and the Irish need each
  68
  other. They should recognise their interdependence and find appropriate ways of expressing it in institutions. If only we can all be humble and forgiving enough, perhaps we will learn how to handle the complexity of inter-Ulster, inter-Irish, and British-Irish relations. Unless we can do this, the ending of violence will not mean the creation of lasting peace. I would, therefore, like to adapt the words that Cardinal Hume recently used in a European context and say of Ulster, as of Britain and Ireland, that:
  "Conversion of heart is the necessary condition of peace if we are to construct a society where violence is unthinkable".
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is an ungracious act when debating the gracious Speech, a fortiori if you are speaker No. 16 on the list, to make any sort of long speech, and accordingly I propose—I hope with your Lordships' approbation—to make three short points. The first point relates to race relations. Scarman has come: I hope Scarman has not gone. Your Lordships have debated the Scarman Report and what flows from it at some considerable length and in a very incisive way. But the only oblique reference to race relations, which is such an important part of the social condition of our country today, is contained in the words:
  "to introduce new arrangements for consultation between the police and the community".
  Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, who made a most interesting speech, referred to those words, not really in the context of race relations at all, but in the context of the relationship between members of the public generally and the police force.
  I was very interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has just said about the contribution which, in his view, education and integration of schools could make in regard to the problems of Northern Ireland. Is there not a very great contribution that could be made by educational legislation and regulation in regard to race relations in this country? One remembers the rhyme which was in an old musical called "South Pacific":
  "You've gotta be taught to hate . . . at six or seven or eight".
  One wonders whether it should not be obligatory or mandatory that in our teacher training colleges teachers should be given a course on minority cultures and, indeed, on comparative religions, so that the teachers themselves in our schools—and I refer, if I may use that phrase only for shortness, to our state schools—are, in fact, equipped to deal with some amount of respect with the minorities who are contained in their school population. Indeed, I would very much hope that by regulation or otherwise at least in the sixth forms of schools some subject should be compulsory on the contribution of the great races of the earth and the great cultures to civilisation, which I think would give not only a feeling of tolerance but also a feeling of mutual respect, which is so important.
  I turn immediately to the second point I want to make. It relates to something which my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones made a fundamental part of this speech when dealing with the question of law and order. He posed the query—and it is a very forceful query and we ignore it at our peril—that it is all very well to speak of law and order when so many of our young people find little to respect in the social and political order that they find when they are not

  69
  even able to get the dignity of a job. The figure was quoted of 40 per cent. of the unemployed being under the age of 25. In another place last night, and in a maiden speech, an honourable Member referred to his own constituency. He described it as a beautiful constituency from the point of view of so much of its area. He spoke about the blight upon the young men; he said that one in four of 18- and 19-year olds were without a job.
  Therefore, I do not think that we can lightly talk in terms of law and order and respect for society, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, without in fact concentrating our attention on the great need to deal with this terrible problem. I wonder whether the historian of the future will equate with any amount of eulogy the fact that we managed to depreciate our rate of inflation, be it to 8 per cent. or 7 per cent,. but increased by so much the risk that many of our young people would find their regard for democracy and for ordered government to be of little consequence because it did so little for what they themselves could respect.
  I hope I shall as briefly deal with my third and last point as with the other two. It has no real connection with the other two points. So many little firms of suppliers in this country are being made responsible for unemployment which they cannot themselves control by virtue of the fact that they are literally being cheated by those who are wrongly using the powers of going into liquidation and going into receivership. The Cork Report—your Lordships may have the burden of listening to me later in the Session when I try to move a Motion to call attention to that report and to move for Papers—was the result of six years of detailed consideration, and has in fact been before the Government now for some months. I had hoped to find in the gracious Speech a reference to some part of that report, at least, being carried into legislation, although I know it was the wish of the Committee that their recommendations should be dealt with as a whole by legislation. My Lords, my three points are completed, and speaker No. 16 on your Lordships' list sits down.
  6.42 p.m.
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, my noble friend has just said how difficult it is to be no. 16 on the list. How much more difficult it is to be No. 17 on the list, and to follow the advocacy of my noble friend. I apologise to the noble Baroness that I was not in my place when she addressed the House. I was attending what I thought was an important committee to do with the blind handicapped, but I shall read what she had to say and digest it.
  I want to start by saying how much I welcome in the gracious Speech the point about equal pay as advocated by the European Court. At that stage we have recognition by the Government of women. I feel that the Government's policy on social affairs is a real example of discrimination against women. It has been surprising this afternoon, listening to the various speakers, to hear the various ways in which they have pointed this out. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, speaking about the British Nationality Act, brought to our attention the disadvantages to women, and even said at one stage that women were being placed at risk.
  We had the noble Lord, Lord Rea, in a very fine
  70
  maiden speech, drawing attention to the anomalies in the health service and the different social classes. Let us remember that the biggest users of the National Health Service are women and children. The Black Report—and my noble friend did not go into detail on that as much as he would have liked—shows quite clearly that in many parts of the country the antenatal, the pre-natal, care for women is deplorable. Deaths in the West Midlands, as recorded in the Black Report, should give grave concern to the Government. From the Benches behind me the noble Lord, Lord Perry, said that their party was all things to all men. I should have liked him to say all things to all men and to all women.
  Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? It was not my noble friend who said that our party was all things to all men, it was the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the debate on the Queen's Speech at the previous Session, and the noble Lord, Lord Perry, was making the point that this was no longer the case.
  Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, I should like to say that I feel that I belong to a party that embraces men and women. Then we get to the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, when he spoke about nurses' pay. It is true that the problems of settling the health service pay dispute is a problem that the Government will have to face up to. There again, the labour force employed by the health service is predominantly female. Then we had my noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs, who again made special mention of one-parent families, drawing attention to their difficulties and pointing out that it was predominantly mothers who had to go through these difficulties.
  I hope I have got it right that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, drew our attention to social security payments. The biggest receivers of social security payments are again women. Practically everybody who has spoken this afternoon has drawn the attention of the Government to how they are discriminating against women. Though it might be true to say that the Prime Minister and the Government have said clearly that it is not their intention to destroy the National Health Service, there is great disquiet and concern as the Secretary of State sniffs around in a menacing fashion to find out what can be cut.
  One was tremendously pleased last week to see that the Government have found £100,000 to halt the cuts at the Great Ormond Street Hospital. I ask the Government now, is it possible for them to dig into that same underspent central health fund to make sure that the Royal Marsden breast screening unit can also continue? I say very sincerely—and I feel sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House will agree with me—that this service, which has been encouraged not only at the Royal Marsden but at hospitals up and down the country, is important for women. It took a long time for these units to gain the confidence of women so that they would go to be examined when it might prove that they were suffering from a very serious complaint. This confidence that has been built up is going to be destroyed if places like the Royal Marsden Hospital have to suffer closure.
  It is not just a question of the London area, to which perhaps noble Lords have their attention drawn more frequently than other parts of the country. According

  71
  to the Wirral Health Authority report, other economies will have to be made by reducing beds in some hospitals and slowing down the planned opening of geriatric and psychiatric beds. I am not convinced that the Government clearly understand the demands made upon the health service by the elderly. In 1951, and not long after the introduction of the national Health Service, retired people made up only 13.6 per cent. of the population. By the end of last year the figure was 17.7 per cent. These are the only figures I shall be giving. The over-75s in the community occupy one-third of all our hospital beds, and over one-half of the mentally and physically handicapped are elderly.
  Not just the hospital services are involved. The growth in the number of elderly people—my noble friend Lord Rea spelt this out clearly—means more strain on general practitioners, health visitors, district nurses and all the other community services. If those services are cut—if the number of beds in hospitals are cut—a heavier burden is placed on one section of the community, and that will normally be the daughter or daughter-in-law, because the community service will not be able to carry the extra strain. The Government can praise to the highest private hospital care, but what the private hospital sector fights against and is very shy of is the long-term care associated with mental health and geriatric service. In my view, it should be the responsibility of the Government to ensure there is enough growth in the NHS to cope with the growth in the elderly population.
  I switch subjects to ask what has happened to the Education Act 1981. The present Leader of the House piloted that measure through with great expertise and we all admired the sincerity lying behind the Act. What concerns me, however, is that, while the original date for bringing the measure into force was October 1982, which. I understand, was delayed till 1st January 1983, a later date has now been suggested. It is 1st April, a rather unfortunate date for the Government to be considering for the introduction of such an Act: perhaps 2nd April might have been a better suggestion.
  There is great disquiet about how the reorganisation process can get under way until the Government decide actually to bring the Act into force. Noble Lords in various parts of the House spoke at length and with great concern about the way the needs of the handicapped must be furthered. As my noble friend lady David said on the legal basis for education, it is important for that matter to be resolved so that those young people whose education is now provided under special school provision are able to have the benefits of further education until they are 18 or 19. One hopes that among the other measures that the Government will be introducing as a result of the examination of the legal basis for further education, will be further education for the handicapped.
  I hope the Government will accept my final comment in the spirit in which I make it. I am greatly concerned about the way in which Ministers in their speeches are today constantly expressing the view that the problems facing the country are not of their making. They try to place the blame on all sorts of people—on previous Labour Governments, on the rest of the world and on the pretext that circumstances are
  72
  completely beyond their control—and they seem to be saying repeatedly that it is no good turning to the politicians to provide the answers. I am convinced that that is a very dangerous philosophy to be advocating. It means that what the Government are saying and are getting the people to believe is that the democratic vote and the political system are irrelevant in helping to solve the problems which surround people's daily lives. For that reason, apathy creeps into people's minds, and that is not the way to solve any of this country's problems.
  6.55 p.m.
  Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, I have flown from Rome today to take part in this debate, and my noble friend the Chief Whip has rewarded me by putting me eighteenth in the batting order. Of course it is not his fault; I blame it entirely on the new Deputy Chief Whip. I have shredded most of my more general observations, but there is one topic on which I wish to dwell before remarking more specifically on some of the proposals included, and some of those not included, in the gracious Speech; that is the topic to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, devoted a considerable part of their remarks; namely, youth unemployment.
  Youth unemployment, especially chronic semipermanent youth unemployment, is the same destructive social phenomenon whether it occurs in Railton Road, Toxteth, the Falls Road, Barnstaple, Bideford or Camberwell. It is a pervasive and corrosive social evil and I applaud everything that is being done by the Government to take steps to deal with the problem; like other noble Lords, I urge that more should be done, and I hope we will all encourage the Government to take further steps in that direction.
  It was a pleasure to hear the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. Not only were his remarks most penetrating—he had no need of visual aids; his oratory was quite suitable to the occasion with his spectacles only—and I hope we shall often hear from him, not only on this topic but on many others.
  I shall group my remarks on the gracious Speech under three heads—good inclusions, good omissions and bad omissions; and under the head of good inclusions I would particularly commend the measures on data protection and, generally, those on law and order. On the marketing of food, I would urge Her Majesty's Government to take this subject extremely seriously. Some of our difficulties in commanding a net balance of payments credit with other Community countries is due to our lack of skill in marketing our very good agricultural products. We produce wonderful food but are bad at selling it; I therefore commend the efforts of my honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture to set up a new organisation to promote British food. I hope it will be taken very seriously, that he will get at least the ·£20 million he is asking for, that all British Embassies in Community countries will serve British food—including, I hope, British cider—and that we really stop laughing at the idea of selling food. As I say, we are good at producing it but up until now have not been nearly so good as many other countries in the Community and elsewhere at promoting its export and consumption elsewhere.

  73
  I was sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, felt it was worth a cheap laugh to decry the fact that a Bill concerned with the heritage is to be introduced in your Lordships' House. I congratulate my noble friend the Leader of the House for having secured the Bill for us to consider first because we are uniquely equipped to deal with it, and I am sure we shall be able to improve it. I have not been able to study the measure in its full detail. From the reports I have seen, what might be called the earlier, or more ideological, phase of quango-hunting under this Administration has come to an end, and we have in this Bill a reasonable balance between voluntary and private bodies, between freedom and diversity of choice in the nurturing of our heritage, and centralisation and proper administration. Therefore, I would give the Bill a general welcome.
  However, I would say to my noble friends on the Front Bench that when we in this country, and in this House, comment on what is, or should be, the British achievement, one of the facts that we overlook, because we see it so often—I was in Rome, but most of your Lordships participated here yesterday in the Opening of Parliament—is that the strength of the tolerant and gentle civilisation which we all enjoy in this country flows very much from the independence of our local associations, our cultural societies, our self-regulating professions, and from the diversity of the way in which we run our own affairs freely, without too much interference and administration from the state. It is one of the glories of the British way of life, and, I would say to my noble friends on the Front Bench, it is something that we should seek to export to other member states of the Community, rather than verge towards their over-centralised systems.
  There is one other point that I should like to mention which, strictly speaking, does not relate to a Bill referred to in this gracious Speech, but I should like to commend wholeheartedly the new immigration rules. I hope that in another place my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will stick to what he has proposed so far, and that my noble friend Lord Elton will do the same in this House.
  There are one or two omissions from the gracious Speech for which I should like to give thanks. I should like to record my pleasure that the measures to do with the National Health Service, in so far as I have grasped their general import, do not live up to some of the more thunderous expectations that were created in the media during the summer. I fully endorse the right of the Central Policy Review Staff to conduct the kind of inquiry into the National Health Service that was undertaken. Such a body as the CPRS is essential for the highly complex task of modern government. I hope that in due course there will be a publication, perhaps in the form of a Green or White Paper, that will look at the long-term financial and fiscal consequences of the rocketing costs of all parts of governmental activity, in which the full cost of the National Health Service and everything that goes with it could be set alongside that of all other departments.
  Equally, I do not always agree with Mr. Heath, and I certainly rarely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady David. Probably it is the fault of my inadequate education, but I have never been able to understand the alleged advantages of the introduction of a voucher system into education. I hope that I never have to learn
  74
  in practice, because the concept frightens me considerably, and I am grateful that its introduction was not referred to in the gracious Speech.
  There are some bad omissions from the Speech. I support the general thrust of the gracious Speech that we have heard repeated in this House, and I endorse the remarks made by my noble friend the Leader of the House. But I am shocked that, so far as I can tell, no steps are to be taken to give the vote in European elections in this country to British citizens resident in other member states of the European Community. I feel that this is a shocking let-down of British citizens working on our behalf in the institutions of the Community and in the countries of other member states. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to ask me to withdraw those remarks and will confirm that the Government will soon introduce legislation. If he is not able to do so, I hope that he will give a general welcome to the idea that a Member of your Lordships' House, or of another place, could introduce a Private Member's Bill on these lines, to which the Government would give favour.
  I have telescoped my remarks as far as possible because there is one topic on which I wish to dwell for a few seconds before the nineteenth speaker takes his turn. I am particularly sad—though it is a bit much to expect at this stage in the Parliament—that there were no proposals in the gracious Speech for reform of your Lordships' House. Of course it is always a difficult topic. Of course it is something that nobody wants to face. But I would hate it to be the case that at a later date the historians should say that it was the present Conservative Government who were responsible for the House of Lords no longer having a place in the constitution. That could happen.
  Noble Lords opposite are committed to the abolition of this House—maybe not personally, but as part of a party which is. It is the Conservative Party, in the present Government, which should have the responsibility for ensuring that this country, without a written constitution, without a supreme court, without a Bill of fundamental rights, can securely look forward to the future with an Upper House to iron out the difficulties of legislation and to protect the citizen against an over-mighty and overweening House of Commons.
  We all know that such proposals have met with great difficulties in the past, and anyone who had studied Mr. Crossman's diaries or other works of—how shall I say?—scholarship or romance, depending on how one looks at them, will know that the perplexities facing anyone dealing with the subject of Lords reform are enormous. But it must not be the case—this is following directly from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal—that problems become so intractable that they are considered to be beyond the reach of politicians. Once we have reached the state of mind that the difficulties of running our democracy are so intractable that mental fossilisation takes place, then we have begun to give up as democrats.
  I have warned my noble friend Lord Beloff of what I am about to say. I had been feeling somewhat despondent for some months. For two years running the Conservative Party conference has chosen as its first topic for balloted debate reform of your Lordships' House, and for two years running my noble friend has had the difficult task of coming and saying

  75
  with great grace, courtesy, and distinction, as she always does, nothing at all to the conference. Earlier in the week I saw in The Times that my noble friend siting in front of me had published an article describing "Why we need the House of Lords". I thought that maybe the light had dawned, that maybe in the midnight hours in the research department of the Conservative Party a new scheme was about to be unveiled, and we were to leap forward to a new constitutional settlement securing the future of our Upper House into the next century.
  My Lords, need I say more? There was nothing in the article—nothing, except some minor corporatist remarks about incorporating various elements not yet represented. If that is the case, we have ourselves in this House a great burden of responsibility to look at our own future, because all-party talks are not going to get anywhere any more. The party opposite needs all-party talks within itself. To achieve an all-party agreement with Mr. Chris Mullin on the one hand and Mr. John Golding on the other will require them to agree, and they never will.
  Someone has to take the leap into the dark. I fully commend the speech earlier tonight of the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton—statesmanlike, interesting. I make no complaint about a year of introspection in the SDP. I wish that it had not been a year of retrospection—because many of their remedies are recycled suggestions and failed policies of the 'sixties and 'seventies. It is the restrospection that I complain about, not the introspection. Yet their constitutional proposals could only be described as by Dr. Who, out of a space invader machine. They will not work, whether they are old or new. They are totally fanciful. We have one team of wreckers; we have another team of theorists.
  It is up to the present Government and to the Conservative Party to do something about the future of this House. It is a bad outlook at the moment, and I urge my noble friends on the Front Bench in this House and my right honourable friends on the Front Bench in another place to look again at this question. The Conservative Party must take up its constitutional responsibilities; only by doing so can it act continuously as a force for social cohesion, so that the political pressures to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, was referring, can be responded to by a supple, flexible, modern and responsive series of institutions representing the people in Parliament. When we have a gracious Speech putting forward a scheme to preserve this House and, with it, the rights of the subjects of this country in a modern society, then I shall be really pleased. As it is, I fully support the proposals which are included; I wish that some of the omissions were rectified; and I hope that one day soon even my noble friend Lord Beloff will agree with me that it is the responsibility of this party to come forward with some radical, workable, positive ideas for reforming and securing the future of your Lordships' House.
  7.10 p.m.
  Lord Hunt: My Lords, as the anonymous 19th speaker referred to by the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, I noted the prefatory remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who I think surprised all noble Lords,
  76
  including myself, in setting an admirable example by speaking for exactly seven minutes. I am now the 19th speaker, and it would be nice to think that each succeeding speech, as the choice of subject decreases, would be of diminishing length. I am going to do my very best to follow the admirable example of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon.
  I propose to touch briefly on four matters, two of which are implicit or explicit in the gracious Speech and two of which are notable by their omission. Turning first to the final paragraph of the Speech, I was glad, as was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, to note the reference to "prevention of crime". This should have priority over all other measures to deal with the threat to law and order in this country. Sometimes the blindingly obvious needs to be said again and again, and the most important thing is to prevent crime from occurring in the first instance. In no small measure this is a community responsibility. It is a responsibility collectively in industry and commerce; it is a responsibility on the housing estates; and individually it is the responsibility of us all, in and outside our own homes.
  But government, central and local, has an important role to play. I will not elaborate on this beyond saying that the All-Party Penal Affairs Group, of which your Lordships have heard all too much, believe that more should and could be done, and that money spent on the prevention of crime is money saved on the whole process of detecting offenders, bringing them to court and then dealing with them subsequently, to say nothing of the cost in terms of damage to property and the cost in the sense of security of members of the public. We intend to present a report to the Home Secretary before Christmas, and my reference to it now is by way of a trailer to that report.
  Before leaving crime prevention, I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others, in pointing to the obvious, and to say that one of the most effective ways of reducing crime is to improve the opportunities for employment. This really requires no argument. It has been gainsaid, but it is completely unarguable. Here, I am referring to the third paragraph on page 3 of the gracious Speech, with its reference to "special employment measures" and "A new Youth Training Scheme". I should like to commend the Government for both these initiatives. I like particularly the youth training scheme, with its accent on more meaningful programmes and the extension of training in order to make it more effective.
  But the message I get from all young people currently and previously employed under the Youth Opportunities Programme, and from adults involved in work under that scheme, is that jobs must be "for real". Supernumerary jobs and training schemes are simply no answer so long as they end with no job prospects whatsoever. Indeed, they tend to abet a sense of frustration and hopelessness; and to reinforce this point I can add to the statistics given to your Lordships by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble and learned Lord. Fifty-four per cent. of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 were out of work as at last July, and inevitably, predictably, a number of these will be prone to acts of lawlessness.
  I am disappointed by the omission of any reference

  77
  to one of the most serious social problems which the nation continues to face and in which the Government's record to date is conspicuous by its failure. I am referring to the disgrace of overcrowding in our prisons, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred earlier. The Government will say that their intentions are already enshrined in the new Criminal Justice Act, but many of your Lordships, and many more people who are involved in our penal system outside this House, are most concerned that the opportunity to set a new course in penal policy by measures which would have effectively kept the prison population at a manageable and socially acceptable level were missed, were spurned, by the Government. What we so badly need is a new concept of sentencing which retains an appropriately short punitive element but also includes rehabilitation. Apart from parole, which affects only a minority of prisoners, we do not have that, and it is badly needed as a sentencing principle.
  In his concluding speech on an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Elton said that the Government were looking at the proposition to lower the threshold of parole. I do not myself think that this is a sufficient solution, but we know now that its implementation is at the discretion of the Home Secretary under Section 33 of the new Act. My plea is that in weighing up the means to implement this step the Home Department will not drag their feet. The Home Office review of parole, which was announced in 1978, had a gestation period of nearly three years. It appeared in the middle of 1981. I hope they will not proceed at such an elphantine speed in implementing this new measure.
  My next point is the need to increase the use of non-custodial measures to deal with offenders, and young offenders in particular. Here, I should like to commend the Government for their continuing support of such measures as community service orders and intermediate treatment. Both forms of noncustodial treatment are on the increase—for instance, CSOs have increased by 23 per cent. in the last two years—and both require to be exploited in the public interest. As far as intermediate treatment is concerned, I note that the DHSS has increased its grants under the health service and the Public Health Act 1968 to a number of agencies, including the intermediate treatment fund committee of the Rayner Foundation.
  We who are members of that committee have disbursed about £1 million during the four years that we have been in business. There is no doubt that the development of IT has now reached a point where my committee alone could easily and with public benefit make grants to a total of £1 million in 12 months rather than four years. I understand from the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees that CSOs could not be made in a number of suitable cases last year because of insufficient resources, and this is just another way of making the same point of demand exceeding supply in terms of non-custodial sentences.
  I have dwelt on IT (as it is known) because of my own involvement but more importantly because of one most heartening aspect, and that is the existence of another kind of funding; that is, the fund of goodwill and of local voluntary, as well as statutory, initiatives to help young people who are at risk or are already in
  78
  trouble with the law. From my own contacts and observations this aspect of community involvement in what is essentially a community problem is most heartening.
  I urge the Government, as a logical consequence of their professed support for non-custodial measures wherever appropriate, to consider most seriously the document called A Case for Growth, prepared by the National Association of Probation Officers, which is supported by the chief probation officers and by the Central Council of Probation and After-Care Committees. Their case is based on the increase by no less than 17 per cent. in the last two years in the number of persons supervised by the probation service. There is no doubt that the increase in clients and the diversity of jobs demanded of them cause most probation officers to be overstretched. They do such a splendid and largely unsung job and this is a tremendous tribute to their sense of social responsibility. The Home Secretary has more than once expressed his wish to shift the balance from custodial measures to alternative methods within the community. To carry conviction and make that intent a practical proposition, he should increase the probation service, so as to increase its clients and to increase the diversity of its programmes.
  The other surprising omission from the gracious Speech was any reference to the inner cities situation. It has been referred to briefly already by the right reverend Prelate and others in terms of the ethnic minorities. Of course, it was raised once again during the debate on the Scarman Report. The debate made it very clear that this was not a situation affecting only the ethnic minorities living in the inner cities and not only the younger generation. It affects the lives and the attitudes of the whole populations of our inner city areas, and not just of the inner city areas. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, asked what the Government were doing to develop a co-ordinated programme covering activities at all levels of society to bear on this problem. Earlier in the debate I myself had asked the same question and suggested that so serious was it that it justified the appointment of a Minister of Cabinet rank whose sole responsibility it would be to co-ordinate action overall, to set the pace and to provide incentive all the way down the line. Understandably, the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with a great deal to answer, did not answer either Lord Scarman's question or my suggestion. It may be that he will have a moment this evening to do that.
  Like some of your Lordships, I have seen the conditions in our inner cities at intervals during the last 25 years and, despite all that has been said about them and despite the large sums of money that have been spent on them, progress is depressingly slow. Let me remind your Lordships that such obscenities as Railton Road in Brixton—which is now being dealt with, as your Lordships know—exist in many other inner city areas. They are places—I would almost say "Heaven sent" if it were not totally inappropriate—where professional anarchists reign supreme. So I should like to add my voice to the greater authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in pressing for action in the inner cities. If the Government really mean, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, assured us in that debate, that they are commit-

  79
  ted to a policy of one nation, then they must give proof of that intention by deeds, by dealing more urgently and more drastically with the situation in our inner cities.
  7.23 p.m.
  Lord Kagan: My Lords, at this late hour I will endeavour not to detain you too long. I should like to make a few observations which have already been better made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We have heard about the desirability of improving the penal reform system and the prison system, and on all sides it is assumed that, largely because of lack of resources, it cannot be done. But more resources, desirable though they are, are not the key issue. It is a completely new concept, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said.
  The background of many of the young prisoners who come into prison is the deprived community where the parents did not or could not give any guidance. Some of them, from the age of five, have had to fend for themselves on a survival course which in that context meant the survival of the fittest or, perhaps, the toughest. In school they were not under control, they could not be controlled. Then, after repeated infringements of the law they eventually landed up in prison at perhaps the age of 17 or 18. Up to that point, they will have had to fend and provide for themselves, to make all their own decisions; society will not have provided them with anything. They go through a prison gate and, inside five minutes, their life changes completely. From that moment onwards, everything is provided for them down to the last toothbrush, and no decision is allowed them.
  For the first time, they are under control, if one chooses to have them under control. And what happens? When they finally learn to fit into the system, they are ignored, they are subjected to mindless tasks and kept there for six months or a year or whatever the period may be. Then, at that point when they have finished their sentence, they are allowed out—and suddenly their life changes again. From that moment onwards, nothing is provided for them and they again have to make their own decisions. It would be kinder to take a diver from a thousand feet down and raise him to the surface without a decompression chamber! The sin of omission here is that, whereas the parents could have no control and therefore could not successfully guide them, whereas the school and the headmaster had no control and failed in their education, when in prison, these young men were for the first time under control and, if they would be, could be influenced. To influence them would require a considerable calibre of person. The prison officers are not trained for it and, although some of them enter the prison service very enthusiastically, they cannot perform that task. It is an anomaly that the average prison officer, although his basic pay is fairly low, finishes up with an income of between £14,000 and £18,000 a year. What kind of person could one get from the social and educational services for that kind of money? This is the missed opportunity. When these young men come into prison, having broken the law, they are subjected to the influence of fellow prisoners who have been there many times and for whom, as a deterrent, prison has ceased to exist. They come out
  80
  convinced that they now know even better how to commit crime.
  My Lords, the second anomaly is this. The average prison officer, by virtue of overtime and special expenses, can augment his salary until he finishes with £15,000, £16,000 or £17,000 a year. But the moment he gets promotion overtime does not exist and the situation arises where a Governor, for all his responsibility, finishes up with less money than does the average prison officer. If ever a formula were required for an institution to fail, then this is it. Can nothing be done about this?
  Instead of more resources, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, the community should be involved. The probation service is too thin on the ground to be effective. In some prisons, an experiment has been started to try to involve people from the community, people who are qualified by virtue of their background in education and so on, to act as perhaps moral bailees. If each prisoner had access to a civilian under the guidance of the probation service, a civilian who would have access to him, then a link would be provided between him and society, a link would be provided between him and his family. If, while in prison, he wanted to prepare for the life awaiting him when he came out of prison, they could help him. They could either steer him into some educational facility in prison or they could try to provide him with a job when he came out. At least it would give him hope. Such people are available and they would not cost the taxpayer any money. All they would ask would be for their expenses to be reimbursed. The quality would be very high indeed because there are many retired schoolmasters, bank managers and clergymen who would gladly take on one or two prisoners. This is an opportunity which should not be missed and would be an extension of the probation service which would not require more resources.
  I believe it now costs between £7,000 and £20,000 to keep a prisoner in prison for a year. I think that is three or four times the fees for Eton. If cost-effectiveness is looked at seriously, one will see what a failure it is. Each time we fail to take the opportunity to help to rehabilitate a prisoner, we effectively punish society to the tune of £20,000 a year. My Lords, thank you.
  7.32 p.m.
  Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, we have had quite a wide-ranging, extremely interesting and facinating debate today on home affairs. Quite a number of people have put their points of view from their own experience. One of the highlights of today's proceedings was the maiden speech by my noble friend Lord Rea who, in a very short maiden speech, poured out facts and figures which are bound to impress us and make us think. I hope that the noble Lord, who is in general practice in an area which calls for a lot of hard and intensive work, will be able to spare us some of his very valuable time, because frankly we need his help, his advice and extensive experience.
  We have been paying tributes today, but yesterday was a very heavy occasion for our staff and I want to express at least my personal appreciation of the way in which they carried out duties yesterday under extreme pressure. I refer particularly to the catering staff—and especially those concerned with the buffet. They had a

  81
  seething mob of starving Peers and guests and they coped with this with complete calm, kindness, consideration and courtesy. I hope that words of thanks will go to the appropriate quarter from those noble Lords concerned with the administration of the House.
  Regarding the Queen's Speech, there are one or two points that interested me very much indeed. One matter that gave me some cause for concern was the reference to the fact that legislation will be brought forward to extend the right to buy and to reform the system of building control in England and Wales. Any move to speed up planning procedures and approvals will of course be very welcome, and certainly building inspection is in need of tightening up. But the extension of the right to buy needs further explanation. Everyone has a right to buy provided that they can afford the financial implications of a mortgage and the cost of keeping the property in good repair in future. In passing, may I say that it is very wrong to discount council house values in order to attract people to involve themselves in house purchase. Of course, I am not against house purchase. The proposals in the gracious Speech—and I rely a great deal on what the noble Baroness said and what the press have said this morning—will extend the right to buy to.80,000 tenants of charitable housing associations. This is a matter for very careful consideration when it comes before us because the move would possibly seriously deplete the stocks of houses provided by voluntary associations for the elderly, disadvantaged, deprived and young newly-weds.
  Housing continues to be a problem calling for radical solutions. Far too many houses remain empty and derelict, yet in very many cases they are capable of restoration and modernisation. One of the most urgent needs of newly-weds is accommodation of a simple standard at a reasonable rent. Very little has been done to meet this need. While I am in favour of and strongly support, home ownership—after all, I own a house myself—it is wrong to force people into house or flat purchase, to scrape money together to provide a deposit and to incur a mortgage. To saddle a young couple with a millstone of debt in their early married life is a factor leading to breakdown of marriage. For a husband and wife, both forced to continue working to meet commitments, unemployment—and, yes, even a pregnancy—can spell economic disaster.
  My Lords, whether you like it or not, these are the facts of life today for many people. As a result of Government policy on housing, concentrated as it appears to be on the sale of council houses—in other words, their obsession with privatisation—stocks of accommodation available for letting have been seriously reduced. In addition, as people get older and children grow up, the opportunity to transfer to smaller or more suitable accommodation is becoming increasingly difficult.
  There is far too much dictatorship from Whitehall so far as local government is concerned. I am afraid that the proposals in the gracious Speech will extend it. On the subject of housing development, be it public or private, there has been over the past few years a tendency to economise on land by, at a minimum, providing a tiny handkerchief of a plot called a garden. In blocks of flats little or no such provision is made of any kind, even for recreation. There is an urgent need
  82
  for developing recreational areas for people in great blocks of high rise flats. That in a small way will ease some of the social problems that we are facing today. Incidentally, that would provide employment in those areas.
  There is also a need to provide plots of land for the growing of vegetables—and noble Lords will say, "Here comes his hobbyhorse!"—to help the family with their budget. Local authority allotments meet this need but face severe restriction as economy measures are forced on local authorities. Yet it is a social need and, properly planned and developed, can provide a great amenity asset.
  Two factors enforce this need: widespread unemployment and an ageing population. From a health and welfare angle alone the advantages are obvious. It is without doubt a valuable recreation; but there is no mention in the gracious Speech for consolidation and up-dating of allotment legislation. That is something that has been promised by Government after Government, but nothing ever happens. Perhaps even now the Government will show some degree of benevolence, even if a Private Bill is introduced.
  The house is the home. It is said that the home is an Englishman's castle. The home is the centre of family life. The seven-day unpaid worker without a union is obviously the mother. In the majority of cases she deals with the weekly budget. Now the Government tell us—and I accept their word—that inflation is coming down. But for the average family budget it is a missing factor. If noble Lords doubt me, they should ask my wife, because she reminded me that I have to say this. I entirely agree with her anyway because we do shopping jointly.
  Food prices seem to continue to go up. Gas and electricity bills—aided by Government measures—have sharply increased. They are still going up. Prescription charges keep on rising as do the charges for teeth and spectacles. Fares are a constant economic problem for the family. Let us face up to this. Reference was made today to a divided nation. It is the small wage-earner, the unemployed, the disabled and the sick who carry the main burden of Tory monetary policy today, there can be no doubt whatever.
  I now turn to something on which I agree with the Government and I also can receive approbation form the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, who is so concerned about this Chamber.
  The gracious Speech says,
  "Legislation will be introduced to encourage improved and better co-ordinated marketing of British food and agricultural produce".
  This I welcome very warmly and in my early days as a Member of Parliament I frequently advocated this when I represented a partly rural constituency. For far too long British producers have suffered from Common Market systems, competition and dumping. We have to meet competition, and this move will help. I welcome it very warmly indeed. Any move in this direction indicated in the gracious Speech will be to the advantage of producer and consumer alike. I hope and expect it to be based on co-operative lines of marketing, production and selling.
  Another point arose on the gracious Speech, and noble Lords will probably expect me to make some comment on it. It is as follows:
  "Legislation will be introduced to enable improvements to be made to the health and social services."

  83
  I must be honest and confess that when I heard those words yesterday I feared the worst, because, as I will indicate later, actions by the present and previous Conservative Governments have been a disaster to the National Health Service and the allied social services. However, it would appear from what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said and from today's press that the proposals are for stricter safeguards for the elderly and better services for the handicapped and the mentally handicapped. If that is the case, I welcome it. Such proposals, in my view, cross party lines and they would receive our constructive support, provided that adequate finance is made available and also provided that this will not mean a reduction of national health financial support in the process.
  On Monday, 25th October, in reply to a Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, at col. 321:
  "Last year we spent over £11 billion. This represents growth in services of about 5 per cent. in real terms and there will be further growth this year".
  Following the announcement of a freeze on spending by the Secretary of State for Social Services, economies in the National Health Service announced by five of the 14 English regional authorities total nearly £50 million, and when all regional authorities have completed their discussions the total figure is likely to exceed £100 million. Oxford Regional Authority, faced with a cut of £12 million per year over two years, have already made preliminary proposals for drastic cuts in services, and this pattern could be followed by other regional authorities in varying degrees. They will have no option. Already in my local hospital the allocation from the district health authority to the particular hospital in which I have an interest this year for equipment will be nothing. This is the pattern which is emerging all over the country. So much, my Lords, for "real terms". If this extra 5 per cent. is being spent, where on earth is the money going?
  The reorganisation of the National Health Service under the previous Tory Government headed by Mr. Heath was a financial disaster, imposing intolerable financial problems on the service, together with a costly bureaucratic structure, at the expense of patient care. The present Government have recognised this in their consequent reorganisation down to a two-tier authority. This reorganisation, reverting, as I have said, to a two-tier structure, for some time must provide additional financial strain because of past mismanagement by Whitehall. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others who referred to administration. What is needed is a drastic up-dating of administration at all levels in the National Health Service. There must be some common method of administration carried out and I would suggest also the introduction of modern office equipment, centrally purchased and maintained under contract, which would save considerable work-hours. It would increase efficiency and save considerable amounts of money in the process.
  I must declare an interest: I am president of the league of friends for a hospital and only last Monday we received a request from the maternity department for special computerised labelling equipment—which would save hundreds of hours and a number of staff—for writing labels for a woman in the first stages of pregnancy. They cannot get the money elsewhere
  84
  and they are trying to persuade us on this. We are doing our best to raise the money.
  In passing, in this difficult period of the National Health Service—I know that I am an interested party, as are many others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod—I should like to pay a tribute to the many leagues of friends throughout the country who are working hard to raise money from the public to provide equipment which, quite frankly, should be provided by the Government for the health service as it originally was; because originally we were not allowed to buy this sort of equipment. Now the only way consultants and others can get some badly-needed equipment is to ask their league of friends to hold fetes and go round raising money. I do not object to doing this, but the point is that the Government have been leaning on leagues of friends far too much in the last two or three years.
  In a debate on medical care in the National Health Service held on 10th March last—the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will remember this because we got into a little difficulty afterwards—I drew attention to the considerable unrest, especially among senior nursing staff, at the widespread advertising of senior posts and its effect on morale. Since then I have had some more experience of this. Some senior nursing officers can apply for five posts and others only one, depending on their seniority—and that one is their present job, which they have probably done with great expertise for several years. To my knowledge, one person applied for five posts, including her own job. She was interviewed by five different committees and failed to get a post. Another was only allowed to apply for her own post. The committee failed to make an appointment and now this lady, having applied again, has been interviewed and is still awaiting a decision on her future in the hospital world.
  Another one, although successful after five committee interviews, was so drained by her experience that she took a week's leave and went out to Malta to recover. I met her there by chance and she poured out her story to me about the tremendous strain imposed on these experienced people, often being questioned by those without the slightest experience of nursing, although officials are present. This is a very serious matter. I would say—and I do not apologise for my words—that this is a pretty callous and inhuman way to treat highly trained and experienced staff, after years of devoted service. It is having a serious effect on morale right down the line and I would say, quite definitely and deliberately, that it is one of the contributory factors to the present unrest in the National Health Service. Senior nursing officers have responsibility for ancillary workers and, when they see their senior nursing officers being kicked around while they themselves are getting a raw deal, it is small wonder that there is unrest in the National Health Service.
  Finally, I know that the Government are very keenly interested in the private health sector and are, indeed, actively encouraging its expansion—I wish that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, were here, because I believe that he is chairman of BUPA—but the private sector is quite capable of looking after itself, prompted as it is by the profit motive which the Conservative Party so warmly supports. The Government should apply all their time, energy and attention to the

  85
  National Health Service, and ease some of their obsession with privatisation, particularly in that field.
  7.52 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, my noble friend the Leader of the House introduced this long and deeply interesting debate on a theme—the recovery of our nation. I should like at the outset to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rea. I shall have occasion to refer to him again, but I shall refer to him then as though he were an old Member of your Lordships' House, because that seems appropriate to the quality of his submission. At the start, I should like to pay him the compliment which is his due for an admirable embarkation upon the waters of this House, upon which I hope we shall see him sailing with equal equanimity on many occasions in the years to come.
  The theme to which my noble friend addressed herself was the recovery of our nation. We are all aware of the economic context in which we speak. The gracious Speech itself touched on the anxieties and distress of those who experience unemployment—a theme reverted to time and again during our debates. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, himself said, this matter will be given proper attention in your Lordships' House next Wednesday. It is the Government's conviction that sustainable growth alone will rescue us from our present position, and it can be founded only on a contiuing fall in the rate of inflation and the regaining of our industrial competitiveness at home and in the world markets.
  The fundamental problem is not the lack of money demand in the economy, but the lack of a supply of goods which can compete on price and quality with those produced overseas. It is the Government's task to set the conditions under which competitive industry can thrive. But the economic context is not the only context and, as I say, that will be the subject for much closer scrutiny next week. Nor, in some respects, is it the most important context. There is also the context provided by the fabric of society itself, by the traditional categories of authority and of acceptable behaviour which, since time immemorial, have provided the framework within which all of us live and which, together, pronounce the character of our nation to those who observe it.
  This fabric is made up of many things, and your Lordships have touched upon a number of them in the past hours. One, which is immediately and obviously relevant, is our police service, and your Lordships will be aware of much public concern about the policing of this country, some of it voiced eloquently by your Lordships. It was heightened by several serious outbreaks of public disorder in the summer of last year, by the publication of a penetrating report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and, indeed, by a useful discussion in this House in the closing days of last Session. These and other events threw into sharp relief one of the most essential axioms of policing a democratic society: that, to be done successfully, it must be done with the community concerned.
  I say "in a democracy", because that is an essential consideration in understanding the role of our police forces. In a dictatorship, or in a totalitarian state, the
  86
  people are a threat to authority. In a democracy, the people are the source of authority. That is the difference of concept and from it flows a whole world of difference in conduct and attitude, for when one of our police forces sets out to counter a breach of public order it is not the Government of the day that they are defending. What they are defending is that fabric of society which itself provides the authority for every Government. It is that which is under attack and which they seek to preserve.
  The police, therefore, are not an élite imposed upon the community. They are a body drawn from it, and what they do is not done to the community; still less is it done against it. It is done for the community, and that, of course, is essential to their treatment of individuals, as it is to their handling of crowds. Our intention, therefore, is to assist the growth in public confidence—something in which, in particular, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, encouraged us—and the growth, also, in the efficiency of every police force in the country.
  To that end, we shall be bringing in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which was mentioned in the Royal Speech. Those parts of the Bill which are most clearly concerned with the relationship between the police and the community will be that which provides a statutory requirement for consultative arrangements in each force area and that which will implement the arrangements for dealing with complaints against the police. On the statutory duty to consult, I will say only that it will be so drafted that different solutions can be tailor-made to suit the different circumstances that prevail in different areas. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, pointed out, this will take a considerable effort by very many people.
  The duty will rest on police authorities, except in London. There, because both the City of London Police and the Metropolitan Police have their own special legislation, the duty will be placed on the two Commissioners to make arrangements with the Common Council and with each borough and district in the Metropolitan Police district. This is but one aspect of a policing policy which is designed, once more, to pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, called the gossip, as well as the confidence, of the people.
  Our proposals for dealing with complaints, which closely follow the recommendations of the Select Committee of another place, were set out at length in the White Paper which was recently published, and also by my noble friend in her introductory address this afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, again rightly said, we shall be considering this more closely in the processes of legislation when the Bill comes before your Lordships. That is a consideration which I must have in replying to every point; and your Lordships will understand that I am under great constraints not to exceed my ration of time by the amount that I did when I last addressed your Lordships.
  The bulk of the provisions of this Bill rest largely upon the report published last year by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Its intentions are to modernise and rationalise the powers of the police and to introduce clearer safeguards for the citizen. It will cover the powers of stop and search, of entry,

  87
  search and seizure, arrest, the way in which people are questioned, and their treatment generally while they are in custody. It will also deal with the way in which people suspected of crime are identified.
  Those are the principal provisions of the Bill relating to the police. They do not include a specific offence of racially prejudiced behaviour. Prejudice or discrimination against any section of our society, whether distinguished by race or by any other characteristic, is entirely reprehensible. Discrimination based on race is, of all kinds, the most repugnant. The Police Advisory Board was unanimous in the view that it is entirely unacceptable in the police service.
  On criminal procedure, the Bill will reform the law of evidence in criminal proceedings. It will render certain computer and other documentary material admissible as evidence, provide for proof of convictions and acquittals, for the competence and compellability as a witness of the accused's spouse, for the advance disclosure of expert evidence in Crown Court cases and for the admissibility of confessions. This latter provision will replace the relevant provisions in the Judges' Rules. It will also make minor amendments to the Police Act 1964.
  Many of your Lordships referred to the absence from the Bill of a proposal for an independent prosecuting service. As I told your Lordships' House in the summer, the Government recognise the strong case in principle for introducing an independent element into the arrangements for prosecution but there is no consensus on the form that such a service should take. We therefore asked a working party of officials to examine and advise us on this question, on the problems that might arise, how they might be solved and the resource implications.
  Work is also in hand on the interim measures which I announced at the same time, including the Attorney-General's criteria for prosecution and the request from the Director for cases to be referred to him where the police wish to continue proceedings, contrary to the advice of the solicitor having the conduct of the case. This request, as well as the Attorney-General's guidance, will be made public in the near future. These interim measures, taken together with our policy of favouring the establishment of prosecuting solicitors' departments in all forces, represent a significant step in the direction which the Royal Commissin wanted, but we cannot devise the next step without further consideration of the form that an independent service should take and the practical implications of its introduction.
  In discussing matters of confidence, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the question of Section 48 of the 1977 Act. At the time that that provision was enacted it was estimated that its implementation would cost £4 million per year. A working party was established to attempt to obtain a closer estimate of the likely cost. It concluded that a disclosure scheme, based on summaries of the prosecution case, would cost between £1·5 million and £4·5 million, while a scheme based on the provision of copies of witness statements would cost between £3·5 million and £16¼ million. Earlier this year, representatives of the Law Society and the Bar Council joined the working party. An agreement was reached that pilot projects should be established to test various assumptions made about the costs of implementation, its likely effect also on
  88
  defendants' behaviour in court and on police resources. The first experimental project began in Newcastle on 1st November. It is hoped to establish a second one in another area and the experiments will last for a year.
  As to stop and search, where stop and search powers exist there is no doubt that they are an important aid in controlling crime—and street crime in particular. In London, a large number of arrests are made each year as the result of stops and searches in the street. Without these powers, many offences simply could not be cleared up. The power to stop and search for offensive weapons which was introduced in Scotland by the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 1980 is already proving its worth there. At the same time, we are fully conscious of the anxieties which have been expressed about these proposals and about the fears of damage to relations between the police and the community. We are determined that this should not be allowed to happen and that these powers should be used, and should be seen to be used, as both the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, emphasised, responsibly. The new powers would therefore be subject to additional safeguards on the lines recommended by the Royal Commission.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred to a forecast (I am moving beyond the police now to the area where some of the fruit of their work is sadly garnered: the prisons) of the future prison population, indicating that on current assumptions the population would rise to over 52,000. I thought I had been at sufficient pains to put that in its proper perspective when it was raised last in your Lordships' House. However, I can tell the noble and learned Lord that last year's forecast, which is the most up to date available, indicated that the population will rise to 49,000 in 1990. Current work suggests that this year's forecast will be about the same, so there is an end, at least temporarily, to the rising trend. I would add that the Criminal Justice Act provides alternatives to custody, that the resources of the probation service have increased by 3 per cent. in the last year and that we are aiming at a further 1 per cent. increase in the next.
  I listened with great interest and respect to the views of the noble Lord. Lord Kagan, on the prison service. His description of the process by which prisoners first have all responsibility taken from them and then, when they have become unaccustomed to the process of decision, have it all thrust, willy-nilly, back on them was. I thought, illuminating. I shall read tomorrow with renewed interest the noble Lord's views on possible ways of restructuring the prison service and its finances.
  On another matter touching the prisons, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, referred to a debate on the Criminal Justice Bill in the last Session, during which I discussed the use of the power to reduce the minimum qualifying period for parole. I pointed out that there would be additional administration for almost twice as many parole reviews as at present and that the transfer of more people from prison to supervision outside prison has obvious consequences for the probation service. But we are, as I have told your Lordships, starting consultations in depth with all those concerned—the prison and probation services staff associations, the probation authorities and our own responsible staff in

  89
  the prison service—about a possible change. A reduction in the qualifying period is feasible, but such a change would be substantial and we have to get it right. We must be certain that what we do is to help the local prisons and not accidentally to make things there more difficult.
  May I now turn to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, whose speech—none of your Lordships found it disappointing because it was a spiritual rather than a temporal oration—made it clear that the differing concerns of Church and state in no way caused them to fall out. The right reverend Prelate was also concerned with the confidence which is a necessity for the rebuilding of our community: confidence in our society on the part of its minority members. To him I would say, as I said in a debate in your Lordships' House only last week, that my party is founded upon the principle that we are one nation. The Government remain unshakeable in their support of that principle.
  To the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend Lord O'Hagan I would say that my right honourable friend published recently a White Paper setting out his proposals for changes in the immigration rules. These are drafted with a view to application to decisions taken on and after 1st January next year. There will shortly be a full opportunity for your Lordships to discuss these proposals. I look forward with great interest to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend taking advantage of that occasion to expand their views beyond the admirably succinct confines within which they kept themselves earlier this evening.
  I shall not, I suppose, gain much additional support from my noble friend Lord O'Hagan when it comes to the matter of uniform European electoral processes. The Community treaties require the European Parliament to draw up proposals for a uniform electoral procedure under which its elections would be held in each member state. To legislate ahead of the agreement of the Council of Ministers would be to dedicate invaluable parliamentary time to work which would almost certainly have to be undone once the decision of the Council was made.
  Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, is that all that my noble friend has to say on the topic? He has not answered the point which I made. There will be no uniform electoral procedure for elections to the European Parliament before the next European elections. In those circumstances, are Her Majesty's Government still willing to disfranchise British citizens living in other member states of the Community?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord is very trenchant on the matter, but the fact remains that your Lordships' time, and the time of another place, is extremely valuable. Your Lordships become increasingly aware of it as I proceed. There is no point in building castles in the sand below the high water mark.
  If I may return to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he was interested, as were others of your Lordships, in the inner cities. I cannot embark upon a dissertation on that subject at this late hour but would refer him to the fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment recently announced important initiatives aimed at urban regeneration—and, in particular, to his urban development grant
  90
  which aims to use public sector monies as leverage for private sector investment. It now looks as though it will attract more than £500 million worth of private sector money for £200 million worth of public money. There is a great deal more to be said about that, but I am not going to say it.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rea, who has so much relevant experience and such a confident command of his material, also concentrated on the matter of confidence; the confidence of the less fortunate among us in health, and indeed in life itself. He referred extensively to the Black Report, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal. The noble Baroness referred to the report more in passing in a sally which leads me to say in sole response to her attack that, for as long as she is in this House, the ladies of this world need have no fear that their case will go by default. The Black Report brought together a mass of information about inequalities in health between social classes, but it did not explain how social class or factors relating to social class actually cause inequalities in health. The report made 37 recommendations, some of which would involve expenditure on a scale which cannot be contemplated, but others aim at objectives similar to those already identified in the handbook for health and social service authorities, Care in Action, which sets out the Government's policies and priorities in this field.
  Authorities are expected to follow this guidance as circumstances permit. Some recommendations have been overtaken by current action by the Department of Health and Social Security and much that is in the report does not require legislation. With regard to telephones, which, as the noble Lord. Lord Ferrier, pointed out, also give confidence to the elderly, infirm and distantly located, I would say that local authorities have powers already to assist with the provision of telephones to elderly and disabled persons in cases of need. The Government believe that these arrangements are working well. However, I will draw your Lordships' comments to the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
  Confidence in the family is essential, as the noble Baroness. Lady Ewart-Biggs, made clear. She referred to conciliation, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has established an interdepartmental committee to advise Ministers on the nature and scope of matrimonial conciliation services, and to consider whether they can produce savings and other benefits to the individuals concerned and public resources. The committee is expected to report early next year. I am afraid that my noble and learned friend has made no decision yet on the question whether or not he should publish the committee's report. The Government have recently received a request for further funding from the trustees of the Bristol Courts Family Conciliation Service to which the noble Baroness referred, and we will of course give that request full attention.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, also raised the subject of child benefit. In July 1980 my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Social Services gave an undertaking that, subject to economic and other circumstances, the value of child benefit would be maintained at its November 1980 value, and that remains our intention. The real value

  91
  of child benefit has been retained since the November 1980 uprating. From 22nd November this year the rate will be increased to £5.85p in line with our forecast rise in the Retail Price Index from November 1980, thus restoring the 2 per cent. shortfall in the value of the benefit which occurred between November 1980 and November 1981.
  The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury—whom we regret is unable to be with us—drew upon experience gained in the course of his own distinguished public work to illustrate the theme that Government bureaucracy is inflexible in dealing with the services they control. In this instance—and I refer to it because other noble Lords addressed the same theme—I believe that the boot is rather on the other foot. The Government have moved three times on National Health Service pay since the 4 per cent. factor was set for the public sector as a whole last December. Our most recent proposals, made in September, offered agreement on both the money to be made available for pay next year and on discussions on the timing of the two-year package worth almost £1,100 million. The options included a higher percentage increase at an earlier date as well as a substantial element of back pay. A settlement would have paved the way for the introduction by 1 st April 1984 of the new arrangements for the determination of health service pay which the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, so eloquently pressed us to adopt. Talks on these proposals continue with the Royal College of Nursing and other professional bodies. We all hope that they will be successful. In contrast, the TUCs health service committee refused even to meet Ministers to discuss them, even thought the proposals were prepared in close consultation with the chairman and secretary of that committee. They did not move at all from their claim for a 12 per cent. pay increase and asked constituent unions to seek a mandate for all-out industrial action. However, contact was at last made, in the last two days, between the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service and representatives of that committee. ACAS has reported on these discussions to the department and the department is urgently considering what the next step shall be.
  There are many other points, some of which I will have to gloss over. Where appropriate I will write to your Lordships—but that is not the principal purpose of this debate. I shall not deal with the reporting of Parliament on "Yesterday in Parliament", but I will listen with interest tomorrow to hear which parts of my noble friend's speech the service thinks are fit for broadcasting! I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and will only say that the question of the integration of different religions in education services in Northern Ireland is a subject of horrendous and dangerous difficulty—and those who think it is easy to resolve are playing with the lives of others.
  I will conclude with reluctance, and I know that the reluctance is only mine, by saying that I have tried to answer as many of your Lordships' points as possible. I have made no attempt to match the depth of your Lordships' insight. This has not been a time for the close inspection of legislation; that comes at Second Reading and Committee stages. I will only say that our approach is careful of resources because the lesson of recent history is that we cannot spend our way out of
  92
  troubles. This evening, I heard from the Benches opposite the idea that in some way less unemployment now is worth galloping inflation in the future. It is not. That would be to go back to a vicious cycle. We do have a vision; unlike with the noble Lord, Lord Perry of Walton, it does not need polishing. It is clear. Our ultimate objective is to create the conditions in which the country will emerge from the recession with renewed vigour; in which our people's peace and safety can be secured; and in which we all have confidence in the unity and stability of the society in which we were raised and in which we hope eventually to die.
  Baroness David: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Minister sits down. I believe that I am the only person to whose speech he did not refer in his reply.
  Lord Wallace of Coslany: Mine was not mentioned.
  Baroness David: My Lords, the noble Lord was in fact absent from the Chamber during the first part of my speech, and so possibly he will honour me with a letter responding to some of the points I made.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I have three disjointed but joined manuscript pages of notes of what the noble Baroness said in my presence and of what my admirably diligent noble friend Lord Glenarthur wrote of what the noble Baroness said in my absence. I hope that she will be in no way slighted by the measure of attention I gave her, although I was distracted a little by my urgent need to take on a little fuel before attempting this flight.
  Lord Wigoder: My Lords, with apologies and before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether the Government have any plans for dealing with the question of eligibility for jury service?
  Lord Elton: My Lords, I fear that that also was a page that I turned over, which I regret. The position is that we have that under close review. I am aware of the noble Lord's interest, which now takes the form of a Bill which he has tabled. It remains our view that the best chance of success in that context would be a Bill placed high on the Private Members' List in another place; but that does not mean that we are hostile to him.
  Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, I beg to move that this debate be now adjourned until next Tuesday, 9th November.
  Moved, That this debate be now adjourned until Tuesday, 9th November.—(Lord Denham).
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.

  LORRIES: FUTURE MEASURES
  LORRIES: FUTURE MEASURES
  EUROCONTROL ORGANISATION: 19th ANNUAL REPORT
  EUROCONTROL ORGANISATION: 19th ANNUAL REPORT