Sitting of 16 February 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
The Clerk, at the Table, informed the House of the absence of Mr. SPEAKER from this day's sitting, pursuant to leave given upon Tuesday 15 February.
Whereupon Mr. BERNARD WEATHERILL, The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table, and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY-SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Serpell Report (Consultants)
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Transport what fees have actually been paid to the consultants Travers Morgan Ltd. for their work on the Serpell report.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Howell): Payments to date amount to nearly £370,000 inclusive of disbursements and VAT. Final accounts have not yet been received.
    Mr. Whitehead: As over half the costs of the Serpell inquiry have gone in lucrative fees to the consultants Travers Morgan, would not the right hon. Gentleman consider it unwise to pay any further sums that may be outstanding to the firm, as many Opposition Members and others in the country believe that—inadvertently or not—he breached the guidelines in the code of practice with regard to seeking a sufficiently wide source of assistance and advice for such a committee? Many of us believe that this matter should go to the Public Accounts Committee.
    Mr. Howell: There is no question of a breach of the code of practice. The hon. Gentleman will see that page 5 shows that the procedures were strictly followed. The payments to Travers Morgan are strictly and closely audited and checked; and, of course, the PAC has a perfect right to look at them.
    Mr. Dover: Is my right hon. Friend aware that several Conservative Members welcome the very quick findings of the consultants Travers Morgan and consider the fees paid to be a mere trifle compared with the enormous savings that will be possible?
    Mr. Howell: It is true, as my hon. Friend points out, that the report identifies savings in excess of £200 million. Therefore, it is clearly worth while getting good and thorough complex financial and engineering studies.
    Mr. Cryer: Is not the total cost paid out to two firms of consultants, which had two members on the Serpell committee, in excess of £500,000? Is it not curious that, although the Secretary of State always rabbits on about competition, these consultants were chosen without any competitive tendering whatsoever, contrary to the general rules of conduct applying to such business?
    Mr. Howell: As I have said, the consultants were chosen not contrary to, but in accordance with, the code of practice laid down for their procurement. In this case, it was clear that there was a need to make rapid progress—as was strongly urged by British Rail—with complex financial and engineering studies. The consultants were chosen because they could give prompt backing to those selected to help with the review.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Secretary of State cite one other case in which companies that have provided a consultancy service to a committee of inquiry have had their senior partners appointed to it? Where is that specified in the rules that the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned?
    Mr. Howell: There are precedents for the employment of consultants whose partners are committee members, and I shall let the hon. Gentleman have details— [Interruption]—if he so wishes. The rules for the employment of consultants make it clear that in exceptional circumstances an approach to a single firm may be made.
    Mr. Ron Lewis: If, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the inquiry will save hundreds of millions of pounds, how does he intend to proceed?
    Mr. Howell: We had a full debate in which I answered that question and implied that British Rail was being urged to seek the savings—well in excess of £200 million—that were identified in the Serpell report.

    Overseas Railways (Rolling Stock)
    Mr. Stottasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will discuss with the chairman of the British Railways Board the prospects for the manufacture in British Rail Engineering Ltd. workshops of rolling stock for overseas railways.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Reginald Eyre): Yes, Sir. My right hon. Friend and I have made it clear that we will do everything we can to encourage the railway engineering industry to seek and win overseas orders.
    Mr. Stott: No doubt the Minister is aware that British Rail Engineering Ltd. has issued compulsory redundancy notices to quite a lot of people, particularly in Westhoughton. At the same time, that company is farming out work to private enterprise. Will the Minister comment on that, particularly as the situation is so difficult? As British Rail has now secured an important order for the Congo, will the Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State state categorically that they reject the options in the Serpell report about the future of British Rail Engineering Ltd.? Will the hon. Gentleman approve the investment programme for British Rail, so that the sleeper coaches on the London-Midlands line can be refurbished in British Rail workshops instead of being withdrawn from service, as currently planned?
    Mr. Eyre: The hon. Gentleman raises a number of questions, but he knows that the problems of over-capacity that have arisen in BREL, which have been given active consideration during the past year, throw upon BREL and BR the responsibility to organise their affairs to the best advantage.
    The Government have strongly encouraged exports. They have helped through ministerial visits, support for

    277
    financial arrangements, and grants for the development of an international standard coach. We were delighted when the Congo recently placed a £23 million order. Overseas orders worth £75 million were won by BREL last year.
    Mr. Bagier: The Minister says that BREL is suffering from over-capacity. Will he tell British Rail that it is wrong in principle to farm out the breaking up of old wagons to private enterprise, such as Dobbins of Chester and others? Will he instruct BR that if there is over-capacity, the capacity of the workshops should be fully utilised before work is farmed out?
    Mr. Eyre: British Rail must make its commercial decisions about the allocation of work. The Government want to see more investment in the railways, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that alone will not solve the problems of BREL. We must take account of the technical changes that have taken place in the running of the railways—for example, wagon loads, the new style of wagons, their more efficient use and, therefore, the reduction in the number of wagons built and the reduction in repair work.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister not realise that the Government are intervening in the affairs of British Rail? Does he not also realise that over the heads of British Rail there hangs the threat of cutbacks? How does he expect any part of British Rail to build up an efficient and viable industry not only for internal use but for exports? When will he help the nationalised British Rail to be more efficient and viable?
    Mr. Eyre: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government want an efficient, competitive railway engineering industry that can supply British Rail and win overseas orders. His question relates to the responsibility of BREL and BR in conducting the affairs of the company to its best advantage.

    Central London-Stansted Airport (Rail Link)
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss the feasibility of a rail link between central London and Stansted airport; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Eyre: The feasibility of a rail link to Stansted airport has already been established. Whether the link will be needed will depend on the decision on the proposed expansion of the airport.
    Mr. Haselhurst: What would be the cost of such a project? Will that cost not further tend to question the wisdom of establishing a third London airport in north-west Essex? Will my hon. Friend consider whether such a sum might be better directed towards improving services on the Cambridge line so that my constituents can enjoy a railway service more fitting to the 1980s than to the 1930s?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend knows that the Government have made it clear that they intend to provide a rail service to link the expanded airport with London. But a decision will not be taken before the outcome of the inquiry is known. British Rail's earlier study estimated a cost of about £170 million at 1980 prices. The detailed work currently under way shows scope for reducing that cost.
    I note my hon. Friend's views about priorities for railway development.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Minister aware that a rail link between Stansted airport and central London is more sensible than the proposal to build a dangerous and noisy heliport on the banks of the Thames opposite my constituency?
    Mr. Eyre: I note the hon. Gentleman's opinion.
    Mr. Colvin: Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity to compare the cost of a rail link with Stansted with the cost of extending the Picadilly line to serve a fifth terminal on the Perry Oaks site at Heathrow, which would cost only £19 million at 1979 prices? Is that not one good reason, together with many other good reasons, for developing a fifth terminal at Heathrow rather than embarking upon development at Stansted?
    Mr. Eyre: My hon. Friend mentioned a factor that must be taken into account when the outcome of the inquiry is known. I know that he will understand that the decision on the airport will be taken by my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Trade and for the Environment.
    Mr. Wilkinson: In order to compare like with like, will my hon. Friend consider the cost of extending British Rail's network from Feltham to terminal 5, which would be much cheaper than building a new rail service from central London to Stansted?
    Mr. Eyre: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It will be taken into account in due course.
    Mr. Jay: Will the Minister give an assurance that a decision will be taken on this matter before the end of the century?
    Mr. Eyre: The right hon. Gentleman will have to await the outcome of the inquiry, and we cannot yet estimate when that will be.

    Rail Electrification
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next expects to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board for the purpose of discussing plans for further electrification.
    Mr. David Howell: I frequently meet the chairman of the British Railways Board to discuss matters of mutual interest, including plans for further electrification.
    Mr. Spriggs: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets the chairman of the board, will he confirm that he intends to authorise the electrification of the line between Ashford and Hastings with the least possible delay? Will he also confirm that the rates of return for the electrification of the east coast main line are favourable? When the board's submissions are complete, will he authorise the electrification of the east coast main line without delay?
    Mr. Howell: The Government recognise and have made a commitment to the need for a major investment on the Tonbridge to Hastings section of the line. Discussions are continuing on the precise form that the investment should take.
    The British Rail Board brought forward figures last autumn for the electrification of the east coast line. It then withdrew them because it needed to revise the prospects

    279
    for inter-city business. I understand that it will bring forward new figures shortly, and I look forward to seeing them.
    Mr. Hordern: Would not the prospects for electrification be greatly improved if British Rail were allowed to operate the parts that have been electrified—for example, the Bedford to St. Pancras line? Does not that and other restrictive practices, such as guards still travelling on goods trains when they are not required, make the prospect for British Rail rather bleak?
    Mr. Howell: I assure my hon. Friend that British Rail has my full support in seeking to overcome the monstrous delay in the use of £150 million of modern equipment on the newly electrified line between Bedford and St. Pancras. It has become a symbol of the refusal of part of the trade union movement to accept the new practices that are necessary to go with the new investment.
    Mr. James Hamilton: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the board, will he remind him of the speech that he made on 8 February when he stated clearly that if the electrification of the railways took place it would mean the renewal of diesel engines which, in many instances, would have to come from abroad? Will the Minister speak seriously with the chairman about that problem?
    Mr. Howell: It is correct that, elsewhere in the system, diesel engines are coming to the end of their lives and are in need of renewal. However, the diesel equipment on the east coast line still has many years of service. That is why the Government and the British Railways Board seek to provide an overall view of inter-city services and how they can be brought to profit.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that he will tell the chairman of British Rail that once the proposals for the electrification of the east coast line are submitted to him they will be reviewed as a matter of urgency and a quick, and I hope positive, decision will be taken on them?
    Mr. Howell: I shall do my best to look at the proposals as quickly as possible in the light of the criteria laid down by the Government, which have not changed since they were laid down in the summer of 1981, one of which was that there must be a prospect and a plan for how much inter-city business as a whole can be brought into profit.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a growing suspicion that the only programme of massive public expenditure that the Government seem eager to embrace is continuingly increasing unemployment? Would it not be better to devote resources to major items of expenditure, such as the gas-gathering pipeline, which the right hon. Gentleman rejected in another office, and major electrification? Would this not at least bring us into line with the practices of many of our competitors?
    Mr. Howell: Yes, I welcome all worthwhile investment, and I welcome the fact that British Rail is lifting its moratorium on investment projects and will be able to increase investment next year. Investment in new infrastructure, including rail developments, is highly desirable where it is worth while and soundly based.
    Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that consideration of electrification of the east coast main line route will be separate from and parallel to any consideration of the Serpell report?
    Mr. Howell: The issue is being looked at separately from the Serpell report. The Serpell report made some observations about the long-term prospects for the inter-city business, but that does not alter the way in which the east coast electrification issue is being handled.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How many times has British Rail submitted figures on electrification to the right hon. Gentleman and how many times has he asked for recalculations to be done?
    Mr. Howell: On the east coast main line, British Rail has brought forward proposals once before, and the next time will be the second occasion. British Rail decided to withdraw its calculations in November, following discussions with my Department which revealed that the revenue projections were no longer soundly based.

    Road Construction
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent on new road construction in each of the past three years at constant prices.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): At average 1981–82 prices, expenditure on new construction of motorways and trunk roads in England was £438 million in 1979–80, £407 million in 1980–81 and £449 million in 1981–82. The corresponding figures for local roads were £380 million, £465 million, and £335 million. The last figure is still provisional.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that our roads are inadequate for the traffic that they have to bear? In such circumstances, does she not think that expenditure on new roads should be much higher in the next few years than it has been in the past three years?
    Mrs. Chalker: Some roads are inadequate, but there was an increase in trunk road output of 10 per cent. in 1981–82 and of at least 10 per cent. more in 1982–83. We are seeking an extra £45 million this year for roads, by means of Supplementary Vote, because we have been able to make exceptional progress on work already in hand, so we shall be able to get on with extra structural repairs.
    Mr. Eastham: Why is there all this emphasis on new road building, which has consequences for loan charges and which means that there will be less money for normal road maintenance? Does the Minister recognise that decaying infrastructure in the inner city areas is a deterrent to the development of industry? Is it not about time that there was a new emphasis on spending on maintenance rather than on major road schemes?
    Mrs. Chalker: I wholly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is right to maintain our roads, but maintenance spending on motorways and trunk roads rose by 27 per cent. in real terms between 1979–80 and 1981–82, and a further increase is likely in 1982–83. Nobody is more conscious than I of the need to maintain adequately our older roads which can still give very good service and have a good extended life.
    Sir Anthony Royle: Will my hon. Friend speed up the construction of the M25 to give some relief to the continuing and serious problems on the south circular road?
    Mrs. Chalker: As my hon. Friend knows, the south circular road is a matter for the Greater London council, not for my Department. The M25 not only has our top priority, but in many stretches it is running ahead of schedule. It will be completed by 1986, and two thirds of it is either under construction or will be completed for use later this year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why is it that of the 22 new schemes introduced in this year's White Paper, only two fell within the area covered by the North of England County Councils Association? Why could not more of the schemes in Cumbria be introduced in this year's White Paper? Does the Minister recall that only two years ago the Government produced a White Paper that removed six schemes from the county of Cumbria?
    Mrs. Chalker: Let us get this into perspective. In 1980, when the Government looked through the schemes said to be under preparation, they found that many were not under preparation but merely lines on a piece of paper. The review made sure that those schemes that were listed were truly under preparation. In last year's review I was able to bring schemes back into the preparation pool so that we could take advantage of lower tender prices and build those roads sooner.
    Mr. Higgins: Given the need to increase expenditure on road maintenance and construction, what progress has my hon. Friend made on the suggestion that future roads should be funded partly from tolls?
    Mrs. Chalker: There is, as my right hon. Friend knows, a working partly looking at private finance for roads. However, in general terms, it seems that we might be in the danger that France has experienced if we were to introduce tolls on roads now. The introduction of tolls on roads simply drives much of the traffic off the new roads on to unsuitable roads. I do not rule out that possibility for all time, but there are other means of financing new roads by the use of private funding, instead of introducing tolls.

    Thamesmead Spine Road
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the programme for the construction of the Thamesmead spine road with a view to ensuring the early completion.
    Mrs. Chalker: The programming and priority given to this proposal are matters entirely for the Greater London council as highway authority.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the Minister aware that heavy traffic is imposing an increasing burden on local residents and that the attitude of the GLC is a cause for widespread dissatisfaction? Will the hon. Lady consider opening discussions with the GLC to see whether Mr. Livingstone can be persuaded to take a more helpful attitude towards traffic problems in Erith and Crayford?
    Mrs. Chalker: I am well aware of the problems, because I have been to see the spine road and the area to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. However, before
    282
    the Department can consider funding, the GLC must include this scheme in its transport policies and programmes. Until the GLC gets on to this and puts it into its TPP, I am powerless to help. When it does so, I can help.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the interests of Londonders and of the country would be better served if the GLC attended to the matters for which it does have responsibility, which responsibility it carries out poorly, such as roads, instead of spending ratepayers' money on groups such as Babies against the Bomb and other freakish outlandish organisations which are a complete waste of ratepayers' money?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. I hope that Londoners will take careful note of where the money that they provide as ratepayers is being spent by the GLC.

    Serpell Report
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many additional persons would be living within three miles of a railway station if network option C2, limiting the annual deficit to about £700 million, were adopted by Her Majesty's Government, rather than the option of a commercially viable railway as defined by the Serpell committee.
    Mr. Eyre: The networks described in the Serpell report are broad illustrations, and not specified in sufficient detail to enable me to make the estimate requested.
    Mr. Dalyell: Should not this country take advantage of the oil revenues for sensible, much needed railway investment? If there is £700 million, should it be spent on railway investment, or should the £684 million allocated next year to the defence budget be squandered in the South Atlantic?
    Mr. Eyre: The serious part of the hon. Gentleman's question with regard to transport relates to the heart of the debate that is being conducted on the Serpell report on the nature of the development of a modern and efficient railway system.
    Mr. Dewar: I accept that the options set out in the Serpell report are broad brushed, but has the Minister examined the interesting statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, in an interview that was reported in the Sunday Standard of 9 January, that any Serpell option that involved substantial closures of railway lines in Scotland would be unacceptable to the Government? Will the Minister confirm that that is the position?
    Mr. Eyre: I have not seen that report. However, if it is an accurate account of what my right hon. Friend said, there will be a good deal in it. The options that appear in the Serpell report are illustrative only. They show the network that there could be for various levels of support. The options presented are not a basis for policy choices on the structure of British Rail. That would require a great deal more work. It follows that there is nothing to rule out in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Sir Albert Costain: Is my hon. Friend able to calculate to the nearest £100 how much the question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) would cost to answer, bearing in mind the cost of bringing together all the details for which he asked? In view of the gross number

    283
    of questions that the hon. Gentleman asks, has it been calculated what it costs to publish them and the accompanying answers?
    Mr. Eyre: I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question precisely. The question by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) could not be answered, for the reason that I gave. However, to attempt to answer such a question would involve costs far in excess of the allowed maximum.
    Mr. David Clark: In view of the statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, will the Minister give an assurance that there will be no railway closures in the north of England, including the Newcastle-Carlisle line?
    Mr. Eyre: There are no railway closure proposals before my right hon. Friend. I emphasise that the options in the Serpell report are illustrative only, in the way that I have explained.

    British Railways Board
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport what subjects he expects to discuss at his next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. David Howell: I expect to discuss a wide range of subjects of mutual interest at my next meeting with the chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. Canavan: In view of the widespread concern in Scotland and elsewhere about some of the Serpell report options, which would annihilate the railways in many areas, will the Secretary of State ask the chairman to do what the right hon. Gentleman has so far failed to do, which is to come clean and tell us exactly what options in the Serpell report are still being considered and exactly what proportion of the existing railway network he intends to retain?
    Mr. Howell: We had a full debate on this issue, during which I made it clear, as I have elsewhere, that while I rule out the extreme option of closing down virtually the entire railway network and leaving only a few hundred miles—
    Mr. Foulkes: Thank you.
    Mr. Howell: —the network maps in the Serpell report are merely illustrations of cost. The Government do not regard them as policy choices for the structure of the network. If we were to do so, far wider considerations would have to be taken into account in future. It is necessary, no doubt, that they should be. However, we now know more about the costs of running the passenger network. That is an asset and an improvement on the stale, sterile and rather useless debate that took place previously.
    Mr. McCrindle: Among the many matters that will no doubt be discussed at the meeting between my right hon. Friend and the chairman of the British Railways Board, will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that somewhere on the list of topics is consideration of the replacement of the rolling stock on the eastern suburban commuter route, without which by the end of the decade my constituents will be faced with an even more uncomfortable journey than they face now?
    Mr. Howell: As British Rail becomes more successful in curbing costs, and if it can avoid further unnecessary
    284
    and expensive industrial disputes, I hope that it will have more room for investment in modern railway equipment and be able to make better use of the new equipment which it already has, but which, alas, is sitting in sidings unused.
    Mr. Huckfield: We recognise that the right hon. Gentleman is doing his best to bury the Serpell report before the general election. Does he recognise that it would be much better if he cremated it? Will he condemn the more ludicrous recommendations in the report, including the one that states that one of the ways in which railway management can save money is to cut railway safety standards?
    Mr. Howell: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman is so frightened of information. The Serpell report illustrates the costs of running the passenger network and various services and sets out how much revenue is obtained and how much they cost in terms of public support. Why is the hon. Gentleman frightened about that? I accept and recognise that safety must be paramount. The Serpell report does not question the importance of safety—it would be entirely wrong to do so—but poses the question whether high safety standards could be achieved more efficiently. That seems to be a legitimate question to which those interested in a modern and efficient railway should not shut their eyes. That should not prompt them to demand the burning of reports and books, which is an unhealthy sentiment.
    Mr. Eggar: Is not the main message of the Serpell report that the railways are being run extremely inefficiently? When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of the British Railways Board, will he make it clear to him that one of the most unacceptable features of the way in which the railway is being run is the high number of administrative staff—about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the work force? Will he take this issue up with the chairman?
    Mr. Howell: I agree with my hon. Friend that the central overheads of monolithic nationalised industries, of which British Rail is one, which we inherited from the Socialist past, are quite often excessive. It is high time that in this nationalised corporation and in others a far more vigorous look is taken at the way in which overheads can be reduced and a more efficient, decentralised and modern structure established.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman does not really want to go back to 1938 and the "fair deal" for the railways. Is he aware that British Rail cannot place new orders for rolling stock, especially coaches on the west coast main line, without the Secretary of State's consent to extend its external financing limit? Is it not a fact that it definitely needs new rolling stock for the west coast main line and for the southern region Portsmouth and Bournemouth routes?
    Mr. Howell: The answer is no. The external financing limit has been set at a high level and within that there is room for British Rail—I hope very much that it will take advantage of it—to remove its self-imposed investment moratorium and step up its investment programmes. That depends on preventing a repetition of last year's tragedy, when large amounts of funds were sucked away and drained off in useless strikes. It depends also on its ability to get going and to proceed with the cost savings identified

    285
    in the Serpell report, which, to the credit of British Rail, both the chairman and the chief executive have embarked upon.
    Mr. Stott: Is the Secretary of State aware that he mentioned during the debate on the Serpell report and today that he has ruled out acceptance of the extreme options contained within the report? Can we take it that the right hon. Gentleman has ruled out option H, which is the high investment option? Is that an extreme option? Will he say that he and the Government are committed to the maintenance of the existing 12,000 track miles on which British Rail currently has to operate? Will he tell me and the House that he is committed to the maintenance of the 12,000 miles?
    Mr. Howell: The hon. Gentleman will remember that a few moments ago I stated exactly what the Government ruled out for the long-term future size of the network. The other illustrative costs in the Serpell report tell us how much the network costs and how much parts of it cost. They do not provide a basis for policy choices. As the report shows, much more work would be required before those choices could be reached. The hon. Gentleman's supplementay question is based on a presumption of what the Serpell report states, which is not founded in fact.

    Rear Fog Lights (Television Advertisements)
    Mr. Colin Shepherdasked the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions the Government advertisement on the correct usage of rear fog lights has been shown on commercial television channels; and if he is satisfied with its effect.
    Mrs. Chalker: This short public service information film has been shown 94 times on independent television since the beginning of November in unsold advertising time at no cost to Her Majesty's Government. Since it does not form part of a specific road safety campaign, it has not been subject to formal evaluation, but I am satisfied that the item is effective.
    Mr. Shepherd: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she agree that the problem is by no means extinct and that more and more rear fog lights continue to be used on motorways and main roads when it is not foggy and visibility is not restricted? Does she agree that, as rear fog lights are about 20 times as intense as ordinary rear lights, if everyone used them there would be a severe danger due to lack of visibility? Does she further agree that it would be useful if the campaign were drawn into the road safety campaign so that the problem can be nailed once and for all?
    Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that the misuse of rear fog lights is a real problem. There are limited occasions when it is necessary to have them on. The problem is a recent one, as more cars have recently been fitted with rear fog lamps. We are examining the matter carefully. If it seems necessary, I shall consider the improvement of tell-tale arrangements, such as exist for hazard warning lights inside vehicles, that warn the driver that the rear fog lights are on. We are including a new and special paragraph in the revision of the highway code. I shall see what can be done to ensure that it can be better made known to motorists so that they do not misuse their rear fog lights.

    Falmouth (Container Terminal)
    Mr. Parryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what further applications he has received concerning the proposed container terminal at Falmouth; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. David Howell: None. The situation is unchanged since the statement by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on 9 November last.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Secretary of State aware of the anxiety of Liverpool and Merseyside dock workers and the Transport and General Workers Union? Is he further aware that if the Government give permission under the Harbours Act 1964, that will mean the end of the Seaforth container terminal? Will the right hon. Gentleman remove the agony by putting the application off, once and for all?
    Mr. Howell: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, because he and some of his colleagues made it clear when they saw my hon. Friend. As I have said, there is no application before the Government at the moment. The Government have said that they will consider the matter if they are asked to do so. In that event, we should have to take fully into account all the relevant factors, including the impact on the rest of the ports industry and the available trade.

    Dim-dip Lighting Regulations
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what response he has received to his consultation document on the draft dim-dip lighting regulations for new vehicles.
    Mrs. Chalker: We have received a very favourable response. Organisations representing motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, street lighting and road safety experts and the police have welcomed the principle of dim-dip. Opposition has been confined largely to some vehicle manufacturers and traders, and two campaigning organisations. There has been opposition from the vehicle manufacturers and from an organisation campaigning for the mandatory use of dipped headlights.
    Mr. Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for that typically helpful and comprehensive reply. Can she say what benefits will result from the introduction of dim-dip headlamps? Bearing in mind the success that we enjoyed with the dipped headlight campaign that her Department ran some time ago, why does she propose to introduce new regulations on the subject now?
    Mrs. Chalker: The use of dim-dip headlights, if approved by the House, will make it impossible for someone to drive on side lights only without the need for enforcement activity. It will also give drivers the option of using dim-dip headlights at any time if they wish to be readily visible without there being a risk of glare. Dim-dip headlights do not create the same problem of dazzle that dipped headlights often do. On unlit roads and at night, normal headlights in the dipped position will continue to be required, but the general consensus seems to be that this is a useful step. I await further comments, although 37 organisations have responded and supported the dim-dip device.
    Mr. Higgins: Will my hon. Friend take into account the appalling extent to which cyclists now drive at night

    287
    without any rear lights? Will she consider a television advertisement that brings to the attention of cyclists the dangers that they and other road users are subjected to because of that?
    Mrs. Chalker: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend. Cyclists who drive at night without illumination are putting themselves in great jeopardy. One can see that from the accidents that cyclists suffer. I hope that it will not be necessary to mount an expensive campaign, but we shall continue to monitor what they are doing about their illumination. They would help themselves if they wore reflective armbands and sashes at all times—day and night.
    Mr. Booth: Will the Minister confirm that these draft regulations will apply only to new vehicles that are not yet registered? That being the case, does she agree that all the problems that she has just described will continue in existing vehicles? Does she agree that this must therefore be an unsatisfactory way of dealing with the problem?
    Mrs. Chalker: It is necessary to see the issue in context. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that the suggestion is that the proposed dim-dip regulations would apply to new vehicles, but it is possible to fit a dim-dip device to existing vehicles, although that would be expensive for some motorists. It is worth bearing in mind the present rate of renewal of cars. I am sure, also, that many motorists will want to take advantage of the fact that they can adapt their lights to have a dim-dip facility. Although it will not cure the problem, the proper regulation of headlights will greatly help those who do not have a dim-dip device.

    Public Service Vehicles (Roadside Inspections)
    Mr. Robert Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will arrange to meet the Scottish traffic commissioners to discuss roadside inspections of public service vehicles.
    Mr. Eyre: My right hon. Friend receives regular reports from the traffic commissioners about public service vehicles, but we are always willing to meet them to discuss particular points of concern.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that the latest Scottish traffic commissioners' report said that out of 1,979 vehicles that were examined in a spot check, 200 received suspension notices, 95 of which were enforced immediately? Is he further aware that it said that, on routine checks, more than 200 vehicles were immediately issued with suspension notices—twice the figure for the previous year—and that that was described as an unnecessary risk to the public, which resulted from the failure to keep the number of inspectors up to standard? What discussions will the Minister have to ensure that the shortage of seven inspectors is immediately rectified or that their number is increased in the light of that serious report?
    Mr. Eyre: Spot checks are part of the system for enforcing PSV standards. The number of inspections in Scotland is broadly in proportion to the number that take place throughout Great Britain. I note the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the subject. We are willing to do anything that we can to improve and increase the standards of enforcement. I shall be ready to discuss that subject with the commissioners.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my hon. Friend aware that most inspections take place in public laybys? When he meets the Scottish traffic commissioners, will he give them some guidance about giving advance notice to oncoming motorists about where an inspection is taking place? Is he aware that, invariably, one arrives at a spot where an inspection is taking place without having been warned, and that there is therefore a danger to motorists using that road?
    Mr. Eyre: I note my hon. Friend's practical point. I shall arrange for that to be discussed with the traffic commissioners. According to my information, most inspections do not take place in laybys, as there is a desire to allow the PSV to go to a terminus, garage or proper parking space so that passengers will have disembarked and the inspection can be carried out properly. I shall certainly bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware that I am grateful to him for agreeing to review seating arrangements on school buses? Is he further aware that there is still great anxiety among many parents, especially in Strathclyde region, that some old vehicles—they are often more than 25 years' old—are being used for school bus contracts? Will he arrange for the traffic commissioners to make regular swoops to check the vehicles, as there is grave concern about the safety of schoolchildren?
    Mr. Eyre: I shall certainly discuss that point with the commissioners. If the hon. Gentleman has any special matter of concern and would be kind enough to let me have details, I shall ensure that the matter is discussed in detail.
    Mr. Maclennan: Is the Minister worried by the problem to which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) drew his attention? If he is, why has he not already had discussions with the traffic commissioners about the subject?
    Mr. Eyre: I believe that considerable efforts are being made, within the resources that are available, to ensure that enforcement is carried out properly throughout Great Britain. Naturally, I am prepared to do anything that I can to improve those standards.

    North-East Lancashire (Road Network)
    Mr. Leeasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he is satisfied with the primary road network in north-east Lancashire.
    Mrs. Chalker: The joint trunk and county M65 motorway from Blackburn to Colne, together with the link via the M66 to Manchester, is progressively coming into use. When this key project and the other schemes in our programme are complete, the trunk network will be generally satisfactory; local roads are of course the county's responsibility.
    Mr. Lee: Does my hon. Friend accept that a first-class motorway network is vital to the long-term economic development of north-east Lancashire? Therefore, does she acknowledge the strength of feeling about a full motorway link between the M65 and the M6 to the west and similarly, looking to the longer term in the east, a full motorway link to the Aire valley motorway to the east of Pendle?
    Mrs. Chalker: I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, a first-class motorway network is important. He knows

    289
    that we are already pressing ahead with preparations for essential improvements to the existing route to the north of Blackburn out to the M6. Following the meeting that I had in Preston, which was most useful, I shall consider any proposals from the Lancashire county council for the extension across to the M6. My hon. Friend spoke of an extension of the M65 eastwards into Yorkshire. There are no plans by us for that, because that road would have to be the responsibility of a county as the route is a principal route.

  CIVIL SERVICE

    Retired Civil Servants (Inquiries)
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will make a statement on the operation of the rules governing the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries where their official knowledge is relevant.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): There are no rules relating specifically to the appearance of retired civil servants before inquiries.
    Mr. Dalyell: Had Sir Anthony Parsons offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would have become special advisor on foreign affairs to the Prime Minister? Had Sir Nicholas Henderson offered to give evidence to the Franks committee, is it likely that he would be the Prime Minister's preferred candidate to succeed George Howard as chairman of the board of governors of the BBC? Is it not extraordinary that the Franks committee did not ask either of those two key witnesses to give evidence? How can we treat as authoritative any report that has such startling omissions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: There is no doubt that the supplementary questions asked by the hon. Gentleman have absolutely nothing to do with his original question. They were hypothetical in character. The hon. Gentleman is pursuing his campaign with his considerable ingenuity, by asking questions that have already been answered by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others.
    Mr. Hordern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) did much better on the "Lothian question" than he has done on the Falklands, which he has got consistently wrong from beginning to end?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I agree with my hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has fallen below the high standards that we have come to expect of him in other matters.

    Consultants (Ministerial Appointments)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Minister for the Civil Service if he will revise rules governing tendering for, and conflicts of interest in, consultants to bodies appointed by Ministers.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The existing rules already give comprehensive guidance. There are no plans for revision at present.
    Mr. Cryer: If the existing rules give comprehensive guidance, does the Minister realise that two members of the Serpell committee are principal partners in two consultancies which, between them, received over £500,000? Is he aware that the public at large are
    290
    extremely suspicious, particularly when one of the committee members is a friend of the Prime Minister's economic adviser? Does he realise that those two consultants have been lining their pockets at the expense of the public purse? It is not good enough to have rules that allow such a thing to happen. If it is happening, as it clearly is, the rules must be revised. Such a thing would not be allowed in local government. People feel that the Government are applying a set of double standards.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I heard the exchanges between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport earlier. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing this vendetta in the way that he is.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Scandalous.
    Mr. Hayhoe: The appointment of consultants was fully in accordance with normal rules and precedents.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: Is the Minister aware that there is appreciable public concern and anxiety about the circumstances in which the Serpell committee appointed consultants outwith the normal tendering arrangements? Will the Minister confirm that, with regard to the appointment of those two companies, the contracts should have gone out to tender had the guidelines established by the Government's chief accountant been observed? Those guidelines laid down that a candidate would be ruled out if there was a clash or a potential clash of interests. In those circumstances, is there not a case for a revision of the rules?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The guidance that was given by the chief accountant was in no way broken by what was done on this occasion. I remind the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members of the clear precedent in 1974 provided by the McGregor inquiry into the press, which had, as one of its members, Mr. Chorley of Coopers and Lybrand.
    Mr. Cryer: It was wrong then.
    Mr. Hayhoe: That inquiry commissioned work from Coopers and Lybrand. That precedent in 1974 under the Labour Government makes nonsense of the spurious anger on this issue.
    Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity. I hope that you will give me a favourable opportunity.

    Dispersal Programme (Northern Region)
    Mr. Dormandasked the Minister for the Civil Service how many Civil Service posts have been transferred to the northern region since May 1979.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As I have told the hon. Member on many previous occasions, the dispersal programme announced on 26 July 1979 did not include any transfer of posts to the northern region. Details of posts that may have been transferred by Departments for management reasons are not held centrally.
    Mr. Dormand: So the answer is none. For how long will the Government be so obstinate on this matter? If the Government are so concerned about the northern region, as they often say they are, why do they not use the power that is in their hands to transfer jobs to the north? If the

    291
    Government will not do that, will they at least stop taking jobs away from the north by transferring the regional offices to other parts of the country?
    Mr. Hayhoe: It is important to recognise that the need to contain public expenditure prohibits any further dispersal initiative in the forseeable future. That is the same answer as I have given to the hon. Gentleman previously, but he asked the same question.
    Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that if the Departments were charged rent for the premises that they occupy Ministers might revise their thinking about the amount of office accommodation they think they need in central London and there might also be a saving in public expenditure?
    Mr. Hayhoe: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Account should be taken of the rents of premises. Repayment arrangements of the kind that he described are now being put in place.
    Mr. Charles R. Morris: While the Minister will not transfer existing Civil Service posts to the regions, may I ask him whether he is aware that in the Telecommunications Bill there is provision for the establishment of what will be the largest single quango of all time, the Office of Telecommunications? Will he consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry about locating that office in one of the regions?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I shall draw the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Perhaps he will make sure that the Bill proceeds at proper speed and is not delayed by the curious tactics that have been used by some of his hon. Friends.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: More to the point, how many Civil Service jobs have been transferred out of the northern region by the transfer of regional offices by various Government Departments to Leeds? Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the latest proposition to
    292
    relocate the Property Services Agency from Newcastle to Leeds is nothing short of ludicrous? The Government should think again.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I do not have that figure available, but I will certainly write to the hon. Gentleman, if I can find it.

    Civil Service Unions
    Mr. Parryasked the Minister for the Civil Service what subjects he plans to discuss at his next meeting with the Civil Service unions.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Plans for my next meeting with the Civil Service unions have not yet been made.
    Mr. Parry: Is the Minister aware of the concern and low morale of civil servants in the DHSS in the north-west region over staffing levels, and the grave danger of the social security system grinding to a halt? Will he ask his right hon. Friend to examine that serious problem?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I was not aware of any particular problem in the north-west region as described by the hon. Gentleman, but I will certainly draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the point that he has been made.
    Mr. Chapman: When my hon. Friend next meets the Civil Service unions, will he discuss with them the reduction in the number of civil servants since 1979? Will he confirm that the Government are on target and say whether there have been many forced redundancies to achieve that considerable reduction?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The latest figures show that the Civil Service is now some 80,000 smaller than it was in May 1979. That is a very substantial reduction and we are firmly on course to achieve the target of 630,000 by April next year. A substantial number of those reductions has been achieved through the processes of natural wastage and without enforced redundancies.

Associated British Ports (Sale of Shares)
3.31 pm
Mr. Albert Booth: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sale of shares in Associated British Ports".
The matter is specific because it relates to the sale of commercial control of the largest port operator in Great Britain and to the transfer of ownership of 19 ports.
I submit that the matter is important because the British Transport Docks Board and Associated British Ports have a fine profit record, making profits in virtually every year except 1981, and because those profits have allowed them to invest £100 million over 10 years in a public asset without drawing in any way on the public purse or going to the market.
It is also important because, in order to make the proposition attractive to private investors, the Secretary of State for Transport has written off a loan of £81 million to the British Transport Docks Board and is requiring private shareholders to repay only £25 million of loan.
The matter is urgent because this morning, when trading in the shares opened for the first time on the Stock Exchange, their value shot up from the 112p set by the Secretary of State to 137p, revealing a most serious undervaluation of this public asset.
The matter is also urgent because control of public assets of £158 million is passing, for a very small return to the Exchequer.
I submit that the matter must be debated in the House, because this is not the first such scandal. If follows the Amersham International scandal, after which the Public Accounts Committee in its tenth report 1981–82 said:
"it should be possible in future to avoid a repetition of such large windfall profits".
It further recommended that the Treasury,
294
"with Departments, should re-examine carefully what steps could be taken in any future sales to minimise the risk of further large profits being made at the taxpayer's expense."
There is a clear prima facie case that that advice has been utterly disregarded by the Secretary of State for Transport.
I further submit that the Government have engaged in an action entirely contrary to an assurance given on the passing of the legislation. I quote the Official Report of the Standing Committee proceedings on the Transport Bill in March 1981, when the Under-Secretary of State said, with reference to Associated British Ports:
"assuming that one has made no mistakes, and assuming that one has given the company the right capital structure and handled the flotation in the proper way, one will obtain the market value."
He went on to say:
"We will get the market value."—[Official Report, standing Committee E, 3 March 1981; c. 736.]
It is now crystal clear, however, that the sale has been organised in such a way that the public will not get the market value. It is clear that there has been action by the Secretary of State in pursuance of a vicious doctrinaire attack on the nationalised transport industry with blatant disregard of the public interest. I therefore submit that it is a matter for consideration by the House.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the sale of shares in Associated British Ports".
I have listened most carefully to the submission made by the right hon. Gentleman. He will understand that the only decision that I have to take is whether to give this matter precedence over the business already set down for today or tomorrow.
Under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I have to rule that the right hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Elderly People (Fuel Bills)
3.37 pm
Mr. David Winnick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the Government to provide adequate assistance for those on limited incomes, especially the elderly, to help pay for fuel bills during the present cold weather".
The matter is specific in that the application deals with the special problems faced by those on the most limited incomes, especially the elderly, in trying to keep their accommodation adequately heated and being able to meet the cost of doing so. No one can doubt the importance of this in view of the cold weather and the position of people with inadequate incomes in trying to pay for their heating. Medical warnings are frequently given about the danger to the health of the elderly due to inadequate heating of their homes. In the present climate, hypothermia remains a constant danger to so many pensioners who are struggling to make ends meet.
An additional reason for my application is that so far this year no authorisation has been given for the single payment for extra heating help for those receiving supplementary benefit. Such a payment was made last year and, although in my view it was inadequate and gave no help to anyone not receiving supplementary benefit, it was at least some limited assistance to the poorest people in the country. There are, however, 750,000 pensioners who receive rent and rate rebates but do not receive supplementary benefit. They receive no assistance at all with their heating costs.
We all know how substantially gas and electricity prices have risen in recent times. Last night, Conservative Members expressed concern about British people. I maintain that the way to show our concern is to ensure that the elderly in our community have sufficient financial assistance to meet their heating costs.
In conclusion, it is a scandal that so many—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to the point and explain why the matter is urgent.
Mr. Winnick: It is urgent because it is a scandal that so many elderly people in our community and those without adequate incomes have to suffer the present cold climate without being able adequately to heat their homes. Many of them wrap themselves in blankets or go out of the house during the day. For those reasons, I believe that a debate is necessary and justified.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the Government to provide adequate assistance for those on limited incomes, especially the elderly, to help pay for fuel bills during the present cold weather."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9, I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member has said. I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983
3.41 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, I raised the subject of adequate time being allocated to discuss the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983. I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that under Standing Order No. 3(1) (b), in view of the importance of the subject of the motion, you could rule that the debate be extended. I ask you to give this matter serious consideration as only 90 minutes is allocated to this order, which has taken the commissioners three years to compile and which covers 36 constituencies in Wales. If the 30 hon. Members directly involved wanted to participate in the debate today, each would have only three minutes to debate an issue which directly affects all their constituencies. I beg you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to consider whether the time allocated can be extended.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not aware of a precedent for any hon. Member asking the Chair to allocate more time under that Standing Order before it has becomes apparent that there are hon. Members who still wish to speak after the expiration of the time allocated.
Is it not entirely premature to ask the Chair to make such a disposition in advance of any evidence that the House will not have gone to bed from boredom because of a lack of hon. Members wanting to speak on the subject?
Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the constituency of Ogmore, I could use the one and a half hours myself.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) has taken the words out of my mouth. It is too early to consider whether we shall operate that Standing Order until the debate has taken place. I assure the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that I shall give consideration to it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand you to say that if a number of speakers have not been called during the debate on the order, you will give serious consideration to extending the time in view of the importance and urgency of the matter under discussion. That might be helpful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is putting words into my mouth. I said that I would consider the matter when we entered upon the debate.

Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR FRIDAY 4 MARCH
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Barry Sheerman

  Mr. Thomas Cox

  Mr. Arthur Palmer

Truck Acts (Abolition)
3.44 pm
Mr. Peter Viggers: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the payment of wages other than in cash by repealing the Truck Acts.
The purpose of my Bill is to remove one obstacle which currently prevents a move to cashless pay—the payment of wages other than in cash by way of cheque or monthly credit transfer through a bank. This is an area in which we lag behind our western competitors. The costs of payment in cash are great and our competitive position is weakened because such costs are unproductive.
The size of the problem is illustrated by the fact that in 1979, 13·5 million workers were paid in cash—55 per cent. of all workers, 78 per cent. of manual workers and 35 per cent. of non-manual workers. The number of workers paid in cash has been falling and it is estimated that during 1981 some 44 per cent. were paid in cash. That contrasts with our competitors—in the United States 1 per cent. only of workers are paid in cash; in Canada and Germany some 5 per cent.; in France the number is under 25 per cent. and in Holland, after a determined campaign by the Government, some 15 per cent. are paid in cash.
There are various advantages in cashless pay. The employer gains in various ways. First, he gains in efficiency and reduced costs. He does not have to make up pay packets. There is no queueing for pay and no leaving work to queue for pay. It has been estimated that about £30 a year per worker would be saved by a move from cash pay to monthly credit transfer, and good employers share that benefit with their employees. Employees gain from cashless pay. The employer becomes more competitive. One company has been able to give a special incentive of £50 per worker switching to cashless pay, and arrangements have been made through banks for employees to be given special banking facilities.
There are clear advantages for employees. They have access to banking facilities; and bills, which are increasingly paid monthly, can be paid through banks. There is no need to make special arrangements with colleagues to collect wages during holidays or illness. There is less risk of mistake. Security is helped. In 1979, there were 187 robberies or attempted robberies from security vans which involved some 33 injuries.
There are advantages for banks. They obtain new customers. There are advantages particularly for the national giro and more business will be available for sub-post offices.
What are the obstacles to cashless pay? First, there is the innate conservatism of the British worker. He is unwilling to trust banks. He does not know a bank and has no reason to move to one, having been quite happy with cash in the past. An example of regional differences in the payment of wages was put before me recently. One is of
298
a miner going home and throwing his pay packet in his wife's apron. That still exists in certain parts of the country. The wife takes the pay packet and returns some to the husband. There are other practices. Part of the wage packet belongs to the wife, but overtime and bonus payments are the husband's. He is not keen that she should know what he has for his drinks in the club. That is not my example. It was given by Mr. David Basnett at a colloquium on cashless pay in June 1981. I do not underestimate the British worker's innate conservatism and distrust of institutions.
A major job must be done to improve communications and information on this subject. Employers and banks realise that any move to cashless pay needs careful planning and sympathetic understanding of problems that inevitably arise. They are doing their bit with some success and so are union leaders, who are also generally behind this campaign.
However, obstacles to cashless pay exist, and one that is within Parliament's control is the legislation known as the Truck Acts. That legislation, which dates from 1464, has protected workers against exploitation, was codified during the 19th century and is now codified by the Payment of Wages Act 1960. Manual workers other than domestic workers must receive their pay in cash. All wages must be paid in cash unless otherwise requested, and a cheque does not count as cash. The agreement to receive wages other than in cash can be withdrawn at any time, and that is a major disincentive to switching to cashless pay.
Clearly, the protection given by the Truck Acts is anachronistic. I hasten to add that I wish workers to be properly protected against exploitation, and nothing that I intend would prevent that. Therefore, I urge the repeal of the Truck Acts. They are divisive and outdated. Their removal will help to encourage the move to a standard means of payment for all employees. Nothing in my Bill will force change. I intend to remove one obstacle to single staff status for all workers and I hope that it will be supported as such.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Peter Viggers, Sir William Clark, Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Michael Grylls, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Anthony Nelson, Mr. Richard Page, Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark and Mr. Michael Colvin.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Merchant bankers, estate agents, company directors and parliamentary consultants.

Truck Acts (Abolition)
  TRUCK ACTS (ABOLITION) BILL
  Mr. Peter Viggers accordingly presented a Bill to facilitate the payment of wages other than in cash by repealing the Truck Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 March and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time)
3.51 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Telecommunications Bill (Allocation of Time)
  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10th March 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be
  300
  considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—

  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

  "the Bill" means the Telecommunications Bill;

  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

  May I open my contribution to this debate with a few remarks about the Telecommunications Bill.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry announced the new policy for telecommunications in a statement to the House on 19 July, he made it clear that the Government intended a major change. The Telecommunications Bill sets out that change, and it is one of the main parts of the Government's legislative programme for this Session. I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this is a major and important Bill. It will enable British Telecom to become a major force in the world telecommunications market. It will help to promote competition and, we hope, to improve efficiency. It will make possible an expansion through development of new and better services. This should bring benefits to all users of telecommunication services and apparatus, to the companies that supply them and to those who work in those companies.
  Enterprises can best flourish and meet the requirements of their customers efficiently if they are generally outside the net of Government controls. Therefore, we intend after the next election to turn British Telecom into a public limited company and to seek the partnership of private capital. The plan is to offer 51 per cent. of its shares for sale to the private sector. That in itself will be a major event that requires much careful preparation in legislation, as is provided in part IV of the Bill.
  The Bill provides for the ending of the exclusive privilege of British Telecom to run telcommunications systems, and ensures that in future all those who run telcommunications systems will require licences from my right hon. Friend. British Telecom's ability to license others to run systems is also removed. Those changes are accompanied by others that relate to duties imposed on public telecommunications operators or to privileges that they will receive. The Bill provides for those duties and privileges to apply to all public operators, in harmony with our objective of making those who run systems subject to the same law.
  To ensure fair competition between those providing telecommunication services and apparatus, and to ensure that consumers and other users of such services and
  302
  apparatus are given adequate protection, the Bill establishes a new regulatory body for telcommunications, the Office of Telcommunications, or Oftel.
  Two other topics are covered in the Bill. First, the Telegraph Acts 1863 to 1916, which govern the way in which telecommunication operators can place their plant in streets and private land, are repealed and replaced in schedule 2 by a modern telecommunications code. The Telegraph Acts, notwithstanding their origins with the Government of Disraeli, have been criticised by many authorities for their obscurity and other deficiencies. The Government, therefore, welcome the opportunity to revise this area of the statute. That will undoubtedly be of greater importance in future with the expansion in telecommunications that is already predicted, and will be further nurtured by the changes that I am describing. Secondly, the Bill amends the Wireless Telegraphy Acts 1949 to 1967 and makes further provision for the enforcement of those Acts.
  I have set out the main objectives of the Bill in some detail so that hon. Members will realise how just is my claim that this is a major Bill with far-reaching consequences.
  The Bill received its Second Reading in the House on 29 November by a majority of 281 to 237, and began its Committee stage on 9 December. The British Telecommunications Act, which received Royal Assent in 1981, passed through the Committee stage in this place in 48 hours of debate.
  My hon. Friends the Minister for Industry and Information Technology and the Under-Secretary of State for Industry, who are taking the Bill through Committee, hoped for the same positive and constructive approach from Opposition Members as they showed two years ago. I regret to report that their hopes have not been fulfilled. It is an understatement that progress has been slow.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: My right hon. Friend said that he hoped that this matter would be treated seriously. When he made that statement, was he aware that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) was smirking all over his face, which reflects how he treated the Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Biffen: It is my job to keep the temperature low in this debate. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), who made an evangelical trip to my constituency at the weekend—he is always a welcome visitor—has made a unique contribution to the debates hitherto, and nothing that I say is designed to provoke him into a repetition.
  The Committee has spent a total of 110 hours in debate but has not progressed beyond clause 3. The Committee did not agree to let clause 1 stand part of the Bill until its eighth sitting, by which time the Committee had sat for 23 hours. Schedule 1 took a further five hours. Clause 2 did not begin until the ninth sitting and took more than 17 hours before it was agreed to. These are now part of the Bill, but a further 81 clauses and five schedules have still to be debated. The Committee has not reached the important clauses dealing with the issue and amendment of licences. It has not discussed the approval of telecommunications apparatus to designated standards, the common provisions for public telecommunication operators in clauses 22 to 33, or the offences provided in clauses 34 to 39. The Director General of

  303
  Telecommunications' consumer protection functions have not been discussed, nor have clauses 55 to 63, which enable privatisation of British Telecom.
  I could continue, but perhaps the less than satisfactory progress is best summed up by noting that, after over 100 hours of debate on the Telecommunications Bill, the Committee has not yet reached clause 4, where a telecommunications system is defined.
  As I have mentioned, the Committee is now debating clause 3. This debate has lasted 65 hours. Clause 3 sets out guidelines for the Secretary of State and the director in performing their functions under the Bill. That makes it centrally important, but surely not to the extent implied by the figures that I have mentioned. Events in Committee have attracted some attention in the press, and there is discussion among those interested in mere statistics about records having been set. Those who have lived through the Committee can describe for the House far more poignantly than I the nature of the records. Indeed, the experience has generated a wider consideration of our Standing Committee procedures. Should I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which I fear I shall, I hope that I may touch upon that during the next debate.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: Has not this criticism been made because the Government have deliberately not used the procedures available to them of asking the Chairman of the Committee to accept closures in order to build up the number of hours of debate in Committee to enable them to bring the guillotine procedure to the Floor of the House?
  Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian who is rarely wrong, but he is monumentally wrong in these circumstances. My hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology will explain the problems of moving a closure on a speech of a marathon quality. It is not true that every stratagem has been searched to enable the ton to be scored before I am empowered to come to the House to ask for a guillotine. It has not worked in those circumstances.
  Some further examples of the calculated use of time are worth noting. The Opposition complained that they wished more time to debate the Bill. When my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Information Technology put down a motion for the Committee to meet on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons, there was spirited resistance from the Opposition and a valuable three hours were spent debating the very objective that the Opposition claimed they sought.
  My hon. Friend has been pressed by the Opposition to release various pieces of information to the Committee, especially details of British Telecom's draft licence, which will be required once the Bill comes into force, and copies of the Littlechild report on which my hon. Friend spoke to the House on 7 February. When these papers were released, the immediate reaction of the Opposition in both cases was to move for an adjournment.
  I must at this point emphasise that the Government's broad acceptance of the Littlechild report is a development of our policy, which is fully consistent with the Bill. If acceptance of the Littlechild report requires any amendments to the Bill, they will be modest and will in no way affect its structure. The Government will not be able to complete this major item of their programme this Session unless the Committee concludes its discussion of
  304
  the Bill at a more expeditious pace. There is no sign that the Opposition have any intention of significantly moving forward. I must, therefore, now request the House to agree that the Bill should be reported by 10 March, with subsequent Report and Third Reading to take place on two allotted days.
  The timetable motion that the Government have now put before the House would permit the Standing Committee to meet for a further seven days, giving another 13 sittings if the Business Sub-Committee decides to continue morning and afternoon sittings as at present. This will enable the Committee to go about its work in the constructive manner that is appropriate to the major legislative proposals contained in the Bill.
  It is evident that there is no disposition on the part of those who oppose the Bill to allow it to make sufficient progress without the motion. It is the Government's responsibility to ensure that this major and important Bill reaches the statute book, so that the substantial and wide-ranging benefits that will flow from it can be effectively realised. Therefore, I commend the motion to the House.
  4.5 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: The Leader of the House referred to the Bill as being of major importance, occupying a large part of the Government's legislative time this Session. I have no quarrel with that. The right hon. Gentleman neglected to tell the House that the Bill has no mandate from the electorate. It did not appear in the Conservative manifesto and it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called an essential Bill either for the economy or in any other way. The Bill gratifies some ideological ideas, theories and principles of the Conservative party. It should be resisted in a democratic way to the fullest possible extent.
  What are the conditions for a guillotine? I have said on other timetable motions that one of the prerequisites of the Bill—unless it is a Bill that is brought in unexpectedly but is essential to the running of the country—is that it should be given maximum time. The Bill is not being given maximum time. Any Government are entitled to get a Bill through the House in a reasonable time. What is a reasonable time? In this case, a reasonable time is one that occupies the whole session. That would be right, as the Bill has no mandate from the electorate.
  There is another right, as important if not more important to the Leader of the House, to the Government Chief Whip and to the Treasury Bench than any other, because the Opposition will take advantage of that right. It is the right to scrutinise, debate and change the legislation where they will. The House of Commons protects that right and has always done so.
  Let the House consider the chronology of the weeks, days and hours of the Bill. The Leader of the House gave hon. Members a potted chronology. He wished that my right hon. and hon. Friends who are on that Committee had treated the Bill with the same speed as the British Telecommunications Bill in 1980. I spoke on Second Reading of that Bill. The then Secretary of State for Industry saw that Bill as something of a holy grail. He is now searching for another holy grail in the Department of Education. He does this in successive Departments, ruining them as he goes along. At that time, I questioned the right hon. Gentleman about what the licence meant and what powers he had. He did not know what powers he then had, but very soon after, fortunately, he moved.

  305
  That Bill was different from the Bill that has been presented to my right hon. and hon. Friends on this occasion, which is one that they need to oppose with every democratic right that they have. Hon. Members must consider the timing that the right hon. Gentleman has given to the House. The Second Reading took place on 2 November 1982, and the Standing Committee commenced on 9 December 1982.
  I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was a little cavalier to Professor Littlechild. He said that one or two slight amendments might be necessary to the work of art produced by the good professor and commissioned by the Minister of State, Department of Industry, some months earlier. For reasons best known to the Minister of State, he kept the Littlechild report to himself until 7 February 1983, when he made his statement, and said, "Here it is."
  The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Gentleman is implying that I was keeping this to myself. I made it clear to the Committee several times—he will see it if he has read the Hansard proceedings—that I did not receive Professor Littlechild's report until 17 January. I said that I first had to read it myself, and I made it available on 7 February. That is not undue delay.
  Mr. Silkin: The delay is not undue, but it makes my point for me. The pressure from my hon. Friends on the Minister was based on the report's relevance to the Committee. The Minister finally accepted that, having first said that it was not really relevant. But it is absolutely interwoven into the Committee and the Bill, as is "Ringing the Changes"—the draft licence. My hon. Friends would have preferred a licence.
  These are interwoven facts. The report was made available on 7 February and is of great importance to the Committee. Interesting and important things were said in it. For example, paragraph 9 of appendix 1 states:
  "After some manipulation, the Euler optimality condition for the maximisation of (1) can be written (suppressing t for simplicity)"—
  because we need to suppress t for simplicity—
  "π'(X) +π/X · o(r - g)/h=0"
  That is an important equation on which, frankly, the whole basis of the Bill stands. It needs some examination. It is not given to all of us, poor lay minds that we have, to be able to tackle it on the spur of the moment, unlike the Minister, who is known locally as the Isaac Newton of St. Marylebone. For the rest of us, it takes time, energy and some discussion.
  Indeed, there was some discussion— [Interruption.] I am sorry that the Government Chief Whip does not appear to understand it. It is bound up with what Isaac Newton used to call the theory of fluxions—differential calculus to the right hon. Gentleman.
  I have considered and looked at the Committee proceedings in Hansard, and I see nothing but moderation throughout. In fact, I am astonished at the amount of moderation. There was, however, one serious breach. I read it with interest, and it took 11 hours. That was the amendment introduced by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) which took 11 hours of debate.
  Mr. Timothy Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the entire debate on my amendment
  306
  took 11 hours, whereas the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) took 11 hours just to introduce his amendment?
  Mr. Silkin: Having read every word that my hon. Friend said in his 11 hours, I was really sorry that it came to an end. As for the hon. Gentleman, I was extremely sad that his debate went on so long.
  Mr. Timothy Smith: It was not my fault, was it?
  Mr. Silkin: Certainly not, except that the hon. Gentleman introduced an amendment that he did not understand and ended by contradicting himself 11 hours later. Of course it was not his fault. He should have known something about what he was introducing.
  I have said that, where there is no mandate, there should be no guillotine for a Bill such as this. That remains true. It is certain that this is a clash of two vital philosophies. The Opposition in the Committee have a duty to protect not only the British public but the 230,000 people who work in this industry. They need protection. It is extraordinary that what is happening here is a total disregard for the future of British industry and, indeed, the survival of many of our manufacturing industries.
  It may be a curious thought with which to leave the House, but the Government who do everything they can to see that food remains expensive—the Prime Minister sent a message just today to a British food exhibition saying that we should buy British food—are at the same time willing to open a vast and important technological industry to the destruction that would be wreaked upon it from foreign competitors.
  In one way I agree with the Leader of the House. In one sense all the hours of debate have been a waste of time, because within a few months from now a Labour Government will repeal the Bill anyway.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker Mr. Bernard Weatherill: Order. I understand from the exchanges that have taken place that some lengthy speeches were made in Committee. I remind the House that the debate lasts for only three hours, and I ask for short contributions.
  4.15 pm
  Mr. Barry Henderson: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) scored a considerable achievement in a speech that was brief for reasons that we all understand. He thought of something to say about the Bill that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has not said in Committee at least three or four times already. The right hon. Gentleman did so by taking us through that fascinating formula.
  In pointing to the major difference between both sides of the House with regard to the Bill, the right hon. Gentleman fell into a fundamental error by assuming that the whole of the telecommunications industry is British Telecom. Certainly it is the largest part of the industry—a most important part—and I hope that all hon. Members will be concerned about the 250,000 people who now work for British Telecom. However, there are tens of thousands more people who can be brought into the telecommunications industry, not only by the passing of this Bill but by the previous 1981 Act. It is important to understand that British Telecom, hugely significant though it is in our economy and the international telecommunications industry, is not the whole of our industry.

  307
  The information given by the Leader of the House has identified the contrast between the way in which this Committee has operated and the way in which the Committee considering the 1981 Bill operated. The 1981 Act was far more fundamental because it introduced the possibility of competition and a modest measure of liberalisation in the British Telecom regime, quite apart from its significance of splitting the activities of the Post Office from British Telecom.
  That was of much more fundamental importance than the Bill now before us, yet an extremely competent opposition to that Bill did not require a timetable. Had there been real intent among members of the Committee on this occasion to debate the legitimate and important issues outlined by the right hon. Member for Deptford, I do not believe that a guillotine would have been required.
  I said that the Bill follows the modest measure of liberalisation in competition introduced by the 1981 Act. It proposes two main measures. The first is that it paves the way for the floating on the market of half the shares in British Telecom. It has been made clear that once the Bill becomes law the Government will move in that direction, but only after a general election has taken place.
  One thing that has been of continual concern both on this Bill, and the previous one, is the whole question of funds by means of which we can stimulate the growth of the business of British Telecom and the extent to which we can expand the network and make it more efficient. This is the primary reason for my warmly welcoming this Bill. By simply freeing British Telecom from being a nationalised industry and turning it into a public limited liability company, one immediately releases it from the constraints of the public sector borrowing requirement. As a result, it can borrow as much as it pleases, consistent with commercial prudence. That is of tremendous importance for all who are concerned about the future of British Telecom, its management and its workpeople, as well as for the development of good telecommunications facilities in this country.
  In addition to borrowing on a loan basis—this is of particular importance to the consumer—British Telecom will be able to go to the market to raise funds on a long-term risk basis. This will enable investment to continue and to be increased from the £1,500 million a year, roughly the present level, without loading subscribers' current telephone bills to pay for facilities on which the return will come only over many years and, in some cases, many decades.
  These two factors are very important and constitute a real advantage. I hope that during this debate Opposition Members will, if nothing else, concede that this inflow of funds to power the growth and improvement in efficiency of British Telecom will be of genuine advantage, whatever they may feel about the principle of freedom from being a nationalised industry.
  The other important element that has caused some difficulty to Labour Members is that they want to see the continuation of a monopoly while we want to see as free an environment as possible for the benefit of the consumers. This leads me to the second main proposition in this Bill, as I understand it, which is that we are creating a regime in which there can be licensing and policing of the whole telecommunications environment.
  In introducing this Bill, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has struck a very good balance between the licensing duties of the Secretary of State for Industry on
  308
  the one hand and the policing duties of the Director General of the new Office of Telecommunications—Oftel—on the other. Getting this balance right, introducing this new means whereby we can ensure the compliance of this great company, BT, with the will of Parliament, in terms of the facilities that it is to provide throughout the country, is of great importance to people such as my constituents in rural areas. Not only are the duties of British Telecom more clearly and precisely spelt out in this Bill and in the licensing proposals that will go with it than in any previous legislation, but the Bill also provides the means of making certain that British Telecom will comply with the obligations laid upon it.
  Although it has taken a long time to get round to clause 3 in Committee, my hon. Friend the Minister has very helpfully spelt out the kind of amendments he is prepared to introduce on Report, not only to meet the legitimate concern of my hon. Friends but, to be fair to Opposition Members, to ensure that we have correctly defined the duties of the Secretary of State and the Director General of Oftel so that special interests, such as those of rural areas and of special services, will continue to be maintained equally throughout the United Kingdom.
  4.24 pm
  Mr. Charles R. Morris: My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) was right to emphasise that the Government have no mandate for the Bill. It was not in the manifesto on which they fought and won the last general election. On occasion it has been described as a measure of privatisation. It is, in fact, a measure of piratisation of a national asset in the interests of those who are eager to make a quick buck. It puts at risk the job security of 235,000 staff of British Telecom. It equally puts at risk the jobs of 70,000 people employed in British telephone equipment manufacturing. It will open the floodgates to the importation of telecommunications equipment from Japan, Sweden and the United States with no reciprocal trading agreements.
  Serving on the Standing Committee has been an unusual and a positively extraordinary experience. It was unusual because in a Bill that embraces 84 clauses, six schedules and 149 pages, its very centre is encapsulated in the first lines which seek powers for the Secretary of State to appoint a Director General of Telecommunications and establish an Office of Telecommunications. Everything else in the Bill flows from that. Every clause, schedule and page hinges on those first lines. The Leader of the House complained that we had spent eight sittings discussing clause 1. I submit that the Committee could have taken 20 sittings and not done full justice to the implications of the first line of clause 1, irrespective of its other features.
  I said that serving on the Committee had been an extraordinary experience. It was a bit like riding a bicycle because the scene changed so constantly and dramatically as we went along. On Second Reading we were promised that we would see the licence that had been granted to Mercury and would be granted to other would-be licensees. That undertaking was never honoured. The Committee was in session for nearly a month and no licence appeared, despite the undertaking given by the Minister of State.
  What we were given on 25 January was a document entitled "Ringing the Changes". The campanologists in the Department of Industry had been busy and had produced

  309
  what they described as the Department of Industry's views on the licence. We never saw the licence, but we got a 16-page document describing the Department of Industry's views on it. Paragraph 21 of the document contained a proposal that appears nowhere in the Bill, that there should be the possibility of eliminating 30,000 British Telecom telephone operators. We had never seen that proposal in the Bill, but suddenly it appeared in the document. Is there any difficulty in understanding why the Committee wanted to examine in detail the implications of documents that were made available? We had the "Ringing the Changes" document and the draft licence and, as we progressed, we were bombarded with another 16 pages from the junior Minister, who outlined the guidelines for the Secretary of State and the Director General contained in clause 3. I accept that the Minister was seeking to be helpful. Then we had hurled at us Professor Littlechild's report encompassing another 42 pages of closely-reasoned argument which demonstrated that the Department of Industry had got the Bill all wrong. Is it really possible to criticise a Committee that was bombarded with documents at such a rate and on such a scale and to mount a guillotine on the basis of that experience?
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) made a less than brief speech on one occasion. I do not know how many people have read my hon. Friend's distinguished speech. It is a classic in itself. It deals with the whole of the Littlechild report. That was something that the Committee never had the opportunity to do. My hon. Friend's skilful analysis was a service not only to the Committee but to Ministers in helping them to understand the Littlechild report and to the nation as a whole.
  Hon. Members serving on the Committee received a mountain of advice and representations from British Telecom, the Post Office Users National Council, the Consumer Council, the Association of District Councils, companies within the Telephone Equipment Manuacturers Association, the nation's farmers, individual constituents living in rural areas, the Post Office Engineering Union and the Union of Communication Workers, all opposed to the Bill. I am aware of no hon. Member serving on the Committee who received a letter in support of the Bill. I have received no letters supporting a Bill for which the Government have no mandate. The whole debate about a guillotine is bogus. The Government know that it is bogus. This is a wretched Bill that should be rejected.
  4.32 pm
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris). All hon. Members can, I think, agree that serving on the Bill in Committee has been an extraordinary experience. Back in the halcyon days before Christmas, when one was unencumbered by Standing Committee duties and observing one's usual philosophy of keeping a low profile in Second Reading debates, it was difficult to imagine that a foreign affairs hand like myself would be serving on the Telecommunications Bill Standing Committee. Who would have dreamt that, at four o'clock in the morning, one would be appointed, and remain, honorary legal adviser to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)?
  310
  I do not wish to make a constituency speech or even a speech about the Bill. I wish to make a speech about the system and what is wrong with it. I claim a certain enitlement to do so, in the sense that I associated myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) when he first raised this issue in Committee. Anything that I say is not intended as an argument against the hallowed system that we follow. Sometimes, however, it may be too hallowed. One recalls the words of the then Leader of the Opposition and outgoing Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who advised new hon. Members in the first Session of Parliament that the system might seem crazy but that it they stayed around they would find that it made a certain amount of sense. The only sense that I have been able to discover, following some years in the House, is that the system enables these debates to take place. It enables hon. Members, depending upon which side of the House they are sitting at the time, to make the appropriate speech. Above all, it enables the Government of the day to drive through their legislation without proper challenge.
  Nothing that I say, however, derogates from the validity of the debates that have taken place in Standing Committee. In a crazy way, the debates have been remarkably valid. They have touched upon many issues. Hon. Members on both sides have brought about a virtual redrafting of clause 3. This shows that there has been some sense in our proceedings.
  While the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been "going on a bit"—to coin a wise phrase, which I gather appeared in his local newspaper—it was a skilful exercise. Whenever the hon. Gentleman was out of order, he quickly came back into order. My criticism is that the skills and talents of the hon. Gentleman, which he exercised both in government and in opposition, should have had the effect, if not of exhausting hon. Members, of leaving the Committee still on clause 3 after 110 hours of debate. An hon. Gentleman with his skill and talent, under another system, would have been able to fight the Bill root and branch on the Floor of the House, with the chance for his remarks to be heard on radio and to attract public attention. Let us perform the party bit down here in the Chamber, but it is surely possible to concentrate our talents more effectively upstairs in Committee.
  The Bill is extremely complicated. It raises a largely new concept. It creates a private monopoly out of a public one. However, the impression left, as the hours have unfolded, is that all hon. Members, including, if I dare say so, my hon. Friends on the Government Front Bench, have been wondering how that private monopoly should be controlled. Although dragged reluctantly to the Bill, I have, in a masochistic way, enjoyed it. To the innocent like myself, the Bill gives every impression of a rushed job. One is left with the impression that the Government of the day should give more preparation to major legislation.
  In my Back Bench ignorance, I do not know the inner workings of Cabinet Committees, but they should perhaps devote more attention to these matters. One has the feeling that the very able team that has been trying to present the Bill, backed by the skills within the Department, have nevertheless had to bring it forward in a slightly speedier and more rushed fashion than it would have liked. Hon. Members should not find themselves facing a guillotine. Legislation should be presented in a more organised fashion.

  311
  At the same time as hon. Members have been discussing matters inextricably linked with the licence, negotiations on the licence have been going on with BT. Hon. Members do not know what the outcome will be. We have been given guidelines by the Department about the form of the licence. It is crucial to the control of the new private monopoly that we are creating that we know about the licence. It is also important to our constituents, urban and rural.
  When one is locked in a party political battle in Committee, It is unfortunate when relevant things happen outside. The Littlechild report adds to the impression that the philosophy of the Bill was incomplete when it was drafted. The central question is how control should be exercised. It is clear that that was being decided as we were discussing the Bill in Committee. That is unsatisfactory.
  I am not making party points, one way or the other. I am not trying to play to the Opposition or to this side of the House; I am just talking about the system. Witness to that is the fact the guideline clause, clause 3, which is recognised as vital, will be completely different by the time we have finished with it. I am grateful to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for conceding various amendments, which will no doubt mean that it will be a better clause.
  Mr. Marlow rose—
  Mr. Temple-Morris: I am not giving way. My hon. Friend had abundant chance to speak in Committee.
  I want to address myself to the system to which the Bill is being submitted. I do not want to go on any longer than I have to, but it is important that these things should be put on the record. I have become a member of the Standing Committee on the Bill under a system which means that I had inadequate preparation, inadequate knowledge and inadequate opportunity to play a constructive part in considering one of the most important pieces of legislation before the House. It is confrontational.
  I do not want to blame my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton), but it is Whip control in the loosest possible way. No one could control my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). At the same time, he and the rest of us are put in the position of letting the side down if we do not agree with the Government. It is an invidious position if we wish not only to say critical words but to exercise critical votes. Also, we are put in the position of somewhat jeopardising our own future if we go fully into action against the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills has been fearless, and I respect his treatment of the Bill. He is the only member of the Committee who has repeatedly said that it is our duty as a collective Committee to consider the Bill.
  The Opposition of the day, whoever they may be, are largely powerless. The Opposition could do much good by promoting discussion, but at the end of the day they are forced to use time as their only weapon. That is unhealthy. Regrettably, the system permits the Bill to be powered through the House. If the Bill were to be examined properly, it would take longer than this Session, or certainly longer than the Government are prepared to give it.
  The guillotine is unsatisfactory. I am tempted to vote against it or to abstain, but the honourable course is not
  312
  to sit back and rely on the votes of others if I am to get to bed at a proper time and not spend night after night in Committee. Although the system is wrong, I am prepared to accept it. There is great responsibility on the Opposition to ensure, once the guillotine is enforced, that many clauses of the Bill do not remain undiscussed. That would be the ultimate condemnation of the system which we are perpetuating.
  I sound a precautionary note. The Government of the day, whoever they may be, lamentably have a vested interest in the system. The Bill is a good example of how a Government can bring in a piece of legislation quickly, discuss things outside and rely upon the good nature of hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills and myself to get it through. This will not last. More and more Back Benchers will say that enough is enough when it comes to Committee sittings going on after midnight. I hope that my client, as I sometimes call him, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme will have a sneaking sympathy with what I am saying.
  If the Standing Committee system is to continue, we must have a sensible timetable from the outset. The party political arguments should be dealt with on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading. Let the Opposition create as much fuss as they want then. No one knows that we are sitting in Committee all night. Nobody could care less about it. Our wives deserve to see us and the great world outside beckons us and should be enjoyed.
  There is scope for examination of the system of Select Committees from the point of view of superintending Bills. It might go against the Government of the day and limit their power, but it would increase the power of Back Benchers. The Bill is a classic instance where I, for one, would have liked to have the opportunity to question Sir George Jefferson in a Select Committee atmosphere and to have asked Professor Littlechild why he did not agree with Professor Walters. Relying upon the pronounced view of academics, whether it is to the Right or the Left, is a dubious exercise on Government legislation. That is an aside.
  I hope that I have said enough to show my deep dissatisfaction with the position in which I find myself. Dare I say humbly that it is a dissatisfaction that applies to the House as a whole? I have much sympathy with those who say that the Bill deserves more discussion. I am out of sympathy with the system, which has dictated the way in which the Bill has had to be discussed.
  4.47 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon: In the early part of December, within a few days two Bills were given Second Readings—the Energy Bill, on which I am officially the Liberal party's spokesman, and the Telecommunications Bill, on which I have the same job. I recall that at the time I decided that it would be sensible to be more interested in the Energy Bill than the Telecommunications Bill. Clearly, my decision was right as that Bill progressed satisfactorily.
  I have been a Member of the House for eight and a half years. I do not know how many guillotine motions have been moved in that time. My one distinction in this debate is that I have always sat on the Opposition side of the House and have therefore tended to vote against guillotine motions.

  313
  The process is ridiculous. If the public realised how much complicated and important legislation is implemented and yet no time has been spent on major parts of it in the House of Commons, they would be appalled, especially when they are told how many hours have been spent on Bills. Some sort of pre-legislation hearing is required for such Bills so that hon. Members may question responsible persons. The time should be limited, but hon. Members should have the opportunity to pose questions, such as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). At the same time, there ought to be reasonable progress.
  The tragedy with the guillotine system is that, as time has gone on, a belief has arisen that the Opposition have not done their job properly in opposing a Bill unless in the end they force the Government to move a guillotine motion. That is not unique to this Opposition. The same nonsense applies no matter which party is in power. I suspect that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), whom one admires for several achievements, is told by his friends within the Post Office Engineering Union that he must oppose the Bill, and that they judge the triumphs when the Government have to move a guillotine motion. In a way, I congratulate him on that.
  However, as someone who has so far been perpetually in opposition, I am concerned about the quality of the legislation going through the House. I hope that, on the whole, hon. Members improve legislation by discussing it, but volumes of legislation are passed without any discussion.
  We could try several things. For some time, one of my favourite solutions has been to limit the time a Committee member may speak, as that might help to speed up the proceedings. There is a limit to the number of hon. Members on either side of the Committee. If each hon. Member is allowed 15 minutes in which to speak, the time will come when every hon. Member has had his say.
  There could also be a time limit on clauses. However, if we were to allow two, 10 or 20 hours per clause, we could run the risk that, if a forthcoming amendment was embarrassing to the Government, they—or at least their Back Benchers—might be tempted suddenly to make long speeches to stop the Opposition moving the said amendment. That happened during debate on the Scotland Bill, when we got near amendments that the Government did not want discussed. Suddenly one would find that the preceding amendment was being discussed at great length by Government Members.
  The present arrangement is appalling and ridiculous. The House is failing in its duty to the nation to investigate, survey and question legislation. It has been said that the Government do not have a mandate for the Bill. I accept that mention of it was not included in their manifesto. However, the Government have not had a mandate for any of their actions since the election. They obtained only 44 per cent. of the vote, so 56 per cent. of the people voted against them. Since becoming a Member of Parliament, I have always sat on the side that most people supported at the general election. The odd thing is that those who gain 56 per cent. of the vote end up in opposition.
  However, the Bill was not included in the Conservative party's manifesto. The importance of a manifesto commitment has been raised to such a level that if
  314
  something is not covered in its 120 pages or so—which probably less than 0·25 per cent. of the electorate read before casting their vote — it is argued that the Government do not have a mandate. In this case, that is not a particularly good argument anyway, because the Government have said that the Bill will not be implemented until after the general election. In an odd way, that is a not unwelcome way of introducing controversial legislation, because the public can examine the final Bill and its proposals. I say that, having already told the Government that I am against the legislation, although the Liberal party supported the previous Bill.
  I gather that the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has been awkward in Committee and is likely to achieve the object of most Government Members, when they are awkward, of ensuring that he is never again put on a Standing Committee. It is nearly a standard practice of the House that if an hon. Member on the Government side does not want to do much Committee work, he should vote against the Government a few times in the first Committee with which he is lumbered and he will never again be asked to serve. I know of several hon. Members who in private boast that they succeeded in doing that and have had no further trouble. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having done that early in his career.
  This is not one of Parliament's best days. There are times when I think that we should be extremely proud to be Members of Parliament. However, none of us can be proud of the procedure that has developed and is now part of our detailed consideration of legislation. It is time that we tried something else. I cannot guarantee that it will be better, but we must see whether we can improve the present appalling arrangement. We have reached the ludicrous state that Oppositions do not believe that they have done their job unless they have reduced the Government of the day to moving a guillotine motion. It is appalling and stupid that the House should have allowed itself to reach that stage.
  4.53 pm
  Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said when introducing the motion, we are talking about a major and important Bill.
  As the whole House and the country realise, we are on the threshold of a telecommunications revolution. In future, people will not only have telephones in their houses, but will rightly have the opportunity to benefit from a whole range of equipment and apparatus. In addition to cable to homes, there will be other means by which messages can be communicated. With a new situation, we need new people, new ideas, new organisations and a new structure.
  The Bill seeks to bring telecommunications into that new structure, so that if we get things right there will be a large and effective expansion of the facilities available to all our people, including ordinary working and professional people. We shall have more facilities and more choices will be available to consumers. If we are successful—and if the Bill goes through we shall be—there will be more jobs and employment in telecommunications.
  If I have one complaint so far about the Opposition, it arises from the contemptible scare that they have been putting about that the Bill will cause a cut in jobs. The Bill

  315
  will do no such thing, but instead will lead to an expansion of facilities and jobs within the telecommunications industry. That is one reason why I welcome it.
  The second reason for my belief that this is a major and important Bill is that we are taking new strides towards public ownership. Some people would call it privatisation, but we are talking about real public ownership. The Bill is a forerunner and prototype of what the Government will do when they are re-elected. That is very important.
  As the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said, the Bill involves a clash of rival philosophies. When Conservative Members talk about public ownership, we mean individuals and workers owning shares in enterprises, as has happened so successfully in the National Freight Corporation. When the Opposition talk about public ownership, they mean that when they are in government they will get their clammy hands on some of the major parts of our industry. They mean industry being run by bureaucracy and by the Civil Service. They call that public ownership, but it is really ownership and control by officials, vested interests and small cabals. It is manipulation by those with political interests closest to their hearts. Things are done in local constituencies because they believe that they will benefit in those constituencies at the next election.
  Conservative Members are talking about public ownership by the people, so that the people have far greater control over their working lives and environment. That is why the Bill is fundamental and important. The Opposition know that their methods cannot and will not work. One of their reasons for opposing the Bill is that they are frightened, because they know that our way will work.
  We have had more than 100 hours of debate in Committee. If there has been any serious discussion, it has been incidental. My hon. Friends on the Front Bench have, of course, been serious throughout, but the purpose of others has been different and otherwise. Time has been wasted. If there is any true debate, it will be after the guillotine motion and not before it. That has often been the case with important Bills. Time before the guillotine is time wasted. If we could have a timetable motion at the beginning of such important Bills, the total amount of time spent on the Bill would be time well spent and so much time would not be wasted.
  Mr. John Grant: I wonder why the hon. Gentleman did not support that proposition when I made it at the outset.
  Mr. Marlow: I listened with interest to what the hon. Gentleman said at the outset, but we are talking about something that is fundamental to parliamentary procedure. Now is the time to debate what to do in future, rather than when the Committee is under way. However, I sympathised with what the hon Gentleman said.
  To an extent, the House suffers from the incubus of custom. Many of our traditions—as the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) said—are fine, excellent and splendid. I agree with him. However, we are wrong now and it is time that something was done. Of course the Government have an honourable objective—to get their business through. They believe, and have believed on other such Bills, that to get their business through they must plough through a long series of nights and evenings, hour by hour, clocking up the time, until they feel that they can decently come to the House to ask for a timetable
  316
  motion. Government have done it in the past. That is what we are borne down with. That is what we have been through on this Bill. Please God that we find a better system.
  The Opposition have a different objective, which is to prove to their supporters that the dreadful measure that the Government are thrusting upon the country will be fought tooth and nail, line by line, in some valiant battle against the Government. They believe, and they tell their supporters, that they will obstruct the Government and stop the Government and that the legislation will never reach the statute book. But, strangely, it always does. Strangely, throughout the whole charade, the Opposition have known that it will reach the statute book. They know what will happen. they have been play-acting, just as the Government, when in opposition, were no doubt playacting also. I do not blame them, because that is the system—the incubus of custom from which we are suffering.
  We have had time wasting—a printers benefit: firstly, the Government's motivation; secondly, the Opposition's; and, thirdly, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding)—let us say the opposition within the Opposition, the O'Grady rather than the Tatchell tendency. The hon. Gentleman started a speech last week—I think that it was last week, but time passes fairly quickly on these matters, or slowly as the case may be—at 11.43 am on a Tuesday. He finished it at 5.13 am on the Wednesday, some 18 tong hours later. The hon. Gentleman will say that he was making a serious speech throughout and was addressing himself seriously to the amendment under discussion. But why, then, did the hon. Gentleman say regularly within his speech such words as: "I welcome his intervention. Never let it be said that I would not give way." The hon. Gentleman, throughout his speech, was fishing for interventions in such a way as to make the Danish fishing fleet look timorous and reluctant by comparison.
  Look at the hon. Gentleman's speech in the Official report—120 columns, 9,000 lines of print and 81,000 words. The hon. Gentleman will say that he continued for so long, only because of massive interventions. He will not pick on me now, but in Committee he would say that the hon. Member for Northampton, North was always intervening and that he could not get on with his speech—that he could never make a paragraph without interruption. I have been through his speech with a fine-toothed comb. I have added it up line by line. I admit my guilt. I spoke for 255 lines out of 9,000 lines—less than 3 per cent.—and for less than 20 minutes of the 11½ hours. Who is the guilty man, the hon. Gentleman or I?
  The hon. Gentleman will doubtless say that although I spoke within his speech for less than 3 per cent. of the time, he had to address himself to my interventions and answer my questions. Throughout that long marathon, I did not receive one answer. It was a daunting, interesting and amazing performance. I understand that in the cellars of the Post Office Engineering Union people are beavering away—perhaps a latter-day Benjamin Britten, or Schoenberg, as it is a little more discordant than that—drawing up a new ballad based on the ballad of Tom Bowley, of which right hon. and hon. Members may know something. I understand that it goes something like this:

  "Here a sheer hulk, lies poor John Golding,

  Darling of the POEU.

  No more we'll hear his tempest howling,

  317

  The guillotine has broach'd him too.

  John never from his words departed,

  His virtues were so rare;

  His members were many, and true hearted,

  His Poll was kind and fair"—

  that is true—

  "And then he'd speak so blithe and longly,

  Ah! many's the time and oft;

  But mirth is turned to melancholy,

  For poor John's had the chop."

  That is why I wish to support the guillotine motion. Interesting though that marathon may have been—I do not blame the hon. Gentleman for it—it really is an abuse of the procedures of the House. We must reform our Committee procedures. I agree virtually wholly with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). After the Bill is passed, after the debate, please may we look afresh at our proceedings?
  5.5 pm
  Mr. John Golding: I appear to have made my mark on the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I make no apology for having opposed the Bill strongly. It is a tawdry and obnoxious Bill. Both its purposes—privatisation and creaming off—are to the disadvantage of the domestic customer and will bring higher rentals and charges.
  The Bill will do irrevocable harm to the private British telecommunications manufacturing industry—losing jobs and profits to overseas countries. The Bill spells disaster for many thousands who work for British Telecommunications, bringing as it does a threat to job security, pensions, promotion and job satisfaction.
  The Bill is opposed by a unique alliance that includes women's institutes, parish councils and large manufacturers, such as Corfield, as well as the Post Office Engineering Union, and other BT unions. I declare my interest, which has already been declared for me by other hon. Members, as a member of the POEU.
  The Bill is supported by the greedy people, and very greedy they are. It is supported by the City, whose other policies are destroying Britain's industrial base. It is supported by the importers, who prefer to make a quick buck at the expense of British jobs than to take British interests into account. It is supported by those in the top management of British Telecommunications, who are playing a discreditable part in this episode—no doubt seeing rich pickings for themselves in running what could become the richest firm in Europe.
  The Government say that they need the guillotine because of our opposition to the Bill. That is humbug. From the start, they have tried to push it through quickly. That is why it is in such a mess. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) made a powerful point against the Government when he referred to the muddle that the Bill is in because of the way in which the Government have tried to rush it through. The Bill has rush and muddle in its drafting and preparation. That is stamped all over it.
  I have never seen a Bill handled so incompetently in all my time in the House. The Leader of the House reminded us that we passed the Act in 1981. He commended the short time that we spent on it. Does he know that clause 2 of the Bill repeals the 1981 Act? That Act has lasted for only a year. The moral is that we did not discuss it enough.
  318
  What virtue is there in an Act passed so quickly when, within a year, the Government say that they intend to repeal it? It shows the muddle that the Government are in with their telecommunications policy.
  The Bill was proposed in a flimsy White Paper in July 1982. Only six weeks were given for discussion and consultation, and that at the height of the holiday period. That is one reason why we are having to debate it in detail now. The Government did not give the time, before presenting the Bill, to remove inconsistencies from it.
  The Bill was given a Second Reading on 29 November and put into Committee on 9 December. After only five hours' debate, in which no long speeches were made, notice was given of a new sittings motion. The Leader of the House must explain why that was. It was not because of any long speeches; it was because of the Government's wish to clear the decks for a general election. That is the reason for today's guillotine motion. The motion is also to prevent the exposure of the lack of detailed preparation by Ministers in Committee.
  The Ministers have put up a poor performance in Committee. The Minister of State refused to let us see the BT memorandum and articles of association, although the Secretary of State claimed that they would prevent a change of control. That is an important point, although the Minister of State says that it was only marginal. However, it is crucial to those who have the interests of BT at heart.
  The Minister of State has failed to let us see draft licences. I could give one quotation after another of solemn assurances by the Minister that we would see those licences. Now, after an intervention from BT, the Minister of State has got cold feet and, instead of letting us see the licences, has produced only the Department of Industry's draft proposals. As the Minister has acknowledged, we cannot have a real debate without seeing the draft licences.
  As the hon. Member for Leominster pointed out, clause 3 is in an unholy mess. The incoherent and bungling efforts of the Under-Secretary one night to try to explain it were a disgrace and unworthy of detailed and long criticism by Labour Members. The failure of the Ministers to reply to the questions has been topped only by the Minister refusing even to get to his feet in one debate.
  The practice of Ministers, after we have put detailed questions, of coming back two weeks later to reply is not conducive to efficient and effective debate. They should get more on top of their own legislation. No wonder Government supporters have been visibly embarrassed at the conduct of proceedings on the Bill.
  I understand why the hon. Member for Leominster, out of party loyalty, has supported his Front Bench. His speech today illustrates the difficulty that he has been in because of the way that the legislation has been bungled. Worst of all is the way that the Minister introduced the Littlechild report and his response to that report on Monday 7 February, long after we had started debating a clause to which it related.
  The report was commissioned on 28 October and received by the Government on 17 January. However, we were allowed to continue to sit in the evenings debating clause 3, even though the Minister knew that he would accept a large part of the report which changed the basis of Government policy. Those debates were a waste of time because the Government changed their policy in midstream. The Government have wasted parliamentary time.

  319
  They have not played straight with either their own supporters or the Opposition in their conduct over this measure.
  The following morning, in Committee, the Minister of State bitterly upset the Opposition by moving the closure motion after an hour on a motion that permitted reference to the difficulties created by the sudden emergence of the Littlechild report. It was against that background that I made my 11¼-hour attack on the Government. It would have been longer, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) begged me to allow the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) to get into the debate. The argument was not exhausted.
  I make no apology. The taking away of the exclusive privilege of prime instrument and the opening up of PABX maintenance is crucial to the livelihood of Post Office Engineering Union workers for whom I speak. Their livelihood is more important to me than whether Conservative Members go home to their beds and wives. They introduced this legislation and they are supporting a Government who are destroying the livelihood of the people I represent. That is the most important thing as far as the Opposition are concerned.
  The other proposals in the Littlechild report suggest such creaming off measures as giving Mercury access to the international network and reducing restrictions on the resale of BT circuits. These, too, are detrimental to the interests of the workers in BT. When the interests of the POEU are so clearly damaged, it is my right and duty to protest as vigorously as I can.
  The guillotine is about the lack of stamina of Conservative Members. On Second Reading I promised a fight in the trenches, but I did not realise that just two or three minor broadsides would put the Government into such rapid retreat. What is worse, I did not think that instead of blaming their own shell shock, they would blame their wives and would go to the Whips and the Leader of the House to complain.
  The Whip is the first anarchist I have met. For an hon. Gentleman on the Government Benches to say that he spoke for 20 minutes in the speech of an Opposition Member shows that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Mr. Hamilton) is an anarchist. He sits there, not taking any notice of the way that his hon. Friends impede the business by impeding my speeches.
  I have been astonished at the way that Conservative Members have blamed their wives for their lack of fortitude and fight. Of course they do not want to sit in Committee because it is a humiliating experience for the Government Front Bench and for them. They well understand that the Ministers do not know what they are introducing and cannot defend what they are proposing.
  The hon. Gentleman who gains most by our dwelling on clause 3 is the Under-Secretary, who still does not know what clause 4 means. It will be a disaster for him when we come to debate it. I am faced with a group of whimpering schoolboys; and the only man among them seems to be the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) who faces this experience with fortitude.
  Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is trying to do the impossible—justify the absurd length of time that he spent on his speech. Will he tell the House why he took so much of the time of the Committee talking about the school mistress career of the Chairman of the Committee or about the sweet-eating habit of my hon. Friend the Minister of
  320
  State and other such absurd items that took him on through the night and that were completely divorced from the subject that we were debating?
  Mr. Golding: Miss—I nearly said Miss Fookes. If I were to answer that question, I would, in effect, be critical of the Chair. The Chair has conducted our proceedings extremely competently in Committee, and I would not subscribe to any criticism of it.
  On 7 February the Minister, referring to the Littlechild report, said:
  "there will be opportunities tomorrow and in the coming debate on the Bill to discuss these matters fully. I want them debated extensively. We should start tomorrow."—[Official Report, 7 February 1983; Vol. 36, c. 641.]
  Members of the POEU believed that statement as we believed the Minister when he promised us repeatedly that we should see the draft licence. The truth is now clear. The Government want this legislation to enable them to hand over BT to their greedy friends, and they do not mind how they get it. They will get it by passing a guillotine motion, but that does not mean that they have heard the last of us.
  5.22 pm
  Mr. Gerry Neale: It is always a pleasure to be called immediately after the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding), if only because it carries with it a guarantee that he has finished his speech. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on the Government Front Bench have been consistent in their opposition to the Bill. That was made clear publicly on the presentation of the Bill and again on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman has remained implacably opposed to it, but it is interesting that even he, with his vast knowledge of the subject, changed the degree of intensity of opposition and shortened the length of his contributions following the announcement that a guillotine motion would come before the House.
  I must agree with the views of the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon)—my hon. Friends will understand how difficult it is to reach that agreement as the hon. Gentleman represents a Cornish constituency—about the consideration of Bills in Committee. I urge my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to take into account the various comments that the hon. Gentleman made, to which I shall address most of my speech.
  I agree with the basis of the Bill and with what my hon. Friends are attempting to do. In so doing I declare my interest in telecommunications. I believe sincerely that we cannot continue considering contentious Bills in the present manner. I hope that my right hon. Friend is aware of the widespread support for consideration to be changed in accordance with early-day motion 298, which has support across the parties.
  I have no wish to curtail the time that is spent considering contentious Bills. I am more concerned with trying to structure the time to ensure that all parts of contentious Bills are given proper attention. We cannot ignore the trends of past decades. My research tells me that during the 1940s—admittedly they were war years—only three Bills were guillotined. I accept that there were special reasons for that. In the 1950s, six Bills were guillotined. In the 1960s, 13 Bills were guillotined and in the 1970s, 21 Bills were guillotined. If we continue as we are, and bearing in mind that two more Bills will be guillotined today, and if we remember that Governments of each of the two major parties were in power throughout

  321
  the decades to which I have referred, we are heading for the guillotining of a minimum of 30 Bills in the 1980s. If the rate continues to increase, the total will be nearer 40.
  During this Parliament—I confess that I have been a Member of this place for only this Parliament—the conventions of debate in Committee have clearly been stretched and further stretched. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has been more than honourable in debate in Committee. He has kept to the rules of debate. I do not believe that he is the sort of person who would ever go beyond the rules as they exist. However, it is clear that there is a great deal of public questioning of the wisdom of our system when it permits an hon. Gentleman to speak for so long. The public think less of right hon. and hon. Members, although we admire the hon. Gentleman for his remarkable efforts. Many of us admire him but that does not say much for our procedures.
  The general trend is for more guillotining under Governments of both major parties, and even in this Parliament the conventions of debate have been stretched. The hon. Member for Truro said that it was becoming almost a symbol of the strength of opposition to a particularly contentious Bill to stretch the conventions, and I agree with him entirely.
  It is said that time is an Opposition's only sanction. That is a questionable argument. It is rather like turning out to play for a football team, finding that the team is not winning and feeling it necessary to try to puncture the ball. We have had a number of examples over recent years of open-ended debates and successful attempts being made to limit them. Previous debates on guillotine motions were open-ended but they are now limited to three hours. Similarly, Standing Order No. 9 debates were open-ended but now they are restricted. The daily Adjournment debates came under the same limitation. Restrictions have been introduced for debates on Consolidated Fund Bills. Although it is only a short time since the Procedure Committee considered these issues, it is time that the usual channels of the Procedure Committee re-examined them. I await the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House with interest.
  It seems that the Procedure Committee adduced four reasons why the present procedure should not be altered. It was said that timetabling in advance would not necessarily produce a more balanced consideration of Bills, as it would not be possible to anticipate the points of difficulty that would arise during a Bill's progress. That is rather much to accept now. We have considered only three clauses of the Telecommunications Bill and more than 80 clauses remain to be considered. There is a guillotine motion before us and at any moment, through the usual channels, it will be announced exactly how the remaining clauses will be considered over the next seven days in Committee. If we can do it now, we can do it at the start of a Bill's consideration in Committee. Indeed, we can do it on Second Reading.
  Secondly, it was said that when a Bill is timetabled there is less need for the Government to respond to argument because they are usually assured of their Bill after a certain time. The contrary is true. Successive Governments have known that they would guillotine to get their business. It has been suggested that with that knowledge they may have an incentive to indulge in delay as our procedures stand. If, by a guillotine at the start,
  322
  Opposition parties are made to take part in a balanced debate, they and Government Members will have the opportunity to criticise all the clauses rather than some of them being allowed to go through by default.
  Another argument is that the Opposition may at present legitimately use their power of time to force the Government to make concessions and that if timetabling were general, such powers would be lost. It has been said that that would amount to a significant constitutional development, to the detriment of all non-ministerial Members. That is no longer true. What is happening is that the guillotine is being used after both sides have played for time. No real concessions are being given on that count.
  Mr. Henderson: I am following my hon. Friend's speech with great interest. Does he agree that if there were a voluntary understanding about time in the Committee, that would strengthen the Opposition's case when they were looking for concessions? Does he agree that such a short time scale would encourage a Government, who know that they will have to introduce a guillotine to get a Bill through, to believe that there was no point in making any concessions to anyone?
  Mr. Neale: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The proof of what he says can be found in the fact that many Bills are agreed voluntarily anyway. Like the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I am addressing myself principally to the existence of a purely philosophical demand.
  The Procedure Committee said that there should be no change because there would then be no pressure on Government supporters to refrain from speaking in debates on guillotined Bills, because, the Committee said, that would eat into the Opposition's time. That gives rise to two points. Surely the House will not try to restrict an hon. Member in Standing Committee in making a speech. We all hope that such a speech would be concise, constructive and relevant. The most important fact is that if the Opposition wanted a guarantee, I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of our procedural management to find a way of allocating time among the parties represented in the Committee.
  It is important that, when we consider these matters, we do not merely criticise. We should try to advance some suggestions that can be considered by those who discuss these issues. As I have already said, I am a sponsor of early-day motion 298. Perhaps that is not the right way to examine the problem, but I do not believe that we can go on hiding behind what we try to convince ourselves are the mysteries of this place. People are increasingly directing their attention to what is going on here. New television and radio stations are opening. We are increasingly under scrutiny. We cannot expect the public to understand what is going on here if we continue in this way.
  If it is apparent—with respect to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it almost always is apparent—that, on the presentation of a Bill, the Opposition are implacably opposed to it, and it is not possible to arrive at a programme for consideration of that Bill through the usual channels, a far better way to deal with it is to have a longer Second Reading, coupled with a timetable motion. There could be a two-day, Second Reading-cum-timetable motion debate. Alternatively, the first motion to be considered in Standing Committee could

  323
  be a timetable motion which applied to the rest of the consideration of that Bill. It should be clear in that guillotine motion what days would be used for what parts of the Bill. That would enable hon. Members and interested parties outside to prepare their case.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster that we should consider using the Select Committee procedure for contentious Bills. The hon. Member for Truro has suggested restricting the length of speeches. We could easily examine restricting the number of hours that each Committee day takes up. We could consider the minimum, not the maximum, number of days for contentious Bills to ensure that Opposition parties have a proper chance to debate the issues.
  The dangers of change to this place are not higher than those of not changing. We must make the changes now and improve our debating procedures. If we do not, I am convinced that the level of disrespect that we attract to ourselves from the public will be such that we shall all suffer. What is more, the legislation that we try to enact will also suffer.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I remind the House that the first of the Front Bench speakers hopes to catch my eye at 6.20 pm and that several hon. Members are waiting to speak.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. John Grant: The speech of the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple Morris) was one of the fairest and most reasonable non-party speeches that I have heard for a long time. It was underlined by the speeches by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale). There is little in what they said from which I dissent. The hon. Member for Leominster trod with some delicacy on the two Front Benches. He may find as I continue that, by comparison, I am wearing hobnailed boots.
  This motion and the one that we shall consider later symbolise much that is wrong with the House. They symbolise the unchanging, unbending, preconceived battle lines and an anachronistic inability to match up to the changing needs of the world around us. There is an introverted, perhaps even an arrogant, refusal to accept that the ordinary people who send us here do not expect us to indulge in our private political fantasies. We are sent here simply to do an effective job of work on their behalf. They do not expect us to demonstate a blinkered refusal to acknowledge that most people outside who are interested in what we do believe that we are crackers to carry on as we do. They are absolutely right to believe that we are crackers.
  This House is rightly regarded throughout the free world as the mother of Parliaments. On occasions such as this, however, we set an example which, if more people read the background, would make us a public laughing stock. We criticise British management both in the public and the private sector for incompetence, we rap the trade unions over the knuckles for using outdated and harmful practices, yet we participate in and run a system that is inefficient and archaic to the point of imbecility.
  There should be a timetable motion from the outset. I have said that it should be sensible and generous. The Minister of State said that he found that an attractive
  324
  suggestion. The official Opposition pulled the bedclothes over their heads. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have since told me privately that they agree in principle with what I said. A couple of Conservative Members who were on the Committee evaded the Whip for long enough to agree with me when I pressed that matter on the sittings motion. By then, the Minister of State's tentative vindication of his dangerous progressive tendencies had been noticed and he was soundly whipped back into line. He also pulled the bedclothes over his head. It is rapidly becoming clear that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with what I have said, although I regret to say that that will not be reflected in the Division Lobbies tonight.
  On Second Reading I warned that it would do the reputation of the House as a legislative workshop a great deal of damage if this massive and complex Bill found its way onto the statute book inadequately considered and ill-digested. I forecast then—it took no crystal ball to do so—that in common with other Bills of major weight and controversy, the early clauses would be discussed ad infinitum and the later clauses would be given no proper consideration. At the beginning of the Committee I suggested that the Whips had pencilled the guillotine date into their diaries. I suggested that we could put our finger on the end of February. I was not far out.
  I also said that when the Government introduced the inevitable motion, they would accuse the Opposition of filibustering. They have done that. I said that they would trot out the number of times the Labour Government had used the guillotine, but they did not do so. I suppose that that was because if they had done so, they would have been obliged to mention all the occasions when they opposed guillotines when they were in opposition. I said that the Opposition would offer their simulated horror of what was going on and probably borrow the speech of the last Tory Shadow Minister to oppose a guillotine. There has not been much variation on that.
  I refer to the behaviour of the official Opposition and the Government on the Bill. Of course the official Opposition filibustered. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) has been dominating, if not running, the Opposition's affairs on the Bill from the Back Benches. Perhaps he will make "The Guinness Book of Records"; I am not sure about that.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he agreed with the spirit of what I had said and that he did not believe that British Telecom's staff would want a filibuster during the early stages of the Bill at the expense of the later clauses. I know him well enough to believe that he meant that. I am sure that he did, but if that is what has happened since, you could fool me. He said that he was provoked into a change of heart. There is something in that argument. I can offer him some comfort because, like other hon. Members, I admire his skill and stamina. I do not accuse him of misusing our existing procedures. The hon. Gentleman was entitled to his prolonged attack. My complaint, like that of other hon. Members who have spoken, is that our crazy procedures permit that to happen. It is an abuse of common sense, of effective government and of effective opposition that we continue in that way and have neither the guts not the gumption to put it right for ourselves.
  Everyone knows that it is a phoney war. Everyone knew that the chopper would fall on the Bill. The Minister of State could chortle at the tailor-made excuse that he had for introducing the motion sooner rather than later. From

  325
  the Opposition we have had the usual old bunk about an assault on democracy. They have been able to satisfy their gallery that they have been fighting tooth and nail against the Bill in what has really been a glorified public relations exercise. That is what it comes down to.
  Let me come to a serious point about provocation and the Government's behaviour. This must be hammered home. I start from the basis that the Bill is a piece of thoroughly unjustified ideology. It is bringing needless uncertainty to a crucial industry to satisfy the public sector bloodlust of the Conservative party. What has become increasingly apparent during the Committee proceedings—I underline what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—has been the gross insult to the House of bringing before it legislation in such a disgraceful state of muddle and unpreparedness. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) gave some support to that view. Ministers have to take the blame for their extraordinary inability to answer straightforward questions in Committee, even from their own unhappy Back Benchers, on many occasions.
  However, we know who the real culprit is. It is the Prime Minister, who has been determined to steamroller the Bill through in time for the early election that she may decide is advantageous to her. She wants to clear the decks, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said. This is her showpiece Bill.
  If the incompetence shines out, there has been bad faith too. On Second Reading on 29 November I said that the Bill had been cobbled together in a panic and claimed that the draft licence—the key document—would not be available for at least two months. We are well beyond two months now. At the first sitting of the Committee on 9 December, the Minister of State said:
  "I was asked when we would publish a draft licence. We intend to do so as soon after Christmas as possible—in other words, shortly after Christmas—because I am very conscious that the Committee will want to see the terms of that licence".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 9 December 1982; c. 9.]
  We still have not seen the draft licence. All we have had is the document giving the Department of Industry's views of what should be in it. The Minister of State was setting out to prove the old saying that a verbal contract is not worth the paper that it is written on.
  We had trouble in Committee over inadequate guidance notes and the articles of association. We have now had the injection into the proceedings of the Littlechild report, which means substantial changes to the Bill. Everyone agrees that clause 3 is vital, the essence of the Bill. That is where we are now. However, the Minister of State told the Committee at the outset that he trusted that by the last sitting before Christmas we would be debating clauses 6, 7 and 8. That was wishful thinking. If we had reached clauses 6, 7 and 8, much of the extra work would have been wasted. Much of the work that has been done has been wasted. It would have been overtaken by the consequences of the Littlechild report. It is clear from the debates on clause 3 that the report is relevant to what has already gone through in Committee.
  Therefore, the Government deserve to be clobbered hard. They have behaved disgracefully. The plain fact is that, whatever the Government's comedy of errors or lack of good faith, call it what one will, the guillotine was always a certainty. The two major parties, for separate reasons, have ensured that. It is not so much a clash of
  326
  philosophies, as the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said—much more a clash of dinosaurs. Hon. Members allow the grisly charade of Government-imposed and Opposition-inspired timetables to continue in Parliament after Parliament against our interests and the wider public interest. We do not allow such things to go on at our respective party conferences. There, the major policy debates are carefully timetabled—some would say too carefully—or stage-managed. However, in the House we operate ridiculous procedures, which give rise to the motion that we are debating, which is largely a waste of valuable parliamentary time.
  I mention time, but expense must also be considered. This place costs a packet to run. It is the taxpayers who foot the Bill for all our procedural extravagances and excesses. It is no wonder that so many people outside who bother to consider what we get up to think that we are the inmates of a peculiar asylum. They think that we live on cloud nine and that we are a bunch of self-centred, self-important nincompoops who cannot run our own affairs properly, let alone the affairs of the nation.
  We need a major breakthrough. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North mentioned his motion, which more than 100 hon. Members have signed. It urges the Leader of the House to reconvene the Procedure Committee. Many more members of the official Opposition would have liked to sign the motion. As far as I can make out, they must have been warned off by the Whips. I know that many of them agree with it. I went along with the motion, but I am not sure whether it is the best way. There is a danger that it could be a recipe for the pigeonhole.
  I was one of a group of junior Ministers in the Labour Government who wanted reforms, particularly on all-night sittings. There were implications for timetabling. That followed the death of Tony Crosland. Many of us believed that the working hours, particularly for Ministers and more so for Cabinet Ministers, were a killer, especially in that finely balanced hung Parliament. I acted at the time as a shop steward for that group of junior Ministers and wrote on their behalf to the then Leader of the House, now the Leader of the Opposition. We asked him to try to get all-party agreement to modest changes to take effect after the general election. From the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), typically woolly and indecisive, we received the response that it was a matter for the Procedure Committee. Nothing happened.
  We should have assurances now that something will happen. It might be best if one or other party—perhaps the alliance would like to consider it—thought about putting something in its manifesto on that basis. It should not be primarily a matter of party concern in that narrow sense. This is primarily a House of Commons matter but it cannot be decided in practice without agreement between the parties. I hope that the parties will commit themselves to honour such an agreement after an election. With the best will in the world, the Procedure Committee could not reach such an understanding. My personal preference would be for an all-party round table conference to be set up urgently by the Leader of the House to try to hammer out an agreement on those lines. I hope that the Minister of State will convey that suggestion to the Leader of the House—perhaps he will refer to the point in his reply—and that the Leader of the House will respond positively to it. Such a move would be welcome on both sides of the House.

  327
  I cannot advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to support the Government. The Government have sorely mishandled the Bill, and so far they have not offered any initiative towards any of the desirable reforms which Members of both sides of the House want. On the narrow merits of the case, I am more tempted to vote with the Opposition. However, whatever the superficial short-term justification for it may be, their behaviour cannot be squared with progress towards a more rational and sensible conduct of our affairs. For that reason, and to show our distaste and our protest, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I will deliberately abstain on the guillotine motion.
  I am sure that Conservative Members would be reluctant to embarrass the Government, but those who wish to bring the House into the modern world could now show that they mean business and do a job not so much for this Parliament as for Parliaments to come. They should seriously consider emphasising their concern and their protest by refusing to join in such a farcial vote.
  Mr. Kenneth Baker: Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman is advising his hon. Friends to abstain on the timetable motion?
  Mr. Grant: Yes.
  Mr. Baker: On Second Reading, the hon. Gentleman said that the one thing that we needed was a timetable motion. We are now bringing one forward. Is there no principle by which the hon. Gentleman's party is prepared to stand? He has advocated and urged this move from the beginning. His behaviour is typical of that of the SDP and the alliance on a whole range of policies.
  Mr. Grant: I have rarely been subjected to such an extraordinary intervention. I noticed that the Minister of State was conferring with his hon. Friend during my speech. I can only conclude that he missed most of it. I explained clearly and categorically why I consider that the Government have behaved disgracefully over the Bill. I explained that, at the beginning, the Government had an opportunity to accept my proposition for an agreed timetable, not a timetable such as the Government have now introduced, condensing the latter part of the Bill in concertina form so that whereas the early clauses were discussed ad infinitum, the later clauses will not be discussed adequately.
  No doubt the Minister of State intervened because he was getting worried. He has heard the views of some Conservative Back Benchers and he knows how worried they are about the practices and procedures of the House. Let me reassure those Back Benchers that the Government would suffer nothing worse than inconvenience if they lost the guillotine tonight—they would get their Bill in the end, albeit slightly delayed—but the shock would be severe. We should then be on the way to a long overdue change and to a reform which could only improve the reputation of this House in such matters, which has been thoroughly unsatisfactory for far too long. I hope that the House will grasp this opportunity.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. David Madel: The hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) referred at the beginning of his speech to a structured timetable and to what happened when the Bill started in Committee. I agree that it is a pity that we could not vote there and then on a master plan to deal with the clauses of the Bill between
  328
  December and March. We could not do that as there was no opportunity to vote on a plan to get the Bill through with reasonable consideration, but I am sure that if such a proposal had appeared on the amendment paper the hon. Gentleman would have had the support not only of many Conservative Members, but also of the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) who opposes the Bill as strongly as the hon. Member for Islington, Central and the official Opposition.
  Very little progress has been made on the Bill, despite the three all-night sittings. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), I shall be brief, and I shall deal with the structures and systems rather than going into the business of the Bill yet again.
  At the beginning of proceedings in Committee I said that it should be perfectly possible for an Opposition party vigorously to oppose a Bill and to take plenty of time about it, but not to run the Bill almost into the sand so that a guillotine became inevitable. I mentioned the Employment Protection Act 1975, the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976 and the present Opposition's opposition to the Employment Act 1980.
  One short speech in the Committee on this Bill, had the example been followed by others, sums up the position. On 3 February, the hon. Member for Caernarvon introduced his amendment No. 52 to clause 3. It dealt with the provision of rural telephones. The hon. Gentleman began his speech at about 12.15 pm. He could have had an absolute field day, trawling through his constituency complaining about the dangers inherent in the possible lack of rural telephones. He could have gone up, down and round Snowdon, but he did not choose to do so. Instead, he made a very compact speech ending at about 12.57 pm. The proceedings then continued as follows:
  "Mr. McWilliam: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Caernarvon—
  It being One o'clock THE CHAIRMAN adjourned the Committee".—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 3 February, 1983; c. 724.]"
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Caernarvon is not present. He is a strong opponent of the Bill and he could have detained the Committee for hours, but he chose not to do so. If other opponents of the Bill had followed his example, they could have vigorously opposed the Bill and propounded their amendments without running on and on. In other words, what we need from now on are Caernarvon standards rather than endlessly running the Bill into the sand just because particular clauses are not liked.
  The all-night sittings did Parliament and our reputation no good. Nor, I believe, did they greatly impress the many people who have expressed interest in the Bill, who have pressed papers into our hands and suggested meetings to discuss the way in which we should proceed.
  The procedural reform that I wish to see is the following. I believe that the Select Committee on Industry and Trade should have started to consider the outlines of the Bill in October and produced an interim report on how the Bill might be improved, strengthened or altered. Other Select Committees, when they put their minds to it, can produce quick but thorough interim reports on Government legislation or action.
  I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Blayden (Mr. McWilliam) is present, as he and I are members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts which produced a quick but thorough interim report on biotechnology, which affects this country and has

  329
  important implications for the Department piloting this Bill through the House. In my view, the Select Committee on Industry and Trade could have done the same. It would have benefited us. People who wished to make representations about the Bill would have had the opportunity to do so in the informal evidence sessions which I believe are a great strength and a great improvement in our procedures, rather than hurriedly pressing pieces of paper into our hands and asking for hurried discussions in the Corridor on or after the day's proceedings had been completed.
  I believe that strengthening the Select Committee system would have been a better way to proceed. In an interesting article in today's Financial Times, headed
  "British Parliamentary procedure of guillotines—and charades",
  the House of Commons is compared with Congress. When Congress begins to examine legislation it is much longer before Bills are actually considered. The article states:
  "Proposals are, more often than not, substantially changed in the process, so that Congressmen have a creative role compared with the largely passive function of MPs."
  That sums it all up. We want a more creative role. We do not like the passive role that we have in considering Bills, and we want to change it. There is a great ripple of unease in the House about this and other Bills and the way in which we conduct our proceedings.
  The way to do it is there. We spend enough time in the House talking about more consultation, communication, partnership and bringing people together in industry to widen discussion, yet the House of Commons waddles towards making procedural changes and improvements. It has the means in its hands: by strengthening the Select Committee system we would have avoided all the difficulties in the 115 rather non-productive hours that we have had on the Bill.
  If that sort of behaviour continues, in my view the proper use of parliamentary time is ruined. The demands of constituents, Select Committees and other parliamentary activities are increasing year by year. It is utterly wrong that all our other activities should be thrown out of gear because of the time taken by the Bill. We must reform the system, as there are some Bills that should be born with guillotines round their necks. The Telecommunications Bill 1983 is one of them. It could have been different if the Select Committee on Industry and Trade had looked at it. Alas, it has not been so and that is why the timetable motion is essential and inevitable.
  6.1 pm
  Mr. Stan Thorne: I do not want to go down the path taken by the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, South (Mr. Madel) about substituting stronger Select Committees to remedy the position in which we found ourselves on the Telecommunications Bill 1983. Much of what the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) said, which was followed by other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), makes considerable sense on the subject of the procedure for considering Bills.
  The hon. Member for Cornwall, North did not mention that the increase in the use of the guillotine has taken place over 30 years when there has been a tremendous increase in legislation. Unfortunately, during that time there has been no attempt by either Front Bench to address
  330
  themselves to the problem of what increased legislation means in terms of Committee and House procedure. That is the problem that we face. In reality, no changes have taken place.
  We are debating a guillotine. One welcomes the comments by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), that apparently the next Conservative manifesto will address itself to supporting public ownership. That is novel. I await it with considerable interest.
  The Leader of the House referred tonight to all those who will run British Telecom after the passing of the Bill. It implies, as does reference to "public operators" that there will be several companies involved in the industry after the passing of the Bill. We have already discussed them to some extent in Committee. I believe it is a major myth. I do not think it is an accident that the hon. Member for Leominster referred to a "private monopoly". To some extent that is what we shall have in the industry for some time to come. Even with the growth of Mercury there will still be a private monopoly for a considerable period. As I said in Committee, thereafter only a few firms will be involved in the industry.
  I want to be as brief as I can because, unlike the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant) who has made the longest speech, I do not want to finish up by not voting; I want to vote against the guillotine and some of my colleagues are anxious to contribute to the debate. I am deliberately curtailing some of the remarks that I intended to make.
  I subscribe fully to the view already expressed, that the Government Front Bench has absolutely no right to claim a mandate for its action. The Government did not just get 40 per cent. of the vote at the 1979 election; they received only approximately 33 per cent. of the support of the electorate. Some two thirds of the British people rejected them, either by vote or by abstention. In my view they have no moral right to rule, let alone to legislate.
  By this Bill the Government are placing at risk an efficient service that most people in Great Britain recognise is making a social contribution of considerable value. They are doing it for one motive alone: to line the pockets of those who promote Tory rule in Great Britain today. It is probably done with the view that, following the period 1981–82, more firms such as Lucas Industries Ltd, Allied Breweries, Ltd. and Turner and Newall Ltd. will make substantial contributions to Tory party funds as a result of the profits they make in the British telecommunications industry in order to perpetuate Tory rule.
  That will come as no surprise, because that is the nature of capitalism, of the private profit motive that Conservative Members displayed in Committee when they had the temerity to make speeches instead of simply intervening in the speech, about which they complain, of my hon Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding). They were foolish to intervene and protract his speech.
  It is suggested that the Bill will create efficient competition. That is utterly absurd. Conservative Members have been in the business of creating efficient competition most of my life and today at least 4 million people are unemployed. When the Bill is passed, a further 40,000 to 50,000 telecommunications workers will be looking for alternative employment.

  331
  We shall also have the serious problem of deciding whether to continue to allow the export of capital which is at present flooding out of Great Britain, or whether we shall look at the import of capital into this industry. As far as I am aware, there are no guarantees in the Bill to prevent capital from entering Great Britain to invest in this industry. It is a blatant misuse of power by Conservative Members and it is therefore the duty of the Opposition to oppose that misuse of power as effectively as we can.
  6.8 pm
  Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is always difficult to follow the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) as he takes us into the black lands of Socialist lost theories. We find it extremely difficult to gather our thoughts and pursue the arguments. It was an extraordinary admission by the hon. Gentleman that he could not conceive that profits could be made if a service is provided, whereas most Conservative Members see service as a fundamental prerequisite of profit. We conducted much of the debate in Committee trying to educate Opposition Members in the fairly basic proposition of civility, service and profits and the general way in which they may advance the interests of ordinary consumers such as ourselves, our families and our constituents.
  Before I surrender my place to the Front Bench spokesmen, I must say that I am a reluctant supporter of guillotines, if only because of the general proposition. It is the right of hon. Members who feel strongly about a measure to argue their corner as fiercely and determinedly as possible. I am a reluctant supporter of the guillotine, because if moderate and sympathetic consideration had been given, along the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr. Grant), who has now deserted the Chamber, I am not sure that even by 10 March, which is the date when the Bill must return to the Floor of the House, adequate justice could have been done to the Bill.
  The Bill is born of two concepts and, as I said in Committee, there are two Bills. The first proposition is that we should regulate a public monopoly. The second is that we should sell a public monopoly to those private interests that wish to own what will then be a private monopoly. As we have discussed only the first Bill, and not very much of that, many of the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) are phoney. He said that the Bill had only two purposes: one was privatisation and the other was the creaming off of profits. However, each member of the Committee recognises that the Bill goes far beyond that. It talks about something that will be very important in the society that I and the Conservative party envisage. It will see us through the coming years more competitively and vigorously so that we can better protect and defend the interests of those whom we represent.
  How does one curb the power and influence of an enormous monopoly? That is the essential and crucial question. Clearly, when the Government came to the House with the Bill they had only vague ideas about how one could regulate such a monopoly. They believed that it could be done partially through a licence, but they were not sure how the profits should be controlled. They commissioned a report from a distinguished professor from the west midlands. Professor Littlechild was asked to report by 17 December. Presumably he produced a report that was inadequate, and the Government were in
  332
  a position to review his recommendations in the light of his further thoughts on the matter late in January. Essential parts of the Bill were not thought out in detail. For us to discuss it sensibly, to perform our duties to the House, to give it full consideration and to moderate and ameliorate the effects of its conditions, it is essential to know what the Government have in mind and where they are going.
  There is no question but that the Government have moved a long way. They have recognised the inadequacies and imperfections of clause 3, which worried every member of the Committee, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris). How can we protect and advance the interests of the consumer? How should functions and duties be laid upon the Director General of Telecommunications? What effect will the Bill have on future competition in this country? Will it stifle the ability of companies to compete against a monopoly? What is the experience of other countries? How are they moving from a highly regulated position to an unregulated position? Why is Britain, which started with the effect of an unregulated position, considering only moderate regulation? Why do the Government shy away so passionately from the control of prices?
  Those are fundamental questions that need much discussion and legitimte examination. I am not convinced that even if the Committee had started on 9 December in a spirit of amity it could have discussed all the issues in the first proposition of the Bill, which is the regulatory authority. Not one hon. Member, including my hon. Friends on the Front Bench, is entirely sure about the form that that regulatory authority will take.
  It has been difficult to discuss regulation because, as the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme said—no doubt the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) agrees with him—the Opposition are fundamentally opposed to selling off monopolies to potential monopolists. They are so opposed to that proposition that they cannot consider the other important proposition of regulation. We have been in a terrible Scylla and Charybdis position, where there has been no responsible or reasonable discussion of a very important ingredient in the Bill. The opposition has been so total that it has even stifled Labour Members and prevented their putting down improving amendments. It is startling that there are few constructive amendments from the Opposition. Most of the amendments come from Conservative Members, who, with me, are worried about some issues.
  There would be more justice in what the Opposition are doing and saying if they took a more structured and reasoned approach. I suspect that there is division among Opposition Members. Some are slightly uneasy about waving the banner solely for the Post Office Engineering Union. There are two representatives of that union on the Committee, who, line by line, have blankly refused to promote discussion of issues that could expand the regulatory control of a monopoly.
  One detects in some Back-Bench Members and in the Front Bench spokesmen a sensitivity to the issues, especially about regulating great monopolies that are transferred from public to private ownership. Although the Opposition may maintain that a publicly owned monopoly works in the interests of the consumer or our constituents—few consumers and constituents believe that, and the evidence is against it—they must accommodate the idea that the monopoly will move from public to private ownership. Therefore, one is forced to

  333
  address oneself to the basic question about the best way to resurrect or to create a structure to protect those interests.
  The Opposition, through their extraordinary folly—I genuinely believe it to be that—have been prepared wilfully to discuss minutiae and to leave aside fundamental issues that will affect the nation for many years to come. They had a big role to play, but they funked it as usual. That excites and upsets me, because we had a common cause across the Floor of the House to make something of a regulatory authority that would protect consumers' interests. As it is, we are now subject to a guillotine and great issues and principles will go undiscussed in this place. They may be taken up by the other place, which I understand the Opposition are only too eager to see abolished.
  There is now an almost irrefutable case for the House of Lords to remain and to protect us against our follies and failure to examine in detail essential parts of a Bill. It surprises me that the Opposition should have made such a compelling case for the retention of the House of Lords to take over where we leave off. No doubt the right hon. Member for Salford, West, when he ascends to the other place, will give the detailed scrutiny to Bills that he has so avowedly eschewed on this Bill. I do not say that with ill will, because at times the right hon. Gentleman rises to the challenge. The dead hand belongs to almost the greatest Stalinist of this House, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, who cannot look beyond one structure or organisation to try to encompass the movement forward of a flexible society. Perhaps he must bear all the pains and penalties in order to protect the interests of the broad sweep of his colleagues against the more predatory instincts of the monopolists and traders.
  The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) made some assumptions and assertions that were born out of the most casual understanding of the details of the Bill. He was wrong to say that Conservative Members tried to be persuasive in their arguments because they never wished to serve on a Bill again. That is a misunderstanding of what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster have been trying to do. We are deeply anxious that the interests of consumers and, therefore, of our fellow citizens are protected. That caused argument. The Liberal representative, the hon. Member for Truro, has done the usual Liberal thing and is not present to hear that criticism of his speech. I wanted him to hear it.
  Mr. John Grant: Having been on the Committee, I endorse what the hon. Gentleman has said. It was unfortunate that that remark was made, and I am certain that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend moved their amendments and made their speeches with sincerity.
  Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful for that remark. I do not wish to be seen as biting the hand that feeds me, but it is an extraordinary proposition. The hon. Gentleman originally put forward a sensible although flawed proposition that perhaps by agreement we could discuss the Bill sensibly. That proposition was flawed, because there could be no agreement when the Opposition were fundamentally opposed to the selling of a monopoly. There is no question but that there could have been agreement on that matter. Therefore, the Government have resorted to the guillotine.
  334
  If the hon. Gentleman examines his stance and that of his hon. Friends, he will find that they are inconsistent. Were he to win by voting with the Opposition and the guillotine was thrown out, he would be reduced to the worst of all worlds. Even clauses that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be discussed would not be discussed, and we could toil on through clauses 4 and 5.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been an interesting and important debate on procedure and on the Bill. The House has heard the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) give his usual dissertation. He is partly responsible for this guillotine, because the Government wish to see him in chains and silenced.
  I think that I have a fellow spirit in the Leader of the House in regard to the way in which democracy operates within our society. Democracy cannot always be parcelled up in a tidy fashion. It is not always possible to proceed at a certain rate and level. Hon. Members cannot always be pleasant to one another, thereby allowing the Government successfully to get through their legislation irrespective of how strongly people feel about it. In a democracy, people have bad feelings, errors and faults exist, and hon. Members must face the reality that, if they are to work in a parliamentary democracy, procedures are exceedingly untidy. Long and protracted debates occur.
  My hon. Friends and I make no apology for the action that we have taken against the Bill. When some hon. Members talk about democracy, there is an assumption that, irrespective of the legislation, they must accept that that legislation will go through. I agree that improvements can be made. It is easy to say that, but far more difficult to implement it and to protect the rights of the minority as well as the majority.
  When Conservative Members were faced with the Bill to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries they fought for their philosophy, as they were entitled to do. How would the Conservative party react if a Labour Government were to bring forward a Bill to nationalise the banks? They would use every means at their disposal to oppose such a Bill. In a democracy, people stop short of taking violent action to prevent a legitimately elected Government from operating, but there are real procedural problems.
  The Leader of the House said that the Bill was of major importance. The Labour party is politically opposed to it. It is not possible to see any meeting point. The Opposition are not in the business of trying to improve what they regard as bad legislation. We are in the business of trying to prevent the Government from getting their legislation through the House. The Government, in the knowledge that they were not going to make any progress, decided to take Committee members throught three all-night sittings because it was a means of going for a guillotine.
  Mr. John Grant rose—
  Mr. Henderson rose—
  Mr. Orme: The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will have to face some of the things that he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) when we discuss this matter in Committee tomorrow morning.

  335
  This is an extraordinary Bill by any standards. There is nothing with which to compare it. It is a major piece of denationalisation that will have repercussions in both the private and public sectors.
  The Bill has 84 clauses and six schedules. Since the Committee stage started, we have had introduced the regulation on telecommunications in the United States of America, a description of the views of the Department of Industry on the British Telecom licence—hon. Members have not yet seen the real licence that the Minister promised—guidance notes on clause 3, the Littlechild report and the Government's response to it.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) that clause 3 will have to be completely rewritten because of the Government's introduction of fresh matter. The Minister said that drastic changes would have to take place because of the Littlechild report and what has come out during the debates on the Bill. The Committee spent 54½ hours discussing clause 3—during which some of its weaknesses have been established—which is central to the Bill.
  The Government appear to have changed their tack. When they introduced the Bill, the intention was to free British Telecom from its restrictions as a public monopoly, so that it could borrow freely in the market place. Financial freedom was the Government's major argument, but the sale of shares in British Telecom has taken second place to the promotion of competition in the provision of services and the break-up of British Telecom as we understand it.
  Yesterday, in Committee, a major debate took place on competition. Differences developed between the philosophy of the Government and that of the Opposition. Anyone who reads that debate, which was carried on at a very high level by both sides, will find a most fascinating exposition of the attitudes to competition of the Government and of the Opposition.
  The Committee has also discussed the rural areas, the consumers in those areas, the pricing mechanism within those areas, and the cross-subsidisation that has created such a great deal of controversy.
  We have discussed emergency calls and the 999 service. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris) raised that point. Suddenly a proposal was introduced in Committee to abolish the emergency calls operator, but we have had no explanation from the Government of how that should operate or what sort of service would replace it. That raises fundamental issues. Therefore, the need to debate the Bill was evident.
  The Government were not anxious to make progress. They wanted to ensure that the Littlechild report would be presented while the Committee was still discussing clause 3. Reference has already been made to the closure, but the Minister could not move the closure during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme because our procedure is that no one can intervene in such a manner while the mover of an amendment is speaking. Many hon. Members have learnt a lot from that procedure. In the House of Commons, we learn something, if not every day, certainly frequently. There were other occasions when the Government were not anxious to make progress, because they were awaiting the presentation of reports to the House and to the Committee. In consequence, we were under no pressure to make progress.
  336
  After all, we are debating the largest sale of a state industry ever undertaken in the United Kingdom. The Union of Communication Workers has called it the sale of the century. It will certainly be a massive sale. We are talking about the flotation of assets worth about £5 billion or £6 billion; the effects on people working in the industry; new technology and developments that will take place. Yet the Government have still given no assurance to the staff about their superannuation, job security and future generally.
  Littlechild will reduce further BT's ability to operate on the scale that it does at present. It will reduce that activity, for example, by allowing the private sector to impinge on it. Mercury was supposed to compete against BT in the domestic market, but we were suddenly told that Mercury could operate against BT on the international market. How soon before other areas are under threat and pressure? At present, this industry is under public control and it is expanding. In our opinion, it is in the interests of the British people that it should remain in public control.
  We make no apologies for the actions that we have taken. We are using our democratic rights. We are opposed to the Bill. Obviously, the Government have their eyes on a June election and want to get this legislation on the statute book. We have a legitimate reason for saying that we do not want it on the statute book, and we shall oppose it by any means at our disposal.
  If people take the trouble to read the debates, be they the knowledgeable speeches of my right hon. Friend the Member for Openshaw, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme or my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), they will see that they contain matters of real interest and concern. The Government, without a mandate, are determined to press this measure through the House of Commons, and we are determined to prevent it, if possible.
  We know that the Government are determined to make the Bill an Act of Parliament before the general election. We also know that we shall be unable to repurchase the shares when the Labour party returns to government. However, the Government will not float the shares until after the general election. Therefore, it will be a general election issue, and we are determined to make it such.
  On behalf of the Opposition, I give the commitment that I gave previously—that an incoming Labour Government will repeal this measure in its entirety. We shall bring Mercury under public control within the BT monopoly. We shall make this a general election issue, and I am convinced that it can be a winning issue for the Labour party.
  6.36 pm
  The Minister for Industry and Information Technology (Mr. Kenneth Baker): The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Openshaw (Mr. Morris), all said in their own way that the Government were rushing this legislation and thrusting it upon the House and an unsuspecting nation. I deny that completely.
  The policy that the Bill implements was set out in the White Paper published as long ago as July last year. If hon. Members look at that White Paper they will see that we are implementing it line by line. After consultations during the autumn, the Bill was published on 17 November. Those hon. Members who have served on the Committee

  337
  for the last few months will know that it is an exceptionally complicated Bill. We also took the trouble to produce a 12-page explanation of how the Secretary of State would relate to the Director General of the new Office of Telecommunications and how the licence would be monitored. That document shows how the regime will operate.
  The Committee commenced on 9 December. I was asked constantly for various documents, which I have given to the Committee. I was asked for the proposed licence, and after Christmas I submitted draft proposals for a licence. On 7 February the Littlechild report was published.
  During the Second Reading debate on 29 November my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry said that he had asked Professor Littlechild to produce a report on the financial regime that would operate after BT was privatised, which, as the right hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) reminded us, would be after the next election in any event. Therefore, we are talking about a financial regime that will operate in six months, nine months or a year's time. Professor Littlechild reported on 17 January, and I reported to the House via a statement on 7 February.
  Professor Littlechild's recommendations on price control rather than a profit ceiling are new, and I accept that, but the other half of his report, which rankles with Labour Members, particularly with the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, dealing with the extension of competition, is not a new policy, but an extension of the policy announced by my right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for Industry in July 1980 and extended by me in a statement in July 1981. I therefore disagree absolutely with the accusation that the Bill is being rushed through and has not been thought out.
  Opposition Members have indulged in the practice of demanding papers. These I have provided in a probably unprecedently generous way, and as soon as they have had them they have moved the Adjournment of the Committee. That is not the action that one would expect. While I do not expect gratitude, I should have thought that Opposition Members would employ a little more guile in disguising their true intent—which is to delay the Bill in order to destroy it.
  The delay has been on a mammoth scale. So far we have spent 110 hours in Committee. In the timetable motion that is before us there is provision for another 60 to 70 hours, so the Bill will have been subjected to 175 hours of debate by the time it is reported to the House. I think I am right in saying that this is the longest debate on any Bill in this Session of Parliament. We have had 64 hours of debate on clause 3, and that alone would justify a timetable motion.
  Opposition Members have been frank from the beginning. I cannot say that they have not said openly that they want to delay the Bill. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme told us on Second Reading that it would mean a winter in the trenches, and it is he who has been giving the marching orders to the Committee, not the Front Bench spokesmen. He is the one who has been determining the policy and the timetable. He knows about the Bill. He has at least read it through. He has said quite clearly that he wants to delay it.
  Mr. John Silkin: The Minister is being very fair, and he says that Opposition Members have been quite frank about their intentions. Why have the Government not been equally frank? If this is so important, why was it not in the Tory manifesto at the last general election?
  Mr. Baker: As I have said to the right hon. Gentleman, this is an extension of the policy announced in July 1980, but we are meeting his point and putting this to the country in the forthcoming general election. I am very happy for it to be an election issue.
  The policy of delay has been expounded not only by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme but by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe), who is the Whip on the Committee. The main virtue of a Whip is silence. Indeed, some would say that it is the only virtue. The only thing that makes a Whip acceptable is that he never speaks and only occasionally thinks. However, in the debate of December 9 the Whip on the Committee said:
  "we begin the marathon that will last throughout this year"—
  he was right, it went throughout 1982—
  "into next year"—
  he is right, it has come into 1983—
  "and possibly until the following year."—[Official Report, Standing Committee H, 9 December 1982; c. 22.]
  That is ambition. I hope that his colleagues on the Front Bench recognise it and duly reward him.
  It has been clear that delay was the purpose of the Labour party in Committee and we have been subjected to very long speeches indeed. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), who is rather a quiet sort of chap normally, has spoken for 1 hour, 1 hour 30 minutes, 1 hour 45 minutes and 1 hour 55 minutes. All this has been surpassed, of course, by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. When he first spoke, for 4 hours 40 minutes, that was a gentle trot. The second time, it was a canter of 5 hours 45 minutes. Then there was the very long speech of 11 hours 15 minutes.
  We in Committee Room 12 have been subjected to an orgy of verbosity and to a ritual of repetitive rambling. My hon. Friends have shown that they have wanted to debate these matters. The amendments in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris) have been constructive and have been the subject of infinitely more interesting debates than have the amendments put forward by Labour Members.
  This has become something of a constitutional matter. Several people felt that, by speaking for 11 hours 15 minutes, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was not just spending a winter in the trenches, but going over the top. This is of concern to several of my hon. Friends who have spoken today, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leominster, for Fife, East (Mr.Henderson), for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) and for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale), and the hon. Member for Islington, Central (Mr.Grant) who have expressed the view that this cannot be the best way to handle, debate and discuss a difficult and complicated piece of legislation.
  It is for the House to decide how it should examine measures that are brought before it. Reforms normally come about when abuses become obvious and indefensible, and in my view the Standing Committee procedure has been abused. It is now up to the House and the Procedure Committee to see how things can be improved. Although it is probably too late to do anything about it in the last months of this Parliament, various suggestions

  339
  have been made by my hon. Friends, such as having an earlier timetable and so on. These are views that can be put forward again.
  I also believe that the attitude of Opposition Members and the way in which they have drafted and dealt with amendments need considerable explanation. Why have Opposition amendments throughout been so negative? Why have they so far achieved so little? Why was the deputy Leader of the Opposition absent when his colleagues voted against clause 1, which was supposed to be the crucial clause? Why, after this long debate and great speech of 11 hours 15 minutes, did the Opposition Members not vote against that amendment? Their supporters outside the House will need answers to all these questions, because Labour Members have achieved absolutely nothing by their attitude.
  Mr. John Grant rose—
  Mr. Baker: I am afraid that I cannot give way. I have only a few minutes left.
  As my hon. Friends have made very clear, Opposition Members want to delay because they want to destroy the Bill. As has been said, the division between the two sides became very clear in the debate yesterday. The Bill ends British Telecom's special position. It takes away its power to license its competitors and thereby to stifle competition against itself. The Bill ends British Telecom's exclusive privilege of being the sole provider of telecommunications services and apparatus. It ends what is called the monopoly of the prime instrument. It ends the monopoly of maintenance of private branch exhanges. It has a fundamental effect on the whole of the telecommunications operation in this country.
  Opposition Members want to retain British Telecom's exclusive privilege. They wish to retain the special protected status of British Telecom. They wish to retain the special protected status of the employees of British Telecom. They wish to protect and maintain the special protected status of the Post Office Engineering Union. They have said this again and again in Committee and in the debate tonight.
  The right hon. Member for Salford, West said only a few moments ago that if his party won the election it would nationalise Mercury and repeal this legislation; that it would restore the exclusive privilege to this selected group of workers. I suggest that this is the naked and unlovely defence of vested interests. Why should the opportunity to develop in the most rapidly expanding market in the Western world, telecommunications, not be opened up for others? Why should a state monopoly be not only the main but the exclusive provider of all these services?
  The Labour party simply wants more state control and a return to public ownership. This is not a policy, but a reactive impulse. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldbridge-Brownhills was absolutely right when he said that no constructive ideas had been put forward by Opposition Members in all these 110 hours of debate. They have not been put forward because the Labour party has no policy for technology, no policy for the new industries and no policy for grasping the opportunities in the communications revolution. Instead, it is the same old jargon—state control and state ownership. There they are marching backwards into the future.
  We believe that the exclusive monopoly of BT should end and that other companies should be allowed to provide
  340
  new services and apparatus. It is only in that way that consumer choice can operate. It is only in that way that the consumer, following the passage of the Bill, will be able to decide for himself what services he wants and from whom he buys them, and what apparatus he wants and from whom he buys them. The choice of the consumer will drive this market forward.
  We believe also that the employees and the telephone subscribers should be allowed, if they wish, to become shareholders in British Telecom. This is a part of the Bill that hon. Members have not yet touched upon. We believe that it is the market and not monopoly that should drive us forward. That is what the Bill enshrines. It has been clearly signalled to the country and the House from last July. It is an extension of our existing policy and the Bill should proceed to the statute book as soon as possible.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 306, Noes 227.

  Division No. 69]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Alexander, Richard

  Brotherton, Michael

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

  Ancram, Michael

  Browne, John (Winchester)

  Arnold, Tom

  Bruce-Gardyne, John

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt. Hon. A.

  Atkins, Robert (Preston N)

  Buck, Antony

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

  Budgen, Nick

  Baker, Kenneth (St.M'bone)

  Burden, Sir Frederick

  Banks, Robert

  Butcher, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Carlisle, John (Luton West)

  Bendall, Vivian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

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

  Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

  Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

  Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

  Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

  Best, Keith

  Chapman, Sydney

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Churchill, W. S.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

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

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Blackburn, John

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Blaker, Peter

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Body, Richard

  Cockeram, Eric

  Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

  Colvin, Michael

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Cope, John

  Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

  Corrie, John

  Bowden, Andrew

  Costain, Sir Albert

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Critchley, Julian

  Bright, Graham

  Crouch, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  386

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Kimball, Sir Marcus

  Dover, Denshore

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Knight, Mrs Jill

  Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

  Knox, David

  Durant, Tony

  Lang, Ian

  Dykes, Hugh

  Latham, Michael

  Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Eggar, Tim

  Lee, John

  Elliott, Sir William

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Lester, Jim (Beeston)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Rutland)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

  Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Faith, Mrs Sheila

  Loveridge, John

  Farr, John

  Luce, Richard

  Fell, Sir Anthony

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  McCrindle, Robert

  Finsberg, Geoffrey

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  MacGregor, John

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

  MacKay, John (Argyll)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

  Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Forman, Nigel

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

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Fox, Marcus

  Madel, David

  Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

  Major, John

  Fry, Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Marlow, Antony

  Gardner, Sir Edward

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Mawby, Ray

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Goodhew, Sir Victor

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Gorst, John

  Mellor, David

  Gow, Ian

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Gray, Rt Hon Hamish

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Greenway, Harry

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Grieve, Percy

  Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

  Griffiths, E. (B'y St. Edm'ds)

  Moate, Roger

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Grist, Ian

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Grylls, Michael

  Moore, John

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Morgan, Geraint

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Mudd, David

  Hannam, John

  Murphy, Christopher

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Myles, David

  Hastings, Stephen

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hawkins, Sir Paul

  Needham, Richard

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nelson, Anthony

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Neubert, Michael

  Heath, Rt Hon Edward

  Newton, Tony

  Heddle, John

  Normanton, Tom

  Henderson, Barry

  Nott, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Onslow, Cranley

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Osborn, John

  Holland, Philip (Carlton)

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  Hooson, Tom

  Parris, Matthew

  Hordern, Peter

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Pawsey, James

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Pink, R. Bonner

  Irvine, RtHon Bryant Godman

  Pollock, Alexander

  Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

  Porter, Barry

  Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Jessel, Toby

  Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Kaberry, Sir Donald

  Rathbone, Tim

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Rees, Peter (Dover and Deal)

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Renton, Tim

  387

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thompson, Donald

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

  Rossi, Hugh

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rost, Peter

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Trippier, David

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Trotter, Neville

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Viggers, Peter

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waddington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wakeham, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Shersby, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Silvester, Fred

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Sims, Roger

  Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir D.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Walters, Dennis

  Smith, Sir Dudley

  Ward, John

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Warren, Kenneth

  Speller, Tony

  Watson, John

  Spence, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

  Wheeler, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Sproat, Iain

  Whitney, Raymond

  Squire, Robin

  Wickenden, Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wilkinson, John

  Stanley, John

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Martin

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Stokes, John

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mr. Anthony Berry and

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mr. Carol Mather.

  NOES

  Abse, Leo

  Cryer, Bob

  Allaun, Frank

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Alton, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Anderson, Donald

  Davidson, Arthur

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Ashton, Joe

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

  Atkinson, N. (H'gey,)

  Deakins, Eric

  Bagier, Gordon A.T.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

  Dixon, Donald

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (H'wd)

  Dobson, Frank

  Beith, A. J.

  Dormand, Jack

  Bennett, Andrew (St'kp't N)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Eadie, Alex

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

  Eastham, Ken

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

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

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

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

  Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

  English, Michael

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

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

  Evans, loan (Aberdare)

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Ewing, Harry

  Canavan, Dennis

  Faulds, Andrew

  Cant, R. B.

  Field, Frank

  Carmichael, Neil

  Fitch, Alan

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Fitt, Gerard

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Flannery, Martin

  Clarke, Thomas (C'b'dge, A'rie)

  Ford, Ben

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

  Foster, Derek

  Cohen, Stanley

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

  Coleman, Donald

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Freud, Clement

  Conlan, Bernard

  Garrett, John (Norwich S)

  Cook, Robin F.

  Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

  Cowans, Harry

  Golding, John

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

  Gourlay, Harry

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

  Graham, Ted

  Crowther, Stan

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  388

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

  Prescott, John

  Hardy, Peter

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Race, Reg

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Radice, Giles

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon M (Leeds S)

  Haynes, Frank

  Richardson, Jo

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Home Robertson, John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Homewood, William

  Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

  Hooley, Frank

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Howell, Rt Hon D.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee West)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Huckfield, Les

  Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ryman, John

  Hughes, Roy (Newport)

  Sever, John

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Sheerman, Barry

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  John, Brynmor

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Short, Mrs Renée

  Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

  Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

  Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Jones, Barry (East Flint)

  Silverman, Julius

  Jones, Dan (Burnley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (N Lanark)

  Kerr, Russell

  Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Snape, Peter

  Lambie, David

  Soley, Clive

  Lamond, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Spellar, John Francis (B'ham)

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Spriggs, Leslie

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stallard, A. W.

  McCusker, H.

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Stoddart, David

  McElhone, Mrs Helen

  Stott, Roger

  McGuire, Michael (Ince)

  Strang, Gavin

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Straw, Jack

  McKelvey, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  McWilliam, John

  Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

  Marshall, D (G'gow S'ton)

  Tilley, John

  Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

  Tinn, James

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Torney, Tom

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Wainwright, E. (Dearne V)

  Meacher, Michael

  Walker, Rt Hon H. (D'castar)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wardell, Gareth

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Weetch, Ken

  Molyneaux, James

  Welsh, Michael

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  White, Frank R.

  Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Whitlock, William

  Newens, Stanley

  Wigley, Dafydd

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

  O'Halloran, Michael

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

  O'Neill, Martin

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir H. (H'ton)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wilson, William (C'try SE)

  Palmer, Arthur

  Winnick, David

  Park, George

  Woodall, Alec

  Parker, John

  Woolmer, Kenneth

  Parry, Robert

  Wright, Sheila

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Young, David (Bolton E)

  Pendry, Tom

  Penhaligon, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Mr. George Morton and

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Mr. Ron Leighton.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  Committee
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 10th March 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in two allotted days and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock on the second of those days; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of those days as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on first allotted day
  7.—(1) On the first allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
  (3) If the first allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  345
  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—

  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

  "the Bill" means the Telecommunications Bill;

  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Housing and Building Control Bill (Allocation of Time)
7.3 pm
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Housing and Building Control Bill (Allocation of Time)
  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st March 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  Dilatory Motion
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

  private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be

  347
  considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion any proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a Member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—

  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

  "the Bill" means the Housing and Building Control Bill;

  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

  I rise a second time this afternoon to move an allocation of time motion. This Government's record shows that we take such a step only occasionally.
  I said earlier this afternoon that I would say a few words on the general question of timetabling during this debate. In particular I have in mind early-day motion 298, in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Neale) and others, which has obtained over 100 signatories.
  I propose to make only very tentative and general observations on the procedure in Standing Committees; but I have no doubt the matter will be raised again, as it has been in the past.
  When my hon. Friend raised this matter with me last week, in business questions, I said that I regarded his general proposition as wholly appropriate to today's debate. It is, however, not a matter that can, or in any sense should, be decided today. The issues raised have far-reaching implications for our procedures, and in its previous consideration of the subject the House has rejected the idea of change. There is, of course, nothing sacrasanct about that decision. Nevertheless, it is clearly right that those who feel strongly on either side of the question should take this opportunity to express their views. Those who listened to our earlier debate this afternoon will not be surprised that strong men should have been moved to strong emotions by the events in Standing Committee H.
  The possibility of the automatic timetabling of all Bills before they enter a Standing Committee was considered in detail by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1977–78 in the course of its review of the House's procedures in relation to public business.
  The Committee concluded against general timetabling. Its objections, which were set out in paragraph 2.34 of the report were broadly that timetabling in advance would not necessarily ensure that time was spent on those matters of most interest to the House, since these would not always be anticipated; that it would lessen the incentive for Ministers to convince by argument—I do not believe this point was concluded in irony; that it would deprive the Opposition of the power to seek concessions through delay; and that it would probably lead to a smaller proportion of Committee time being available for Opposition speakers.

  349
  I acknowledge at once that some hon. Members would wish to argue that these considerations should not be regarded as decisive. Nevertheless, what cannot be in doubt is the fundamental nature of the issues raised. In my mind these lead decisively to the view that we should not contemplate any such changes in our procedures at this stage of a Parliament.
  Throughout the debate on the preceding guillotine motion it was strongly argued by every Opposition Member who spoke that the measure could only be understood in the context of the Government's determination to hold a general election in June. I make no comment whatever which is designed to speculate upon the date of the general election, but if all those speeches from the Opposition Benches had any credence, they would immediately rule out any possibility of the matter being considered in any depth during the balance of time left available to this Parliament. However, I make these remarks in the context of a constructive debate earlier this afternoon. A new Parliament beckons and I have no doubt that our procedures will be considered and debated anew.
  Mr. Gerry Neale: Would my right hon. Friend nevertheless agree that the end of a Parliament is the ideal time for several matters to be considered? Members' pay is an example. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said that he holds high hopes of being in the Government after the next election. Now is the time when we could come to agreement about the unsatisfactory procedures with a view to bringing changes into effect after the next election, whichever Government are in power.
  Mr. Biffen: The House will be fully extended in the few months that remain between now and the next election without the diversion of setting up a Procedure Committee specifically to deal with the point that exercises my hon. Friend. I can well imagine that the Chamber will re-echo with the arguments that we heard earlier and that consideration will be given to setting up a Procedure Committee in the next Parliament.
  The Housing and Building Control Bill has two main purposes. Both are important. The first is to extend the right to buy to thousands of public sector tenants who at present fall outside the provisions of the Housing Act 1980. To one group of these tenants—some 40,000 to 50,000 who live in leasehold property—the Government have a long-standing commitment. It was our stated intention that they should be given the right to buy in 1980. That proved impossible in the legislative time available, but the commitment to those tenants remains. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made that clear just a year ago:
  "Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol. 15, c. 1111.]
  The Bill will honour that commitment. Tenants are waiting to buy their homes, in some cases after long periods of frustration at the hands of their councils. We do not wish to see them wait any longer.
  The Bill also provides the right to buy for those tenants of charitable housing associations and trusts who live in housing financed by the Exchequer out of housing
  350
  association grants. That will further extend the opportunity to purchase their homes to some 80,000 tenants and put them in the same position as tenants of non-charitable associations. Arrangements are being made to safeguard any marginal investment of charitable funds at their modern value when such houses are sold.
  It is perfectly possible that some charities will find that, as a result, they have extra capital available for re-investment in their housing, but we believe that where dwellings have been publicly funded and provided to meet general housing needs, the tenants should have the right to buy.
  For those tenants who cannot afford to buy outright, the Bill provides the right to a shared ownership lease. They will have the opportunity to buy a lease representing at least 50 per cent. of the equity while continuing to pay rent on the remainder. Later, they can buy the remaining share of the equity, in stages if necessary, and thus become outright owner-occupiers when their resources permit. The concept of shared ownership is steadily gaining ground. The Bill will make it available to qualified tenants as of right. The second main purpose of the Bill is to enable the private sector to play a part in the system of building control and to reform and simplify the building regulations.
  The present system has its origins in the 19th century. It is exceedingly complex: the relevant secondary legislation at present runs to more than 350 pages. There is general agreement in the construction industry that the recasting of the regulations is long overdue. The proposals in the Bill derive from wide and thorough consultation on the Command Paper issued by the Government in February 1981, which itself followed a series of consultations and public discussions going back to 1979. In particular, there is a common desire—shared by all the professional institutions concerned, by designers, builders, and local authority building control departments—for new building regulations following the model on which we consulted extensively nearly a year ago. We cannot make the progress we want in this important matter, where there is a concensus that progress is needed, until this Bill is enacted. Those are the most important aspects of the Bill. There are others of great value, but I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the importance that the Government attach to this measure.
  The House gave the Bill a Second Reading on 23 November, by a majority of 320 to 203. The Committee has now spent about 90½ hours considering it. It has met 25 times, and the Official Report runs to over 1,000 columns. The Committee has sat until midnight or later on four occasions, and once till 2 am.
  The House would like to know of the progress so far. The Bill has 43 clauses and nine schedules, and falls into two roughly equal parts. Consideration of the first part, on the right to buy, was completed on 3 February, after some 73 hours of debate. Seventeen and a half hours were devoted to debate on clause 2 alone. After 17½ further hours of debate in the past two weeks, the Committee is still considering part II, which deals with building control. The details of the provisions for the recasting of building regulations have yet to be considered.
  The Government naturally hoped for constructive discussion and reasonable progress in Committee. That has not been the case. Ample time has been allowed for full and detailed scrutiny, but no more than half the Bill

  351
  has yet been considered. The Government must therefore arrange for the remaining stages to be concluded within a reasonable time.
  The motion provides that the Bill shall be reported to the House by 1 March. That will allow the Committee a further period of at least 26½ hours, if the Opposition wish, in which to complete its consideration of the remaining parts of the Bill. Proceedings on Report and Third Reading will then be concluded in one day thereafter, at one hour after midnight.
  I therefore commend the motion to the House. The Bill contains important proposals, whose implementation is eagerly awaited by many. It is the Government's responsibility to carry through its proposals and so honour the commitments that have been given.
  7.16 pm
  Mr. John Silkin: I was a little concerned for the Leader of the House when he rose a moment ago, in case he read out the notes that he had made for the first timetable motion today. It is not quite true that this Government only occasionally introduce guillotine motions. For the record, I think that I am right to say that this is the third guillotine motion in one month. That is quite a record — [Interruption.] It is amazing how, when a trap is set, the whole Treasury Bench invariably falls into it. I was about to ask what was so wrong with timetable motions that the Leader of the House should feel that he had to wash the blood from his hands by saying that this Government rarely introduced them. The point is that all Governments introduce timetable motions. They have to do so. It is well known.
  The real question is whether the timetable motion is being introduced for the right Bill at the right time, and not whether 100 timetable motions should be introduced in one day. However, that might tax the Leader of the House a bit too much. It is the appropriateness of the motion that we must argue about— [Interruption.] I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot)—now Leader of the Opposition—only did three timetable motions in a day, but they were all right and they all had to be done. That is the difference.
  The Leader of the House referred to the interesting suggestion in the early-day motion. I too will not go into the details now, but it is a fascinating subject and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman referred to it. Many years ago, when I was Minister of Public Building and Works, I met the late Iain Macleod. We discussed matters and he asked me what was new. I said that we had plans for a new parliamentary building. Incidentally, I am glad to see the Secretary of State for Defence—the former Secretary of State for the Environment—in the Chamber. Iain Macleod said, "My boy"—I was very young at the time—"there are two things that always come round with every new generation of Members of Parliament. One is a new parliamentary building and the other is the timetabling of all Bills." I have heard it and seen it about three times. It is amazing how much more popular the idea of timetabling Bills is when one is in government rather than in opposition. I have the strong feeling that those—not all, perhaps—who take a radical, progressive view of timetabling all Bills, will take a totally different view when they are in opposition in a few months time. That does not mean that it is not right to do so.
  Mr. Neale: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I acknowledge that I am new to
  352
  Parliament, as from the last election. Does he feel any concern that, irrespective of which party has been in office, there has been a relentless increase in the use of the guillotine? As I outlined in my speech in our earler debate, it has risen from six in the 1950s, to 13 in the 1960s, to 21 in the 1970s, and to probably well over 30 in the 1980s.
  Mr. Silkin: We should really deal with the timetable motion, but I shall answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The rise is due partly to the enormous expansion of legislation. It is as simple as that. There was a time when a Conservative Government would have been ashamed to legislate at all. Now they produce legislation at the rate that the factories produced goods before the Government closed them.
  There is a great deal to be said for the timetabling of all Bills, subject to certain safeguards. The first, inevitable, safeguard is that the Government must present their Bill in reasonable time. The Opposition must be given the fullest opportunity to debate and scrutinise and make changes where they can do so. Those are the necessary guarantees. Let us assume that that admirable position existed today, that we were debating Second Reading and considering the Bill's timetable. It simply could not be timetabled to meet those tenets. The Bill is not one Bill, but two unrelated Bills. It is different from some of the Bills about which the Leader of the House and I have crossed swords. We do so gently, of course—they are swords with velvet covers.
  The Leader of the House said that there were 43 clauses in the Bill. He is a fair man, and would be the first to agree that the last six clauses are not important. They fit in, and must be there, but there is not much to discuss on them. The first 37 clauses are the important clauses. They can be split into two halves—one of 19 clauses and one of 18 clauses; part I and part II. Of course, part III follows on from part II, but is not important.
  Part I, a Bill in itself, deals with the right to buy. The right hon. Gentleman gave us a potted version—
  Mr. Ted Graham: A potty version.
  Mr. Silkin: No, the right hon. Gentleman put the matter fairly.
  We disagree with the Bill. We disagree with every word and every principle contained in it. It is highly political and highly controversial. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in a low-key voice does not make it any the less highly political or highly controversial.
  To that first Bill has been added a second Bill, also highly controversial and highly political. It seeks to change the building regulations. Its authors would say that it was intended to bring the regulations up to date. I hope that I do not read too much into my hon. Friends' thoughts—they take the view that some aspects of the regulations do need changing, and that it is adequate and reasonable to do so. But they object to the highly party political nature of part II, which deals with privatisation—a terrible word: I am not sure where it originated, but it means taking away from the public its assets, ownership, and duties, and allowing private entrepreneurs to adopt them. That is highly controversial. I cannot see any similarity or link between the two Bills—yet they are in the same Bill.
  If we consider the first 19 clauses to be one Bill, it has not taken an unreasonable time to discuss—precisely two months from the time that it entered Committee to the time

  353
  that it reached clause 20. The Leader of the House spoke of 71½ hours being spent on clause 2 alone, but he forgot to mention that six clauses were passed in one sitting. On average, that is not a great deal of time.
  If we view part II on the same basis, and say that it is another Bill—equally controversial and difficult for the Opposition to accept because of our wholly different philosophy—that Bill would also take two months to discuss. That would take us to the beginning of April. Is that such a terrible thing? Of course it is not. The truth is that the Government are engaged in clearing the decks of all legislation. I do not wish to stop my hon. Friends speaking in the debate, but I wish to take a moment to think aloud. If, as is always possible, the Prime Minister changes her mind and decides to hold an election not this year, but next year, what will we discuss next session? We might ask the Select Committees to give us interim report after interim report, but is would be a rather boring session. I assure Conservative Members that there will be no guillotine or timetable motion then. The difficulty is that there will be too much time. The Government are clearing the decks for a general election. I do not blame them for doing so—they are entitled to do so—but that is not a reason for timetabling this Bill. It, of all Bills, will have not just a marginal effect, but will affect every local authority in Britain. It deserves the closest possible scrutiny.
  I am afraid that the Bill will not receive that scrutiny. We must divide on a timetable motion. We need not do so, because the time is there to do the job properly. What will be the result? The provisions for the right to buy will create great difficulties. The Opposition are in good company in that view—not political company, but clerical and charitable company. As for part II, I fear that the Government, in their ideology, have done something which, to be fair, they had not fully intended to do. They may be setting up a web of corruption. Corruption does not arise where there is independent supervision, but where people are linked and the temptations are enormous. That could lead to bad housing.
  In the east end of London during the blitz, words written on the walls of destroyed houses said, "Jerry built them, Jerry bombed them." If the Bill is allowed to become law, we may see written, "Jerry built them, Jerry sold them."
  The Opposition oppose the timetable motion, for the reasons that I have given. Above all, we oppose the legislation contained in the two Bills that form the corpus of the one Bill. We will repeal them the moment that we are returned to power.
  7.30 pm
  Viscount Cranborne: I understand from the comments of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that during the previous timetable debate many strong feelings were expressed about whether Bills should be guillotined from the beginning. I apologise to my right hon. Friend and to other right hon. and hon. Members for missing the debate and the many words of wisdom that were no doubt spoken during the course of it. However, I make no apology for returning to an issue that my right hon. Friend disposed of when he opened the debate with his customary elegance and zest.
  354
  My right hon. Friend referred to the proceedings and report of the Procedure Committee for 1977–78. From that, he adduced four reasons why Bills should not be guillotined after Second Reading. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Neale) I am conscious that I have only recently come into this august institution. Therefore, I take cognisance all the more humbly of the anecdotes that the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) told about the days when he was a tyro such as I.
  Nevertheless, with all the perhaps unmerited self-confidence of youth, in spite of the strictures of the late lain Macleod, I am tempted to press my right hon. Friend for an end to the curious ritual that all of us have witnessed during this Parliament. It is an 18th-century ritual, reminiscent of nothing so much as the warfare of the battle of Fontenoy at which the battle was joined and the enemy who fired first lost the battle. Everybody knew that that would happen, just as the Government know what will happen when, in Committee, they allow the Opposition to fire first, as they have so frequently and at such length, during the proceedings that all of us have had to endure for so long and so boringly.
  My right hon. Friend knows well, as all of us do, what that ritual is. I shall not go over the ground so eloquently covered today. However, he adduced four arguments against regular timetables from the Select Committee report in 1977, and I should like to refer briefly to three of them.
  I think that I heard my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House correctly, and from my reading of the report I gather that a great deal is made of the claim that the Opposition's only weapon is delay. I have been told by no less a person—I hope that he will not mind me quoting him when he is not in the Chamber—than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, "When you are in opposition, my boy, you will realise that delay is the only weapon open to you, and you will not espouse the cause of efficiency that you espouse with such enthusiasm now."
  I have enormous respect for all those right hon. and hon. Members who have spent so many years adorning this Chamber. Who am I to dispute their experience, however greatly daring? However, the excuse that is given for the hours that we endure in Committee, during sittings motions and over the initial clauses of a controversial Bill does not really hold water.
  I am told by people who are perhaps better versed in these matters than I am that the whole business of reaching the time when a timetable motion is to be introduced is now part of the elaboration of the very ritual that so many of us find deplorable. I am told—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will no doubt be able to put me right if I am wrong—that over the past few years a consensus is reached whereby both the Opposition and the Government Front Benches judge that the time is right for a guillotine motion to be entertained on the Floor of the House. That time comes after about 80 or 90 hours of debate, after a few late-night sittings have proved the virility of the Government and the Opposition, and after, no doubt, the Government Whip on the Committee, if he has any pull with the Leader of the House—as I am sure that the Government Whip on this Committee has—has ensured that a guillotine motion is appropriate.
  I am willing to accept that that is not so, if my right hon. Friend tells me, but, if it is, we have the beginnings of the sort of 18th-century warfare ritual about which I was complaining in the earlier evolutions before the guillotine

  355
  stage. If that is so, the argument that the only weapon of the Opposition is time is nothing more than an illusion woven by proponents of the status quo who want to preserve it for reasons that are beyond me.
  I am conscious that this is a short debate, but I wish to refer to the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend. He said, and the Select Committee report refers to the fact, that the Committee stage gives Opposition speakers the opportunity to air their views. This is unquestionably true on any Standing Committee on which I have served. If it is concerned with a controversial Bill, the Government Whip on duty will virtually string one up from the rafters of the Whips' Office if one so much as opens one's mouth. After all, he wants to get the Bill through. The only Members who are allowed to talk during the opening stages of the Bill before a guillotine has been introduced are Opposition Back Benchers.
  No matter how expert many of my hon. Friends are who are members of the Standing Committee—although there are many present tonight who are members of this Standing Committee, I am not one—they talk at length and give the Committee the benefit of their views at their peril. It is undoubtedly true that the Opposition have a chance to air their views on the Bill, but it makes the discussion more than a little one-sided. Does such discussion give the Bill the airing that it deserves?
  On the third reason given by my right hon. Friend, there was touching agreement and consensus between the two Front Benches. I am told by almost as old a hand as the right hon. Member for Deptford that a Back Bencher must beware when the two Front Benches agree about anything. Therefore, I must be all the more careful when considering this third reason given by my right hon. Friend, because both he and the right hon. Member for Deptford agreed wholeheartedly on it.
  My right hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman said that at the beginning of consideration of a Bill in Committee, it is virtually impossible to know how a proper balance of discussion can develop. That may be so, but the right hon. Member for Deptford is, at least in part, condemned out of his own mouth. When discussing the nature and composition of the Bill, he said that anybody could see that the final six clauses of the Bill were not all that important, but the other 37 clauses were.
  Mr. John Silkin: I said that the first 37 clauses contained the meat of the Bill and the controversy. The remaining clauses naturally follow. Of course they are important. They would not be in the Bill if they were not.
  Viscount Cranborne: It is touching that the right hon. Gentleman approves of the Government's sense of priorities and recognises that what the Government propose is important, even in the final six clauses. He implies that he can tell by reading the Bill that the final six clauses are not controversial and that the meat of the Bill is in the first 37 clauses. We begin to see the start of some consensus.
  The right hon. Gentleman subsequently discussed the nature of the Bill. He said that, in effect, it falls into two parts and that it is really two Bills. This begins to make us recognise that it is possible, when reading a Bill, to get some idea of where the argument will fall and where it will not. I do not have the advantage of being a lawyer, like the right hon. Gentleman, but I am told—he will be able to advise me about this—that two opposing banisters in
  356
  court will spend quite a lot of time agreeing where the common ground lies. Consequently, they are able to concentrate the hours that they spend in court on areas where there is disagreement. To some extent this must be true of considering a Bill in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's judgment of the first 37 clauses and the nature of the final six condemned himself to some extent and supported, to a degree, the argument that I am advancing.
  I support the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North that we reconsider the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to examine procedure during the remaining months of this Parliament. I do not know what legislative plans my right hon. Friends have for the remainder of this Parliament. I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Deptford is right when he says that there will be little for Parliament to legislate about. If so, I am delighted. The Conservative party would like to be the party of less legislation, and I hope that that will be so in future.
  If the right hon. Gentleman is right and there is not much for us to do in the way of legislation during the remainder of this Parliament, I submit, in all humility, that there might be worse things for us to do than to discuss the procedures of the House and to clear the decks with a reform that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends feel increasingly to be important so that, after winning the next election, the Conservative Government will be able to address themselves to new legislative measures with more efficiency than this Government have been allowed to do under the present procedures.
  I support the motion but with less enthusiasm than I would have shown had the measure been introduced after Second Reading rather than halfway through the Bill's consideration in Committee.
  7.43 pm
  Mr. Allan Roberts: I oppose the motion. I do not believe for one second that the time proposed for the debates in the motion will be adequate fully to discuss the Bill.
  The Bill does three things. First, it extends the right to buy to the tenants of charitable housing associations and rides roughshod through the concept of charitable law and the status of charitable housing associations, and of all other charities such as private and public schools. Secondly, the Bill gives council tenants and housing association tenants the right to purchase part of their house or flat if they cannot afford to purchase it all. That is one of the most ludicrous housing proposals that the Government have made. Thirdly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said, roe Bill proposes the privatisation of building regulations and building controls. That is a significant and important issue, because in the final analysis it amounts to life or death. If buildings are dangerous, or if they fall down, loss of life or limb can result.
  The Bill is part and parcel of the Government "s devastating and doctrinaire attack on the public rented sector. It is a continuation of the Government's housing policies, which are part of their economic and industrial strategy as well as their housing strategy. The Government's aim through their administrative and legislative actions is to prevent either central Government or local government from interfering in the workings of Britain's economy for the benefit of the community, for

  357
  the majority. It is their aim to hand over the running of the country to the private sector and free enterprise. They want to do that in housing and they are proceeding to do so through this Bill in the same way as they wish to proceed in areas of economic and social activity.
  The Government are attempting by means of the Bill, as they did in the Housing Act 1980 and in other actions taken by the Minister for Housing and Construction, to hand over the future of Britain's housing to the private rented sector. They started the process with the 1980 Act and they are continuing it with the Bill.
  The Government's aim in the 1980 legislation was to revitalise the private rented sector. They decontrolled 200,000 tenancies and invented a new form of tenancy called assured tenancy, which means that if anyone builds a new house or flat he can let it in the private rented sector without being subject to Rent Act controls. The Government have enabled private landlords' rents to be reviewed every two years instead of every three. In other words, they have increased rents—because "review" is a euphemism for increasing rents. They also introduced a concept called shorthold, an entirely new concept which means that tenants of private landlords have security of tenure for only the period of a shorthold tenancy. At the end of the agreement, whether it be one, two, three, four or five years, the landlord can evict the tenant with only 14 days' notice. The tenant then has to find somewhere else to live.
  That legislation was an attempt to revitalise the private rented sector and to push people back on to being dependent upon that sector. It was argued by the Conservative party and Ministers that there was a shortage of houses because of wicked Rent Acts passed by successive Labour Governments controlling rents in the private sector and giving security of tenure to the tenants of private landlords. They claimed that the Rent Acts prevented the private sector from investing capital in the private sector because it knew that it would not secure a return on the capital invested.
  The argument ran that it was necessary only to lift rent restrictions and allow people to invest capital in private housing and enjoy a greater return on the capital invested. It was said that against that background, and with the opportunity to obtain vacant possession of properties more easily by being able to evict tenants, the problem would be solved. The Government told us that there would then be a boom in the private sector, investment in it and the ending of the housing crisis. Alas, it did not work—and for one reason. The other sectors are a more attractive proposition to anyone who is in housing need. We subsidise the other sectors and do not subsidise the private landlord.
  We subsidise the public rented sector. Anyone who can gain access to it will be better housed and pay a lower rent than someone who is housed in the private rented sector. People therefore turn to the private sector when they cannot get into the public sector. That is why the Government have decided to destroy the public rented sector through administrative actions. They have ensured that it does not increase. There is hardly any money for building in the public rented sector, whether they be council houses or housing association houses. Having started their attack on the public sector, the Government
  358
  have turned with the same vengeance on the housing association movement, charitable or otherwise. They are attempting to destroy that as well.
  The Government forced people to be dependent on the private landlord by stopping extra provision for public sector housing. The second stage was to set about destroying the existing public rented sector. They have done that by forcing local authorities not so much to sell their houses to sitting tenants as virtually to give them away at half-price discounts. The Government's legislation of 1980 made it virtually impossible for any local authority, even if it was elected on a policy of not selling council houses, not to sell those houses. They also introduced regulations and discounts that made it almost impossible for any tenant in his right mind not to see that he was being given a golden handshake paid for by the local authority's rate and rent payers. They reduced the public rented stock so that relets would not be available and people in housing need would be forced back on to the private sector which the Government are trying to revitalise.
  Having failed, through the 1980 legislation and the right-to-buy provisions contained in it, to destroy the public rented sector to the extent that they wished, the Government are now making it far easier for tenants to purchase their properties. At the same time, they are making life more difficult for local authorities. When a tenant cannot afford to buy all his house or flat, the Government are introducing measures that will enable him to buy part of that property. The tenant will be able to start with the toilet and move on to the bathroom. Such tenants hope eventually to be able to afford all their property. However, there is a catch. If a tenant buys half his property and rents half of it, repairs will not be carried out. If he buys the front door, the back door will not be repaired. That is a stupid feature of this legislation that must be debated much more fully than the timetable motion allows.
  As well as forcing the right-to-buy provisions on local authorities to destroy the public rented sector and as well as extending those provisions in the present legislation by introducing the idea of part-purchase, the Government are turning their attention to the charitable housing associations. In 1980, even this Government had the sense to exempt them from the right-to-buy provisions. It is not simply members of the Labour party, Socialists and people on the Left who oppose this legislation; it is the charitable housing associations. Many of the people who staff and run them would be at home in any Conservative constituency association. They did not believe that the axe would be wielded against them by a reasonable, middle-of-the-road Conservative Government. This is not a reasonable middle-of-the-road Government. In their blind attack on the public rented sector, the Government have turned on charities and charitable housing associations. That must be fully discussed as it affects the concept of charitable law.
  One way to destroy the public rented sector and to push people back on to the private landlord is to increase the cost of the public rented sector to tenants. To make their right-to-buy provisions and discounts and the purchase of council houses and housing association properties attractive, the Government must make continuing to rent unattractive in the public sector. They are doing that in several ways. One is to force up the costs to the tenant. That can be done by increasing rents, by cutting subsidies to local authorities so that local authorities must increase

  359
  rents. Moreover, by prescribing high rent increases and taking away subsidy, the Government are ensuring that adequate maintenance of the existing housing stock cannot be carried out. Therefore, tenants are tempted even further to exercise their right to buy. That is all part of the strategy to destroy the public rented sector.
  The figures are devastating. In 1979, when the previous Labour Government left office, the average council house rent was £6·40. It is now £13·54. Moreover, another 85p is to go on top of that. One must also add the cost of rates. The figures that I have given are an average and include areas where rents are traditionally low. In areas such as London, Liverpool and Birmingham, where there are housing problems, rents are much higher.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) said in Committee that an argument in favour of extending the right to buy to housing association tenants and strengthening that right for local authority council house tenants was that it was advantageous for tenants to be owner-occupiers. When he tried to justify the discounts and bonuses, he said that owner-occupiers paid a larger percentage of their income in costs that are directly associated with housing. The matter was not adequately debated because the Government Whip kept moving the closure. That is why we now need an opportunity to debate the issue more fully. The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth also attempted to use the argument that council house tenants were subsidised more than owner-occupiers to justify a saving to the local authorities' exchequers, by selling council houses.
  I have some fascinating figures. If one examines the amount of income tax relief on interest that owner-occupiers receive on their mortgages, one finds that in 1982–83, the Exchequer will forgo £2,150 million. That works out at an average of £371 per owner-occupier. About 5,800,000 owner-occupiers have mortgages and receive that subsidy. Even if one divides the total number of owner-occupiers in 1981–11,935,000—into the £2,150 million that owner-occupiers will receive in income tax relief, one sees that each owner-occupier will receive £210 a year. That calculation includes owner-occupiers who have received subsidies but no longer have a mortgage. That figure should be contrasted with the subsidy that council house tenants receive. There are 6,574,000 council house tenants. That is not an insignificant number of people. The total Government subsidy for those 6·5 million families through the housing revenue account in 1982–83 is only £592 million. We should compare that with the £2,150 million that will be given in income tax relief to owner-occupiers.
  Local authorities have to pay rate fund contributions into housing revenue accounts. They are claimed to be a subsidy as well although many are income maintenance because of contributions to rebates and so on. The total rate fund contribution, on top of the £592 million, is £325 million. If one adds the two together, the subsidy, if it is a subsidy—many things are paid for in the housing revenue account that are not a direct subsidy to the rents of council tenants—averages out at £187 per council tenant in 1982–83, compared with £371 to the average owner-occupier.
  I am concerned that the Bill should not be guillotined because of the consequences that the legislation, as part of the Government's policies, will have on the people in my constituency who live in council and housing association accommodation. Many people on the waiting
  360
  lists of the local authority want council or housing association accommodation. In Sefton, the number of council tenants is 22,430. Government subsidy to the Sefton housing revenue account for the current financial year is £3,274,000, a very low figure. The Government do not do much to justify it because they will not encourage the building of council houses. The lowest possible rate fund contribution from any local authority is £248,000, so there is a total of only £3,522,000 in the local authority's housing revenue account. The average subsidy per council tenant in Sefton is £157 a year—if it was a subsidy, which it is not. It is not there to hold the rents down. It is used to run services—not to build council houses, but to do other things that benefit the whole community and not just the council tenants.
  Those figures show what the Government have been doing. They have been trying to destroy the public rented sector to force people into either being dependent on the private rented sector or buying their council accommodation because of high rents, cuts in subsidy and lack of repairs.
  I shall consider the likely consequences of the right-to-buy provisions, if they are not more fully debated, in the metropolitan borough of Sefton in my constituency of Bootle. We should oppose those provisions. One can get a picture of what will happen to the housing association rented accommodation in Sefton from what has happened to the council accommodation that has or has not been sold. There are 22,430 council dwellings in the metropolitan borough of Sefton. Most are in Bootle. Before local government reorganisation, Bootle had a Labour council that built houses, which Crosby, Formby and Southport did not do. Of the 22,430 dwellings, 3,370 have been sold already—that is 15 per cent. It is interesting that, of the 15 per cent. that have been sold, only 1·8 per cent. were flats. All the rest were dwellings. Only 60 out of the 3,370 units of acommodation sold were flats. It is also interesting that 28 per cent. of the flats that were sold were in Bootle. No one wants to buy a flat in Bootle because flats are not worth buying there. Some 1,560 of the 3,370 dwellings that have been sold‡46 per cent. of all sales—are in Bootle. When one realises that 75 per cent. of all the dwellings are in Bootle, that seems a small percentage.
  It is the better houses in the lush areas and the gin-and-tonic belts of Crosby and Southport that are being sold. Families on the waiting list in Bootle, people in housing need and those with children seeking transfers out of the flats of Bootle cannot move into accommodation in Crosby, Southport and Formby because it is being sold. On the other hand, Sefton council can make sure that those living in the council accommodation in Southport and Crosby, whom they call problem families, are transferred to the accommodation in Bootle that is not being sold, to exacerbate the problems of Bootle.
  Exactly the same thing will happen with the housing association accommodation too, so it is important that there should be a continued debate on the Bill. Those in housing need in Bootle and the rest of Sefton are entirely dependent upon the housing associations at the moment, because the local authority does so little. Only the housing associations are building, acquiring and improving—within the limits of the allocations that they receive through the Housing Corporation, which have been cut.

  361
  If that accommodation is sold off in the same way, what hope will there be for the young couple living with their in-laws? What hope will there be for those in the private rented sector in my constituency, which the Government have been trying to revitalise? Those living in properties that lack basic amenities and that the private landlord will not improve cannot take effective action because the council will not help them, and they do not even know who their landlords are. What about those with children, living in flats, who want transfers to the houses that are being sold? Their only hope at present is an offer of rented accommodation from a housing association, and that possibility will be attacked by this legislation. The Bill needs full and adequate debate and should not be guillotined.
  The reason why the Government have introduced this legislation, and why they want to guillotine it, is that they want to finish what they started when they took power. They want to implement free market, private sector policies in housing as elsewhere. They even want to privatise checking in the private sector—the process of making sure that what has been done is safe and adequate. That is what is proposed in the last part of the Bill, which would privatise the building regulations.
  That is the height of folly. If there is no full debate and the Bill is not changed, the Government will live to regret its consequences. When people have died in a future catastrophe which happened because the local authorities were no longer involved in making sure, through the building regulations, that everything was done properly, people will ask which Minister and which Government were responsible. I would not like to carry that responsibility.
  That piece of privatisation is very misguided. Even the most extreme Conservatives must agree that in some areas the public sector must exist to safeguard and assist the private sector. If they do not believe that, we are on a short road to disaster. To avoid that disaster, and to avoid increasing the misery of those in housing need and those living in council and housing association accommodation, I oppose this guillotine.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts), although I find it difficult to follow either the logic or the relevance of his contribution. I agree with him, however, that the Bill is of fundamental importance. I hope, therefore, that he will be a regular attender for the remainder of our proceedings. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to display his prejudices, as doubtless we all do, but it was wrong for him at the end of his speech to ascribe to us motives and policies that are utterly wrong. What he said is simply not true.
  I have immense regard for the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I shall never describe him as an old Member, but I shall always describe him as a very experienced Member. He speech was both ingenious and ingenuous. I congratulate him on his ingenuity in finding new reasons and ideas to bring to this timetable debate. It was matched only by that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who sought to give yet another version of the reasons why the timetable motion should be accepted.
  362
  I wish to take up two points made by the right hon. Member for Deptford, one very minor and one more serious. The right hon. Gentleman gave the impression that only parts I and II of the Bill were important. To me, part III is also extremely important in providing the possibility for changing the scope and form of the building regulations.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to the more serious matter of corruption. He certainly implied that there would be greater scope for corruption if the system of approved inspectors came into being. With respect, I believe—I choose my words carefully here—that there is just as great an opportunity for corruption in the public services of our country as there might be in what he would describe as the private sector. It is important to put that on record.
  We can all play around with statistics. We have been told that we have already debated the Bill for more than 90 hours in 25 sittings of the Standing Committee, taken up more than 1,000 columns of Hansard but got only halfway through the Bill. To me, those statistics are themselves compelling reasons to support the timetable motion.
  I wish to refer, too, to the reality of the Committee proceedings. I concede at once that if Conservative Members were in opposition, they might be guilty of the same behaviour, but that is hypothetical and academic. The fact remains that the points made by the Opposition could have been made in a tithe of the time that they actually took. I cite one more statistic—we have already spent more than 20 hours on three clauses in part II.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne), in his excellent contribution, referred to the ritual of our proceedings. One might use other words and call it a pantomime or a farce. I disagree with my hon. Friend in just one respect. He said that Conservative Members were encouraged to be silent. I am sure that that is true, but my hon. Friend will be the first to congratulate Conservative Back Benchers on not remaining silent but making relevant contributions. It may be coincidence—I prefer to think that it was, although the more I think about it the more I wonder—that three days after my first, modest 10-minute contribution on part I of the Bill, the Government Whip trapped my fingers in his car door. I am endeavouring to effect a speedy recovery.
  It should be placed clearly on record that the hon. Members for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) and Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) have made excellent and articulate contributions in Committee, as did my hon. Friends the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, although the Opposition speeches might on occasion have been rather more concise. In case any hon. Member tries to pick me up on this, I should state that I have taken only 20 columns of the 1,000 columns of Hansard, and one third of that was occupied quite properly in answering interventions from Opposition Members.
  My main point is that, as a result of this motion, four fifths of our time will have been spent on half the Bill. That is the reality of the matter, and it is a sad reflection on our procedure. I add a further dimension to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South said. I am concerned about what members of the public who observed our proceedings in Committee may have thought about the standard of some of the contributions. I believe that the present system is in danger of bringing this wonderful institution into contempt. Frankly, I fear for the reputation

  363
  of Parliament. I believe that the way in which we sometimes proceed in Committee could bring democracy into disrepute. We should consider that dimension when we reflect on the Select Committee report of five years ago and the four reasons eloquently expounded by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for not having a timetable for all Bills.
  We are fast reaching the time when we should find reasons for overcoming the four obstacles set out in the Select Committee report instead of accepting them at face value. I implore Ministers to consider that seriously. I suspect that only when a party is in opposition can it take the initiative in bringing a timetable system into our proceedings, and I fear, in that sense, it will be a very long time before we have that opportunity. Nevertheless, I very much hope that there will be all-party discussions on this. It is a matter not just of defending democracy, although I believe that democracy can be safeguarded adequately even with a timetable system for Bills in Committee, but of reassuring the public that every Bill is considered at leisure, properly and adequately by Members.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. John Cartwright: I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said at the end of his speech and with much of what was said earlier by the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne). Our timetabling system is becoming a farce. There is usually a great deal of synthetic indignation in these debates. Charges and counter-charges are lobbed back and forth, usually between Front Benches whose members have all in their time guillotined Bills and fought to the last ditch against the guillotining of Bills. The argument tends to be, "Our guillotines are not so bad as yours," which scarcely makes for an edifying debate. Another frequent feature of timetable debates is that they are often a rehash of Second Reading debates, when hon. Members dust off and recycle their Second Reading speeches for the benefit of their local newspapers. There has already been one example of that today.
  I believe that the House is becoming bored with that kind of performance. If proof is required, one has only to look around the Chamber. With the exception of perhaps one hon. Member on each side, the only Members in the Chamber are the members of the Standing Committee debating with one another all over again. I strongly agree with those who say that it is about time we found a better way to handle this procedure.
  Having said all that, however, I believe that this Bill is an extraordinary candidate for a timetable motion. I accept that it is important and has some controversial elements, but it is hardly the centrepiece of the Government's legislative programme. It is a rather disparate collection of detailed odds and ends. In housing terms it is a mixture of the good, the bad and the irrelevant. A great deal of it is highly technical. The point was made at the Committee's first sitting that it was an ideal Bill for the Select Committee procedure. It would have been interesting to hear the charitable housing associations explain what would happen to their activities as a result of clause 2.
  I should have listened with great interest to local authority representatives and officers spelling out what shared ownership would mean for them practically. I might have learnt something if we had had professional bodies and expert practitioners in the subject commenting
  364
  upon the proposals for changes in the building control mechanisms. It is a pity that the usual channels did not arrange matters in such a way that the taking of evidence under the Select Committee procedure could have begun our work in Committee.
  As I understand it, the Government's case for the timetable motion seems to rest on the argument that there has been deliberate time wasting in Committee. As the sole representative of the minority parties on the Committee, I have no particular axe to grind between one side and the other. I do not believe that the charge of time wasting can be made out. However, I concede straight away that when we were debating part I the Opposition were stretched fairly thinly and I accept that the arguments were sometimes extended to cover the maximum time possible and that on occasions the ratio of solid, relevant argument to the number of words used was fairly low.
  It is a pleasure always to listen to my former hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham). I have been doing so in one arena after another for about 20 years. I felt occasionally that one could have a little too much of a good thing in Committee. I must pay tribute to his superhuman efforts in Committee, not just in his contributions, which have always been stimulating, but in his ability to keep his hon. Friends going when their ingenuity or inventiveness and occasionally their stamina showed signs of flagging. If that is the allegation of time wasting, I have seen a great deal worse in my eight years in Committees dealing with Bills that were not subject to a timetable motion.
  It is fair to say, as has been said already by the Opposition, that in part I we are talking about serious political issues. I do not necessarily share Labour Members' strong feelings about the extension of the right to buy in the council sector provided by part II. I am glad to see the loopholes, which have been exploited by a number of councils, blocked. I do not share the opposition in principle of Labour Members to the extension of shared ownership. However, I recognise their strong feelings.
  Clause 2, which provides for the extension of the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations, is something that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) has said raises strong feelings right across the political spectrum, not just among Labour Members or Members of the alliance, but among those of other political persuasions. Opposition to that proposal has been made absolutely clear by the volume of correspondence that has showered upon every member of the Committee. Given that strength of feeling, it was perfectly understandable that part I was fiercely contested and absorbed a great deal of time.
  We have moved to part II, which is the rather more technical part of the Bill, and there has been some improvement in progress. There has been a greater involvement by Government Back Benchers, which I welcome, because they bring a great deal of technical expertise to this part of the Bill. They are improving the examination of the Bill in Committee.
  It would have been perfectly possible, without a timetable motion, but with a reasonable amount of good will on both sides, to have had adequate discussions and to have completed the Committee stage by early March. I do not believe that the Government's case for the timetable motion has been made out. There have been occasions when the Government have apparently been perfectly relaxed and have let the clock run on to justify

  365
  the timetable motion on the basis of the number of hours taken up in Committee. The trundling out of the guillotine is out of proportion both to the importance of the Bill and to the events in Committee. I therefore cannot support the timetable motion.
  Equally, I cannot vote against the timetable motion, because I think that reasonable time has been allocated for the work that the Committee has left. It is interesting to note that the time that has been fixed in the timetable motion is a deadline that was being informally bandied about in Committee fairly recently. It would have been possible to reach such an agreement without the use of a timetable motion. It is interesting to note that the two old parties always come to a friendly agreement when their interests are at stake.
  The allocation of one day only on Report is a trifle mean, but I notice that it is to continue for one hour after midnight, which is equivalent to one and a half days. That is something to which we cannot object. However, it means that we are up late at night or early in the morning. I suspect that once again it will be the members of the Committee who will be debating at one o'clock in the morning, or whenever it comes.
  I believe that there is another argument for abstention. I am sorry that the Minister is enjoying my speech so much. If he enjoys it that much before I have developed my argument, he might enjoy it more after I have developed it. There is a case for abstaining on this and other timetable motions. I believe that that is the only way to draw attention to the need for change in the way in which we go about such matters. It is all very well for Conservative Members to make interesting speeches, with which I agree, about the need to change things, but all the time that they or Opposition Members continue to suffer the tyranny of the Whips—whether or not they trap their fingers in doors—and continue to vote for or against timetable motions, the procedure will continue.
  A positive abstention will draw attention to the need to change—[HON. MEMBERS: "A positive abstention?"] It is a positive abstention, because it is a rejection of the introduction of timetable motions. Hon. Members may laugh, but they will vote tonight for something that they have already said is wrong, farcical and, in certain circumstances, dangerous. I shall take no part in that procedure. The sooner that we can do something to change our approach to timetable motions, the better it will be for the efficient operation of the House and for the standing of this House in the country.
  8.29 pm
  Mr. John Heddle: I shall not attempt to pursue the path of irrelevance and contradiction followed by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright). Positive abstention is rather like travelling round the country stirring up apathy.
  The Committee proceedings and, to an extent, some of the contributions in tonight's short debate can be divided into two categories—dogma and detail. Much of the dogma expounded by the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) can only be described as mongrel dogma, and the detail is born of misunderstanding and misappreciation of the factors at work in council offices and in the private sector. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) and for Chipping
  366
  Barnet (Mr. Chapman) that this Bill was an ideal candidate for prior consultation. I should not say "consultation" because my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted comprehensively and extensively about the building control procedure. However, the Committee would have been much better informed and—to use the words of a judge—very much the wiser had we had an opportunity to cross-examine members of charitable housing associations. They, too, would have been better informed and possibly wiser about the Government's intentions. Had that process taken place before the Committee sat formally, perhaps some of the misunderstandings and misconceptions that remain in the minds of those who perform the magnificent, unpaid and unsung service of providing accommodation for those in desperate need, would have been eliminated.
  Only yesterday evening, when I made a brief speech in Committee on points that were answered comprehensively by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State about unlimited liability and time-limited liability, the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham)—I endorse the tributes paid to him by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East—suggested that my contribution was getting perilously close to an agreement. There is much in this Bill upon which all parties should agree not in peril but by common consent, because we were all elected to the House to serve the interests of our constituents, the majority of whom share our aims and aspirations.
  If one meets a Marxist in a public bar and one buys him two pints, he will admit that the one thing that he would really love would be for his son or daughter to win a scholarship to the local grammar school. Yet, at election after election, he will troop through the polling booths and put a cross against the name of the representative of the party that will never allow him to send his son or daughter to a grammar school. After he has consumed two more pints at one's expense, that Marxist will admit that the one thing that he and his wife would really love would be the opportunity to own whole or part of their home and so to climb the ladder of independence and self-sufficiency that home ownership provides. This Bill will enable him to do that.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: During one debate in Committee, Opposition Members said that the sale of council houses was a social evil. How does my hon. Friend believe that Opposition Members would describe members of the Labour party who have bought their council homes?
  Mr. Heddle: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He anticipated a remark that I would have made, and I am glad that he has brought it to my attention now. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) said—Opposition Members can examine the verbatim record—that home ownership was a social evil. The hon. Member for Edmonton, and the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Leeds, West (Mr. Dean) did not say that. They were not opposed to the sale of council houses, and they welcomed the opportunity for their constituents to own their own properties. However, they would not condemn or condone local authorities that made it difficult for people to buy their own houses.
  Mr. Graham: The words that the hon. Member ascribed to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) must undoubtedly be true. I accept them completely.
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept the context in which they were said by my hon. Friend? My hon. Friend served in high office in his local authority, grappling with the problems of the damage done to his ability to serve his electorate by virtue of the right-to-buy provisions. When a Member of Parliament can see the other side of the coin—the damage to his ability to serve his constituents—I believe he has a duty to the House to put both sides of the argument.
  Mr. Heddle: I appreciate what the hon. Member has said. This is where party political dogma arises. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central and all other Labour Members, with one or two notable exceptions, now serving on the Standing Committee were members of the Manchester city council. Some were chairmen of the housing committee from time to time. That is as close to a parliamentary closed shop as I have ever come.
  Party political dogma has played an unfortunate and unnecessary part in the proceedings of this Standing Committee. I quote two lines from the Labour manifesto in the May 1979 election. Under the subject heading "Homes for All", it says:
  "We reject the philosophy that tenants are second-class citizens".
  It goes on:
  "Labour does not oppose the sale of council houses to sitting tenants of two years' standing who want to buy, so long as such sales are at a fair price".
  During my brief service in the House I have been frustrated by the party political shadow boxing and sabre rattling that goes on in the Chamber, compared with the agreement, mutuality of thought, understanding and respect that each party has for the other elsewhere.
  Some of the measures in the Bill—I refer specifically to the shared purchase provisions in part II—actually meet the aims and aspirations of the majority of the electorate. Did I not think that that was so, I would not lend my support to the Bill in principle or in detail, because 500,000 former council tenants have exercised their right to buy—some more quickly than others—since the passing of the Housing Act 1980. The hon. Member for Bootle devoted the majority of his speech this evening to that subject and not to the Bill. Of those 500,000, a considerable number had the good fortune to have their right-to-buy applications processed reasonably speedily, moderately expeditiously and fairly efficiently.
  The Act assists many more people who wish to exercise their right to buy and so introduce into their lives that independence, self-sufficiency and pride that home ownership brings. It contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to ensure that the local authorities process these applications speedily, expeditiously and efficiently.
  The Bill goes further. Some local authorities have felt that they can deny their tenants the opportunity of exercising their democratic right of home ownership by imposing onerous restrictions and burdensome restrictive covenants. That is a daunting prospect for any of us, let alone those who are dipping their toes into the deep blue sea of home ownership, which contains some technical and detailed procedures in the early stages.
  368
  The Bill seeks to ensure that the democratic rights of those people are preserved and that the strong and impersonal arm of local authority democracy is not allowed to get the better of them. I welcome that provision as enthusiastically as the provision to ensure that people who cannot afford to buy the whole of their home now—at the fair price to which the Labour party referred in its manifesto commitment—can buy just a proportion by way of shared ownership. Initially, they will be able to buy 50 per cent., but they will be able to climb the ladder of home ownership and opportunity by increasing the proportion subsequently by 12½ per cent. until ultimately they own 100 per cent. A close examination of the schedules to the Bill will reveal that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reserves powers subsequently to vary that ratio by order.
  The hon. Member for Bootle raised a red herring when discussing the relationship between subsidy by way of mortgage interest relief and direct subsidy by way of local authority ownership. I do not wish to dwell on that point, because it is not relevant to the timetable motion. However, the hon. Gentleman suffered from selective parliamentary amnesia by failing to remind the House that the Government have significantly increased the amount that council tenants obtain through rent subsidies and supplementary benefits. Indeed, four or five out of every 10 council tenants now receive significantly more generous rent subsidies than they did during the period of the last Administration.
  The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet referred to the fact that enabling the public to have building work certified by the qualified and approved private sector, could be a charter for corruption. The right hon. Gentleman does himself and his profession of the law a great disservice by presuming that chartered civil engineers, chartered structural engineers, chartered surveyors, chartered architects and those who can obtain approval to practise independently, as part of a partnership or as employees within a partnership, can be open to corruption. They can no more be open to the charge of corruption than can building control officers currently employed by local authorities, and I yield to no one in my respect for the professionalism and integrity of building control officers currently employed in the public sector.
  The public might be better served if some of those building control officers were employed in the private sector. Certainly my constituent who happens to own 47 Lonsdale road, Radford, Nottingham would be much better served. He drew this matter to my attention only a fortnight ago at my advice bureau in Lichfield. He told me that he owned a house which he wished to let on a shorthold. He wished to provide an opportunity for someone who was no doubt on the Nottingham city council's housing waiting list to rent a home of his own, but before he could do so he would have to obtain an improvement grant to provide that house with the basic essential amenities. The chief executive of the Nottingham city council told the architect whom my constituent had instructed to prepare plans and a specification for the improvement of this three-bedroomed, two-storey dwelling that it would take six months for the application to go through the building regulation approval process.
  It was nothing to do with the financial implications or with the consideration of the application by the finance committee of the city council; it was that they did not have

  369
  the opportunity, because of the number of applications which the city was currently processing—all tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and to the Department of the Environment for making home improvement grants so attractive and so widely available, thus enabling the construction industry in Nottingham and in my constituency of Lichfield and Tamworth to be stimulated—
  Mr. Graham: Does not the hon. Member also appreciate that one of the problems for councils in 1983 in trying to deal with work of that kind arises because for the past three years the Secretary of State has badgered and bashed them to reduce the number of their employees, not only throughout their establishments but in this kind of department in particular? Is it not unfair to a council which has been under pressure from all directions, not least from a reduction in the rate support grant, to reduce the number of employees who are able and available to process these applications?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope the hon. Member will try to relate his constituent's case to the motion that we are discussing.
  Mr. Heddle: I am grateful for your sound advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am open to the charge of not explaining myself to the House as well as I might but I had thought I was illustrating my constituent's case in this context. I take your point and will not therefore be persuaded to follow the path that the hon. Member for Edmonton has plotted for me. I will simply say that, if the provisions of this Bill are subsequently enacted, as is likely to happen more quickly after this motion has been approved tonight, the opportunity will be given to Nottingham city council to pass the building control procedures into the private sector where they will be handled by reputable chartered architects, surveyors, civil engineers or structural engineers, thus relieving the council of the responsibility of processing that application within the six months that it has set itself. My constituent's house will be put into habitable and comfortable condition much sooner, which will in turn benefit the person on the Nottingham council house waiting list.
  The public will also be better protected if this motion is passed and the Bill subsequently enacted, because the building control officer, if employed in the private sector, will be subject not only to the rigorous scrutiny of the local authority whose ultimate duty it is to ensure that all buildings are constructed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by it initially in outline and subsequently in detail, but, if there is any question of corruption, of negligence or of diminution of professional standards, that the approved building control officer will be subject to the disciplinary proceeding of his own professional body or institution. The majority of constituent bodies and institutions which I suspect will receive the advantage of my right hon. Friend's approval will be incorporated by royal charter and their standards will be at least as rigorous, as far as the conduct of their members is concerned, as are those of the body to whom the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Deptford is accountable for his conduct if he seeks to practise his profession in the courts.
  I have detained the House for long enough. In doing so I have sought to bring both sides of this Chamber together.
  370
  I hope I have persuaded Labour Members that we are not motivated, in seeking to speed the Bill on its way, by petty party political dogma and that what we are doing is seeking to extend the right to buy to as many people as possible, to spread the wealth of this country into as many hands, as many pockets, and as many purses as possible.
  I recall the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) saying much the same. People can only take a pride in their home and environment and identify closely with their family and the condition of their family when they have the security that surrounds them day by day—their own front door, their carefully tended garden and their own home. The Bill seeks to do just that. The people, the country, and, most certainly, the local authorities upon whose shoulders the responsibility for providing homes would rest if people were not able to have the opportunity to house themselves, will all benefit. I support the motion wholeheartedly and ultimately wish the Bill godspeed.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. David Winnick: All that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) and I have in common is that, unlike the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), we shall not be positively abstaining tonight. That was the explanation given by the hon. Member for Woolwich, East for not voting in either Division Lobby.
  I wish to refer to some of the comments that have been made about timetable motions. As an Opposition Member, I am not keen on the idea of agreeing to a timetable following Second Reading. [Interruption.] I realise that the Government Whip likes to intervene in these matters, but I shall wait to see whether the enthusiasm for a timetable persists when those advocating it are in opposition. I do not agree that the Standing Committee procedure is the best in the world and that it cannot be improved. However, the kind of solution that has been proposed is not likely to help. It will certainly not help the Opposition. The possibility of achieving all-party agreement for such a proposal seems remote.
  The Opposition agreed at the start of the Committee stage that there was a case for a Special Standing Committee. The Procedure Committee thought that such a Special Standing Committee could be used for hearing and examining witnesses. Opposition Members took the view that it would be appropriate to institute the procedure on a Bill such as that now before the House to enable hon. Members to hear witnesses from the charitable housing associations, which are most affected by part I of the Bill, explain why they objected so strongly to the Bill's proposals. Hon. Members have not received a single letter from charitable housing associations stating that they are in favour of the part of the Bill that provides the tenants of the associations with the right to buy. It would, therefore, be right to hear representatives of the charitable housing associations give their reasons for being so strongly against the Bill.
  Mr. Graham: Is it not right that the Committee heard extracts from letters by some tenants who were in favour of and others who were against clause 2? But were not the representations received by hon. Members from the associations themselves unanimously against the provisions of clause 2?
  Mr. Winnick: Indeed. I shall return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth about tenants.
  We also pointed out that it would do no harm to have a Law Officer present, bearing in mind the position of charities and the fact that charity law is extremely complex. When the Bill receives its Third Reading in the House, it will not be the end of the matter by any means. The rumour is that much opposition is gathering in another place, certainly about the position of charitable housing associations.
  Charitable housing associations have in good faith received assistance from successive Governments since 1974. Now they find that, as a result of receiving that assistance, they will be forced to take measures that they believe to be against the interests of their associations. The associations exist for one purpose only—to provide accommodation for those most in need. Indeed, the Minister for Housing and Construction explained to the Committee the stringent conditions that should be met before anyone is housed by a charitable association. It is understandable that those who have devoted time and energy over a long period to the provision of accommodation for people most in need—in many circumstances, those who cannot be housed by local authorities—should be concerned and angry about what is intended by the Government.
  Among the other letters that we received was one from the Salvation Army housing association, which is hardly what one would describe as a Left-wing organisation. In that letter the chairman of the association said:
  "My association is actively considering branching out to provide, for example, permanent housing for resettled hostel residents and for poorer younger couples entering their first married homes."
  We all agree that that is an excellent objective. The letter continues:
  "The Housing and Building Control Bill as presently drafted will almost certainly bring to an end these plans for new initiatives in our future work. I felt that you should be aware of this discouraging effect of the Bill as you further consider its provisions. We do not see it as our function to provide homes for sale at discount prices."
  Some Government Back Benchers have suggested that our criticism and opposition are motivated by party dogma.
  Mr. Bob Dunn: Yes.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says "Yes". Let us take the views, for example, of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd). I have given notice to the hon. Gentleman that I intended to quote what he said in the House on 13 December. He pointed out that he had family connections with the Guinness Trust, which is very much opposed to the Government's proposals. Referring to a letter which he had received from the director of the trust, he said:
  "The indignation expressed in the director's letter is surprising and persuasive, coming as it does from someone who has spent many years of his life quietly helping to provide good housing cheaply for others. The Government's decision to affect charitable housing associations in the way provided by the Bill is likely to lead bodies such as the Guinness Trust seriously to consider whether they should ever accept Government funds to supplement their own funds in paying for housing for poor people."—[Official Report, 13 December 1982; Vol. 34. c. 53.]
  Is that Labour party dogma? The hon. Gentleman concluded by urging the Government to be careful about going quite so far down the road as they intended and warned of the difficulties. I do not know what the hon.
  372
  Gentleman intends to do tonight about the guillotine motion. This illustrates that the idea that the objections come purely and simply from the Labour party or that this is Labour party dogma at its worst does not bear scrutiny.
  Why are literally all the housing associations affected by the measure opposed to it? The explanation is clear. They know the immense harm that will be done to their activities as a result of what is being discussed today.
  The hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth often lectures us on the need for people to become home owners. Today, he said that it would be good for people to own their own homes. Indeed, he referred to buying pints of beer for Marxists. I am not an authority on the Marxist views of education and so on, but I imagine that the hon. Gentleman has never met a Marxist.
  Mr. Heddle: They are usually on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Winnick: Such remarks illustrate once again the political illiteracy of Conservative Members. In their eyes, anyone connected with the Labour movement must be terribly Left-wing, dogmatic and subversive. Conservative Members have not changed their spots at all over the years.
  Like the Minister, the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth seems to think that it is almost a fundamental right that tenants should be able to buy their own accommodation. However, if it is all right for council tenants and the tenants of charitable housing associations to buy, why should not private tenants, who are never mentioned by Conservative Members, buy their homes? It is interesting that the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth has never for a moment suggested that he would be in favour of a law giving private tenants the right to buy.
  Many tenants in the private sector have to put up with bad conditions. I do not suggest that the majority of private landlords are unscrupulous, but many private landlords and property companies act in an unfortunate and unscrupulous manner. That was said in Committee, and we gave illustrations from the Liverpool area. No matter how unscrupulous their landlords may be, those tenants will not have the right to buy. But the Government and their Back Benchers say that the tenants of local authorities and charitable housing associations should have that right.
  It would be a slander to suggest that the Labour party has ever been against owner-occupation. We are in favour of people being in a position to buy their own houses. That is why, in the 1960s, a Labour Government introduced the option mortgage scheme. It was a means, perhaps limited, of providing for those who would otherwise have difficulty in obtaining a mortgage.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the motion.
  Mr. Winnick: I am grateful for that guidance, but the motion says that the Bill should be guillotined and this point relates to the Bill.
  As a result of the guillotine, there will be insufficient time to examine the clauses that have already seen published. In addition, there are new clauses which will make it all the more difficult for the Bill to be properly scrutinised in Committee. Of course, the new clauses tabled by the Minister are controversial. In the normal course of events, they would be properly scrutinised and examined, but, as a result of the guillotine, there will be

  373
  less time available to examine them. If we had more time, we could examine again the question of private tenants and the right of people to buy their own accommodation.
  We reject any accusation that we are against owner-occupation. In vain, we urged the Government to take the initiative in dealing with those in acute housing difficulties. For example, in Walsall there are nearly 15,000 people on the waiting list. People are waiting a long time to be rehoused, particularly in urban areas.
  The Government do not understand that, while many people will undoubtedly solve their housing problems by owner-occupation, there remain many whose only opportunity of obtaining adequate accommodation is by renting. If they cannot rent from the local authority because of the Government's policy since 1979, they must go to the charitable housing associations. Those associations will be adversely affected by this measure. The Government are doing a grave disservice to those about whom we should be especially concerned.
  Mr. Graham: It is not only the charitable housing associations that will have to soldier on and carry out their responsibilities. This measure is against the advice of the Charity Commission. Is it not a disgrace that, despite attempts by the Opposition, the Government have refused to allow a Law Officer to attend the Committee? The Government may land themselves in legal difficulties later.
  Mr. Winnick: I have already referred to our request for a Law Officer.
  When the Bill reaches another place, there will be many questions and comments about charity law and the manner in which the Government intend to take action against charitable housing associations. Many people will be surprised that a Conservative Government can turn upon charitable housing associations. The Government may argue that they are not doing so, but that is not the view of the associations that have written to us.
  As was stated on Second Reading, this is a bad measure. It will do no good for those about whom we should be most concerned who need adequate accommodation to rent. The Government are determined to go ahead with the measure. It is what we would expect from a Government who base their housing policy on dogma and who believe that council housing should be for the benefit of only the poorest in the community. They will not accept the Opposition's view, which has been accepted by successive Conservative Governments, that council housing has an important role to play, as have charitable housing associations.
  I shall be happy to vote against the motion tonight.
  9.7 pm
  Mr. Bob Dunn: I am pleased to speak in favour of the motion, having sat on the Standing Committee for more than 90 hours, through 25 sittings, and having heard the words of both sides of the Committee, which are reflected in more than 1,000 columns in Hansard. It is right to proceed to a timetable.
  I am in favour of the motion, not simply because I object to the ritual of debate, the dragging on of time and the interventions in speeches—the constant referral from one Opposition Member to another simply to keep the words flowing to use up time—but because it is right that
  374
  Conservative Members should press for the enactment of the legislation at the earliest opportunity. We have a duty and a responsibility to those who are waiting to buy their homes in such places as Southwark, Dulwich and Bolton, West.
  I was pleased when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House quoted my question to the Prime Minister on 11 February 1982. I asked:
  "Will my right hon. Friend say whether it is the Government's intention to introduce legislation that would give council tenants living in leasehold properties owned by local authorities the right to buy their council homes?"
  My right hon. Friend replied:
  "I am well aware that our pledge at the general election covered those living in leasehold properties belonging to local authorities who wish to buy their homes, but where the local authority does not possess the freehold. Our last legislation did not cover that case. It should be covered. It is our intention to cover it. We have a high priority to do so. I cannot promise my hon. Friend that there will be legislation during this Session of Parliament. However, if not, we shall try in the next Session."—[Official Report, 11 February 1982; Vol.17, c. 1110–11]
  I am pleased to say that my right hon. Friend's words have been supported and honoured by my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for taking on board many of the representations that I have received from hundreds of council tenants outside my constituency. He received them with tact and concern, and I am pleased to note that this has led, ultimately, to the legislative enactment that we are discussing in the form of the motion.
  The shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) referred to the timetable and said that he saw no reason why we should not continue for a little longer, in all reasonableness, before enacting the provisions. The hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright) said that he saw no reason why the Committee stage should not be completed early in March. However, the truth was given by the right hon. Member for Deptford when he said that the Committee stage could be finished some time in April. It would always be some other time, or some other reason for delaying a little longer, perhaps until June, or July, or later.
  Many thousands of people who are living in the conditions to which I have referred would be angry if they thought that the provisions giving them the right to buy their homes were not to be enacted by the Government of which I am a strong and proud supporter. The problem for the Opposition is that they are opposed to the sale of public sector houses. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) said in November:
  "I am happy to tell the House that we are committed to the repeal of the right to buy." [Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 730.]
  That was also said by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in a debate in 1980.
  The House will be interested to note that 1,000 of my constituents have taken advantage of the right to buy. That represents 14 per cent. of the housing stock, and, as those who are members of the Committee will know, because I have told them so, it is one of the best results in the south-east region.
  The Conservative party believes that the right to buy should fall upon the individual. The Labour party believes that it should fall upon the institution. The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said in Committee that

  375
  account should be taken of the housing needs of the local authority. He has made that point on many occasions, but I cannot believe that the boroughs of Islington, Camden, Manchester, Salford or Southwark will ever accept that the time has come when houses should be sold to council tenants.
  According to The Standard, in the by-election in Bermondsey there appears to be a choice, between Mr. O'Grady and Mr. Tatchell. In his time Mr. O'Grady was responsible for ensuring that 95 per cent. of all the houses in the Bermondsey constituency were owned by the council. Mr. Tatchell would like to see 100 per cent. of the housing in the Bermondsey constituency owned by the authority. That is, apparently, a choice.
  I pay tribute to the hon. Members for Bolton, West and for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) for the way in which they have conducted themselves in the debate. I know that this has not been easy and that they have had a difficult case to present. They spun out the time and behaved responsibly, unlike members of their parliamentary bruising team behind them. However, there is a great divide in the Labour party on owner-occupation. I am sure that Labour Members will be pleased to know that, as a result of the right-to-buy legislation, 67 per cent. of all houses in my constituency are now owned by the people who live in them. I shall be happy when that figure increases to 70 per cent. or perhaps 75 per cent.
  Revealing and apposite comments have been made by Labour Members. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said in November 1982 that if the Labour party was called upon to form a Government, that Administration would repeal the right-to-buy legislation. The hon. Lady was being honest, in the same way as the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead), who visited my constituency and said that a Labour Government would abolish choice in education and force the area to introduce the comprehensive system.
  I shall be telling my constituents about those two planks of Labour party policy. I hope that more of its policies will be revealed to me in the next few months so that I can tell my constituents even more about the aspirations of the Labour party. Those aspirations are not being revealed to my constituents by local members of the Labour party. They keep quiet about these embarrassments. I do not intend to go further down that road, because if I did I would surely be called to order.
  In February 1982 I was pleased to refer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the position of tenants living in leasehold properties. I believe that the Bill will stand with the 1980 Act as a major piece of reforming legislation. It will give people the right to choose. We are setting the people free. This has always been a strong tenet of the Conservative party. I hope that we shall continue to implement it. I have great pleasure in supporting the motion.
  Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman talks about setting people free, whatever that might mean. I am sure that he wants to be consistent in his approach. Does he believe that tenants in the private sector should have exactly the same rights as he is advocating for those in the public sector and in housing association properties?
  Mr. Dunn: I take on board the hon. Gentleman's question, which he has raised many times in Committee. I am concerned about the future of the private tenant. I am
  376
  concerned that the private sector diminished in my constituency from 15 to 10 per cent. between 1972 and 1982.
  Mr. Winnick: Should they have the right to buy?
  Mr. Dunn: The object of the debate is to establish whether the guillotine should fall on consideration of the Bill in Committee. We have reached the end of a difficult road in the Committee on which the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) serves.
  Mr. Winnick: Should they have the right to buy?
  Mr. Dunn: We must now consider the remaining clauses, which relate to other areas of housing.
  Mr. Winnick: Answer the question!
  Mr. Heddle rose—
  Mr. Dunn: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Heddle: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), to whose intervention my hon. Friend is currently replying, tried to trawl the red herring, if I am not mixing too many metaphors, of the relationship between the public sector tenant and the private sector tenant and his right to buy or otherwise. Does my hon. Friend agree that the private sector tenant has the right to compel his landlord to carry out certain necessary repairs? The private sector tenant has the statutory power, for example under the Public Health Acts and the Housing Act 1980, to ensure that the landlord carries out certain repairs.
  Mr. Winnick: What about the right to buy?
  Mr. Heddle: That right to require repairs to be carried out does not exist in the public sector.
  Mr. Winnick: But what about the right to buy?
  Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. For four years I was a London borough of Southwark councillor. I was one of only four Conservatives on a council of 70. We were outnumbered by 17 to 1, but that proved that one Conservative was equal to 17 Socialists. In Southwark there was an appalling degree of household neglect. That was because the local authority's bureaucracy had been maintained and enhanced to such a degree that it was difficult for the average tenant to get through to those concerned the fact that he had a leaking roof, rising damp or a door that did not fit.
  Mr. Winnick: Answer my question.
  Mr. Dunn: The issues that we have discussed are bound to be of assistance to council tenants. The private tenant has the rights to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) has referred. Many enlightened landlords are trying to help tenants to buy their houses.
  Mr. Winnick: What about the right to buy?
  Mr. Dunn: There is a long way to go before we get to that point. Private landlords in my constituency—not many, because there are not many left as a result of the Opposition's legislation—are selling their houses to tenants at fair and reasonable prices. We have a long way to go before we reach the final point when as many people as can afford to do so own the house in which they live.
  Mr. J. F. Pawsey: Before my hon. Friend finishes his speech I hope that he will find time to say a few words about the purchase of houses by tenants of

  377
  housing association properties. He may not be aware of the fact that in my constituency there is at least one housing association that has deliberately thwarted the will of Parliament to such an extent that for two years tenants of that association have not been able to purchase the house in which they live. I believe that that is disgraceful. I should welcome my hon. Friend's views on the subject.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) will confine himself to the terms of the motion.
  Mr. Dunn: Of course, I shall confine myself to the motion. I have been about to conclude several times, as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I welcome the motion. I regret the need for it, but that has been brought about by several circumstances, not least of which is the ritualistic behaviour of the Opposition.
  I endorse much of what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) said. The House must, at some time, take account and stock of the circumstances of hon. Members who serve on Standing Committees. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Government Whip, because at no time during the Standing Committee were we put under pressure by him, the Minister or the Under-Secretary of State to remain quiet. We have given as good as we got on occasions. That must be the right way. With regard to what my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South, said, I hope that Parliament will take account of this obvious abuse of our procedures.
  9.21 pm
  Mr. John Ward: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) and an even greater pleasure to congratulate him on the progress that has been made in privatisation of dwellings in his constituency. Like him, I look forward to the day when 99 per cent. of Dartford is in owner-occupation.
  I should also like to pay tribute to my neighbouring Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) who said that there was a need to re-examine our procedures in Standing Committees. Although I have every sympathy with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House in all that he does to keep us from erring, I disagree with his comments about the possibility of another look at that procedure during this Parliament.
  I belong to that no longer exclusive club that believes that all Bills need some form of timetable motion, if the House is to be seen to be discharging its duties properly, and if, above all, it is to be seen by the electorate not to be wasting time or using the rules of procedure to prolong our activities in Committee.
  It seems to become a virility symbol to spend 90 or 100 hours in Committee, to have two or three all-night sittings, to have three or four cups of coffee at about 2 o'clock in the morning and then to have a guillotine. That is a ridiculous way of proceeding. If any state or private corporation behaved in the same way as we go about our business, we should question not only their wisdom but the sanity of their procedures. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will consider the matter further and note the number of signatures—now well over 100—to early-day motion 298.
  Viscount Cranborne: It is always a pleasure to find that Dorset Members of Parliament are on the side of common sense and truth. I thank my hon. Friend for his comments in that respect. Would he also consider the effects upon Ministers of the Crown of the long night sessions by which, as my hon. Friend put it, they are trying to prove their virility or that of their supporters—probably both? Does he agree that they put the sound administration of the country at risk? We rely on them to preserve their good judgment for the following morning. If they have been up all night it is extremely difficult for them to do that.
  Mr. Ward: I agree with my hon. Friend. That gives me an opportunity to pay my tribute to Ministers, particularly my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who maintained his good humour and courtesy and kept us all in good order throughout the inordinately long proceedings. It would be a shock to some members of the public if they realised the conditions in which the members of any Government are asked to make decisions. They have super jet lag because they have been in Committee late into the night. That is the wrong way to go about the country's business.
  My constituents are becoming very concerned at the delays in the Bill. Many people living in leasehold accommodation want the chance to buy their house. There are others who cannot fully buy but are looking forward to shared ownership. Again I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister for the advice that he has provided for Poole borough council, which is anxious to see the Bill on the statute book so that it can proceed with such sales. Potentially we are adding about 50,000 to 55,000 home owners to the list of owner-occupiers. The Opposition may call it dogma, but I believe that it is a good principle of the Conservative party that, at all times, we should do what we can to encourage home ownership.
  The second half of the Bill has received less attention than the right-to-buy provisions. I welcome the introduction in the Bill of choice to the consumer by allowing private certification for building control. I hope that in due course the problem of certification will be alleviated by taking a good, long, cool look at the building regulations and, I hope, by separating the technical requirements from the building regulations proper, which have become immensely complicated. The regulations have become about three times as long as they were 10 years ago. I welcome the assurances that have been given that a close look will be taken at them.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Heddle) I pay tribute to building control officers, who do a conscientious job. I assure them that in no way is the Bill aimed at their quality or competence. Again the Bill provides the Conservative principle of choice for the consumer. I look forward very much to the streamlining of procedures that will be possible under the Bill.
  I revert briefly to shared ownership and the right to buy. We should encourage pride in ownership, wherever it may be. What is better than the pride of owning one's own home? We can make the taxpayers' money available to support those in most need and not go on providing help to those who do not need it and are willing to commit their capital in the form of purchasing the house in which they live.

  379
  In the end it all comes down to providing a choice for the people. They do not have to buy the house in which they live. There is no pressure on them to do so. The success of the Minister's policy and the policies of the Government is shown by the fact that a vast number of people are queuing up to buy.
  I hope that when the Minister replies he will lift the corner of the veil slightly and reassure us that councils attempting to frustrate the will of the Government will be brought into line. I hope that increasing pressure will be put on those councils to obey not only these measures but the previous right-to-buy legislation.
  I hope that the House will pass the timetable motion tonight. The Bill is too important to be allowed to hang about in Committee any longer. I hope that it will shortly complete its Committee and remaining stages and become law.
  9.31 pm
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Leader of the House and several Conservative Members have said that this is an important Bill. It is both important and complex. That is one of the reasons why Opposition Members believe that the Government are wrong to railroad the legislation through the House before we have had time to consider fully the implications of the proposed changes.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has already pointed out that the Bill is really two Bills. Indeed, parts I and II are connected only by the unfortunate Minister who has seen fit to promote them. Part I is about housing matters, although not housing problems or housing needs. It will not build one new house or improve one old property. Part II is about building control, which is a completely different subject.
  Such is the haste of the Government to push ahead with the legislation that not only do we have two Bills in one, but we have limited time in which to discuss the two separate parts of the legislation. Opposition Members serving on the Standing Committee have been dismayed by the Government's undue haste. Every attempt by us to do our job of carefully scrutinising the legislation has been frustrated by Ministers who, rather than deal with the questions asked and problems suggested by my hon. Friends, have chosen to give bland assurances that all will be well once the Bill becomes an Act.
  It is clear that Ministers do not know how many of the provisions will operate in practice and have not worked out the details of the legislation. Yet tonight we face a guillotine motion.
  It may have been lack of detailed knowledge that prompted the Government to use the closure procedure unduly to restrict discussion of important matters. The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) quoted some statistics. I do not intend to quote many statistics, but the hon. Gentleman will remember that in one day alone the closure procedure was used five times in seven and a quarter hours of debate. That is an unprecedented restriction of the rights of Members of Parliament.
  Mr. Chapman: Will the hon. Lady say on which amendments the closure was moved? That information might be relevant to her comments.
  Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recall that we were discussing the important and complex question of shared ownership. I remind him that those five
  380
  closures were moved on a sitting day when the Committee made such rapid progress that we completed debates on five clauses and two schedules. If Conservative Members consider that we were slowing down the proceedings, they should remind themselves of what was happening in Committee at that time.
  When so much progress was made in one day, I cannot see how the Government can justify the guillotine today. Certainly nothing that the Leader of the House said justified the motion.
  It is not as though the Bill were a minor one. We all agree that it requires considerable attention and detailed scrutiny. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford said, we remain opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, in Committee we sought to highlight the many practical problems that may well arise. Every attempt that we made was ignored by the Minister, although he knows that there are serious difficulties associated with the working of the Bill in practice.
  There are problems not least because the first part of the Bill goes back on the Government's decisions and assurances during the passage of the 1980 Bill. The same Minister said then that the right-to-buy provisions should not apply if the local authority did not own the freehold of the property because of the complexities and difficulties that would arise. Now, in this hastily produced package, he is introducing that which he previously rejected.
  The same applies to housing charities. In 1980, in Committee the same Minister said:
  "There are some important points to be made about the relationship between the right to buy and existing charity law. That is why the essential distinction that we have made is to extend the right to buy to those in the housing association sector who could reasonably fall under the general umbrella of public sector tenants. We take the view that that should not be extended if it conflicts with charitable law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 29 January 1980; c. 14–15.]
  The Minister is now going back on all the assurances then given to housing charities and forcing them to dispose of their properties against their wishes, their better judgment their financial interests and their long-term objectives of providing help for people in housing need. Despite their assurances in 1980, the Government have broken their word and are now actually changing charity law through a housing Bill—and a guillotined one at that.
  The Minister should be aware that serious consequences may result from that undue haste. We may see some of them in the very near future. The proposals may yet be the subject of legal action in the European Court. I do not think the Minister has fully considered the implications of his proposals in that respect. Moreover, I understand that the National Federation of Housing Associations and others have appealed to the Attorney-General. He is considering the case and the problems that will face housing charities as a result of the Bill. As part of his role, he is the officer of the Crown responsible for protecting the interests of charities, so he has a special interest in this. Indeed, I understand that his role in this respect gives him extra responsibility directly to the Crown rather than to the Government. It will be interesting to hear in due course what he has to say about the way in which the Bill affects charity law.
  Therefore, even if the Government get their way today, we may not have heard the last of the matter as it affects charitable housing.
  Part I of the Bill contains the Government's proposals for shared ownership. The Government now say that if a

  381
  tenant cannot afford to buy his council house outright, perhaps he can buy half of it—or 62·5 per cent. or 75 per cent. or whatever other figure the Minister may decide at some later date. These proposals will create havoc for many local authorities and housing associations which are already under great pressure. If local authorities take on more staff to deal with these new problems, the Government will clobber them once again, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Graham) said, for employing too many people.
  The proposals for shared ownership, like the leasehold proposals and the changes for charitable housing trusts, have not been discussed with the people who will have to make them work in practice. That is one reason why the legislation is defective in a major way.
  Part II of the Bill deals with the privatisation of building control. There is widespread speculation outside the House that, even if the legislation goes through, the provisions under part II will not be introduced.
  Opposition Members have spoken again tonight of the need for revision of the building regulations. Members on both sides of the House agree with that. It is not the point at issue. The Opposition object to the privatisation of building control, the policing, the inspection and implementation of the building regulations. That is where we believe that the Government are treading on dangerous ground. The Opposition believe that part II, as it stands, needs far more consideration than the Government are willing to allow, not least because it gives the Secretary of State more power to change the present, uncriticised, tried and tested system of building control. In future the Secretary of State can, whenever and in whatever way he wishes, allow people, not identified, to undertake building control work. Yet the Secretary of State cannot guarantee that all the problems of liability can or ever will be clarified.
  Mr. Graham: He never will.
  Mrs. Taylor: The Minister undertook consultations. While everyone agrees that changes in the building regulations are necessary, none of the professional bodies or others outside the House supports what the Minister is doing. The Royal Institute of British Architects, the Institution of Structural Engineers, the Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Master Builders Federation are all opposed to what the Minister is doing, and the Government are now curtailing our opportunity to voice the fears of such esteemed and professional bodies. The Government will be in serious difficulty, once the measure comes into operation, if we have had no chance to explore fully the problems that might arise.
  In Committee we have tried to obtain information from the Minister about how he intends the Bill to work in practice. It has been difficult, because the Minister has not been co-operative, and because the word "prescribed" is mentioned 57 times in the Bill. The Government's haste is so great that they cannot be bothered to work out the details of the legislation; they simply want to take more powers to themselves. If we wanted further proof of the Government's haste and the fact that the legislation has not been thought through fully, we had it this morning with yet more Government amendments being presented on the day that the guillotine motion is before the House.
  382
  This morning we were presented with another part of the Bill, which is almost a Bill in itself—four new clauses covering four sides of the Amendment Paper. They will all need to be debated in the limited time allowed by the Government. The new clauses do not tell us much. They are typical of the approach adopted by the Minister. To illustrate that point I shall quote new clause 16 which the Minister has just tabled:
  "Regulations under this section may make such procedural, incidental, supplementary and transitional provision as may appear to the Secretary of State to be necessary"—
  Mr. Graham: He does not know his own mind.
  Mrs. Taylor: —"or expedient."
  Mr. Graham: Typical.
  Mrs. Taylor: That sums up the Government's attitude to the Bill. They want us to leave it to them to do what they believe is expedient. The Government are frightened of scrutiny of the Bill. We are opposed to it in principle, but we wish to scrutinise it in detail. The Government are afraid of that procedure, but we are not. We wish to continue to discuss the Bill. We shall vote against the motion this evening.
  9.44 pm
  The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): We have had a wide-ranging debate that has oscillated between a discussion of the general procedures of the House in respect of timetable motions, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) made a most thoughtful speech, and the much narrower issue of the timetable motion on this Bill, to which I shall address my remarks.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mrs. Taylor) made a most significant remark on Second Reading. She said:
  "The Opposition resent the fact that parliamentary time is being spent on such irrelevant measures."—[Official Report, 23 November 1982; Vol. 32, c. 725.]
  That was a strange comment for her to make in view of what has happened in Committee since then, because it is clear that once the Bill went to Committee, the supposed resentment of the Opposition about spending time on this Bill died a rapid death. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said in an excellent speech, the Opposition's tactics in Committee have been to expend much time and make slow progress. Although the Government are moving the timetable motion, it was undoubtedly precipitated by the action of the Opposition in Committee. As I shall demonstrate in some detail, it is clear that the Opposition took a deliberate decision to go exceptionally slowly.
  The hon. Lady's chief instrument of delay has been the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). The hon. Gentleman, from whom we heard a great deal in Committee, has performed like the parliamentary equivalent of a cement mixer. He has been churning on and on and on in the same spot. He has gone round and round the amendment under discussion and has poured out with unfailing regularity a remarkable diet of glutinous sludge. He has done so during 23 speeches and 120 interventions. Even by the hallowed traditions of this House, the hon. Gentleman has given us a new insight into the meaning of the word "repetition".
  However, I would not do justice to the other Opposition members of the Committee if I did not mention their contribution to securing some delay in the progress of the

  383
  Bill. All Opposition Members have contributed to its slow progress to date. I must make an exception of the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Cartwright), the Social Democratic member of the Committee, because his contributions have been to the point and relatively brief.
  However, the hon. Gentleman made a fascinating speech tonight that I am sure is destined to become a textbook classic for the SDP. His speech will be read out at every candidate's conference as the model political posture for an aspiring SDP politician. The hon. Gentleman told us with great ernestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote for this motion. He then told us with great earnestness and conviction why he felt unable to vote against this motion. Then he told us with great earnestness and conviction why he was resolutely determined to adopt a policy of "positive abstention" tonight.
  Mr. Cartwright: I am sorry that the idea of positive abstention seems strange to the Minister. It does not seem strange to some of his hon. Friends. Ten of his hon. Friends abstained positively last night on the immigration rules. Does he have the same attitude to them?
  Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that, having voted for the Bill on Second Reading, there is some consistency in trying to get it through to Royal Assent. Labour Members have all made a signal contribution to the delay. To win one's campaign medal for the Labour party in Standing Committee F, one had to make an hour-plus speech as many times as possible. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bolton, West. She has led her troops from the front and has already gained the hour-plus medal with three bars.
  If any Labour Members are in any doubt as to the slow progress, an interesting comparison can be made between the progess made on this Bill and the progress made on the Housing Bill in 1980. If the right hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) adopted a hare-like posture in 1980, whereas the hon. Member for Bolton, West has decided to play a tortoise role in 1983. The present Bill has 40-odd clauses and is confined to only two major subjects. The 1980 Bill contained 120 clauses and covered 10 major subjects.
  Despite being one third the length and infinitely narrower in scope, the progress of the present Bill through Committee has in every way been markedly slower than that of the 1980 Bill. The Bill has now been in Committee for a total of 90 hours.
  In the same number of hours in Committee in 1980, vastly more progress had been made than on this Bill. It dealt with the right-to-buy legislation from scratch, as well as with the whole of the tenants charter, shorthold provisions, the assured tenancy provisions, other private rented sector provisions, fair rent phasing, controlled tenancies, resident landlord lettings, and a host of other matters. All that was achieved in the first 90 hours of the Standing Committee proceedings on the 1980 Bill.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Disgraceful.
  Mr. Stanley: It is symptomatic of the hon. Lady's attitude that she describes that as disgraceful. It is fortunate that the right hon. Member for Ardwick, who came top in the shadow Cabinet election, has mercifully vacated his place.
  After 90 hours in Committee on the 1980 Bill, we had reached the end of clause 79. After 90 hours in Committee
  384
  on this Bill, we had only reached the end of clause 22. That is a difference of more than 50 clauses for the same expenditure of time. That is the clearest possible sign of the extent to which the Opposition have sought to delay progress on the Bill.
  Had the Opposition done no more than achieve the same rate of progress on this 43-clause Bill as they made on the first 43 clauses of the 1980 Bill, this timetable motion would have been completely unnecessary, as consideration of the Bill would have been completed in 50 hours. It would now be out of Committee and have been reported to the House. No guillotine motion has been more self-evidently brought down on themselves by the Opposition than this one.
  The Government have sought to achieve progress in the normal way. There have been references to that in the debate. The Government, quite reasonably, sought to move the closure 12 times in Committee. On 11 of those 12 occasions, the Chair accepted that that motion should be put to the vote. That is the clearest possible sign that the Chair felt that the amendments concerned had been fully debated.
  Despite our efforts to make progress with the Bill, it is clear that greater progress must be made if the opportunities provided by the legislation are to be put into effect.
  As my hon. Friends made clear during the debate, a great many people—in particular, many council tenants—simply cannot afford to wait months and months for their new legal rights under this legislation.
  Thousands of families up and down the country are waiting for the enactment of the Bill with eager and urgent anticipation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) said, thousands of tenants have been frustrated in exercising their right to buy because, for example, their homes are on leasehold land and their Labour-controlled councils want to take every possible opportunity to prevent them from buying their homes, even to the extent of refusing to accept the freehold interest as a gift after the tenant has bought it himself. Tenants throughout the country on leasehold land want the Bill to make more rapid progress, to receive full consideration and enactment. Many tenants in Bolton, including tenants in the hon. Lady's constituency, are looking to her to represent their interests tonight so that they get their rights under this legislation. I am sorry that it looks as though they will be disappointed because their own Member of Parliament is obstructing their wishes to buy their homes in Bolton.
  Mrs. Ann Taylor: Will the Minister explain to the House and to my constituents, for whom he has such touching concern, how the thousands of people on the waiting list in Bolton will be helped by the Bill?
  Mr. Stanley: In the same way as many people are now being helped—by the hundreds of millions of pounds in capital receipts at the disposal of local authorities to increase their housing investment programmes.
  In addition to tenants whose homes are on leasehold land, many thousands of tenants of charitable housing associations are looking forward to the enactment of this legislation. Many thousands of relatively low income tenants are looking forward to exercising their right of shared ownership. Tenants in the city of Norwich are anxiously waiting for the enactment of clause 17. They will get back their right to buy, of which they were so

  385
  disgracefully cheated by Norwich council's device of telling its tenants that they could not exchange their homes unless at the same time they deprived themselves of the right to buy. That scandalous device will be invalidated by this legislation.
  The adult children of tenants, some of whom have been paying rent for 20 or 30 years, have not been allowed a penny of discount by some Labour councils. They too will get a discount entitlement under the Bill. A considerable number of tenants are facing unreasonable covenants and conditions that have been imposed on their right-to-buy purchases. They may be able to benefit from our proposal to enable the Secretary of State to assist tenants who feel that they have unreasonable covenants. They will be able to take legal action, and will be assisted in doing so, so that there is a proper opportunity for a court to decide whether or not the covenants are reasonable.
  It is quite clear that many thousands of tenants are seeking to excercise their right to buy, but will be able to do so only if there is satisfactory progress on the Bill.
  The Opposition have made it unmistakably clear that they are not interested in securing a reasonable rate of progress on the Bill. Their tactics are quite plain, and have been since the first session of Standing Committee F. The Opposition's tactics are to delay the Bill for the longest possible time in the hope that it will be prevented from reaching the statute book by an early general election. Their objective is to spin out consideration of the Bill until the late summer. It would be wrong to deny Parliament this opportunity to reach a decision on the Bill because of the months of delay that have been fabricated upstairs. It is a highly beneficial Bill, and I therefore ask the House to support the motion.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Aves 297. Noes 219.
  Question agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

  1. The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on or before 1st March 1983.

  Report and Third Reading
  2. — (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion one hour after midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
  (2) The Business Committee shall report to the House their Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the fourth day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
  (3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 43 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
  (4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

  Procedure in Standing Committee
  3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
  (2) No Motion shall be moved in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who moves, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
  4. No Motion shall be moved to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

  Conclusion of proceedings in Committee
  5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
  dilatory Motions
  6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be moved in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

  Extra time on allotted days
  7.—(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for three hours after Ten o'clock.
  (2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of three hours.
  (3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of three hours.

  Private business
  8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

  Conclusion of proceedings
  9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not
  390
  previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others), that is to say—

  (a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;

  (b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);

  (c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment or Motion is moved by a member of the Government;

  (d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

  and on a Motion so moved for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
  (2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
  (3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—

  (a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;

  (b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  (4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

  Supplemental orders
  10. — (1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
  (2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

  Saving
  11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—

  (a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or

  (b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

  Re-Committal
  12. — (1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.
  (2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to re-commit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

  Interpretation
  13. In this Order—

  391

  "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;

  "the Bill" means the Housing and Building Control Bill;

  "Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;

  "Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales)
10.13 pm
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to ask for your guidance on the next business listed on the Order Paper—the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid by the Home Secretary before the House on 7 February. If you will be good enough to allow me to develop my point of order, I will point out that the Home Secretary lays the draft Order in Council under section 3 of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
A draft order may be of two kinds. If no modifications are proposed to the Boundary Commission report, it is simply a draft order giving effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. On the other hand, if there are modifications to the recommendations then, additionally, the Home Secretary must lay before Parliament a statement of the reasons for the modifications. I understand that there is no such statement laid here. Indeed, the order's explanatory note states:
"This Order gives effect without modification to the recommendations contained in the report of the Boundary Commission".
Unhappily, that is not the end of the matter. If, as appears on the face of it, the Home Secretary, by his inaction in not laying an additional statement before Parliament because he does not believe that he is introducing modifications to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, is wrong; if he has misconceived the position; and if there is a modification, he has not done his duty to Parliament. He has not laid before it the statement that is required in accordance with the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. Section 3(3) of that Act states:
"Where any such draft gives effect to any such recommendations with modifications, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament together with the draft a statement of the reasons for the modifications."
As the Home Secretary has not laid the required statement before Parliament, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must be satisfied before proceeding with the order that the preliminaries have been met. If the Home Secretary has not done his duty, it would be quite wrong and contrary to statute for us to discuss the order.
I shall draw attention immediately to the factual basis for my concern. There is at the very least ambiguity about the status of one ward in the borough of Neath, in the county of west Glamorgan. The same ambiguity applies to the borough of Brecknock in the county of Powys. Page 5 of the draft order refers to Neath—presently the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman)—to the borough of Lliw Valley wards Nos. 4, 7 and 8, and to the borough of Neath wards Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7 to 16. I want to know exactly what ward No. 11 comprises. If it is the old ward No. 11 that existed before 1 January 1983, it refers to, and is part of, a constituency that falls short of a county boundary—west Glamorgan. By 21 January the county boundaries had been changed as a result of the Neath (Communities) Order 1982 which was laid before the House not by the Home Secretary, but, in accordance with form, by the Secretary of State for Wales. The effect of the order, which was made on 3 December 1982, was to subtract a piece of west

393
Glamorgan and place it in ward No. 13 in the borough of Brecknock. It adds a piece of Powys to ward No. 11 of the borough of Neath in west Glamorgan.
I am sure that the House is well aware that a boundary commission may cross a county boundary only by reason of rule 5 of the second schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, which states:
"The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules; and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota"
That is the nub of the provision—to remove excessive disparity between electorates.
Those conditions do not exist in the area to which I refer, and neither has it been argued at any time that the exception should come into force. There is an addition to one county and a subtraction from another, and the provisions would cancel out one another to some extent. Therefore, no one in his senses could argue the excess disparity rule.
I leave that particular limb and turn to the alternative limb. If it is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but he must come to his point of order rather than go into detailed argument.
Mr. Morris: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I do not often trouble the House with a point of order. I feel that I should be allowed to develop my point, which I shall do as briefly as possible. At the outset of my remarks, I spelt out the basic point that I seek to argue. It is my duty to draw your attention to the basis upon which I make my submission—otherwise, it would have little effect.
If it is to be a new ward, rather than ward 11 that has existed since 1 January, the Home Secretary is modifying the Boundary Commission's proposals. In those circumstances, he must follow the 1949 Act and make a statement on his reasons for the modification. You asked me to come to my point, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Home Secretary has not made that statement, and we are troubled about that.
Article 2 of the draft order purports to define constituencies
"as they existed on 21st January 1983, except where otherwise stated."
That obviously kills ward 11. As I have said, ward 11 has been modified by the Neath order. The Secretary of State for Wales did that on 3 December, and it came into effect on 1 January 1983. We know, therefore, the definition of the Secretary of State for Wales of ward 11 since 1 January 1983. However, we cannot be sure of the Home Secretary's definition as expressed in the draft order.
In either case, whether the two Secretaries of State are of the same mind or not, there is need for a new order to be submitted either, first, by way of modifying this order, or, secondly, by making a statement of the reasons for the modifications.
The Boundary Commission for Wales, in recommending proposed new constituencies on the basis of how the wards stood on 21 January 1983, should have taken account of the changes in the Powys-west Glamorgan boundary resulting from the Neath order.
394
One reason why they should have done so is that it affects the way that the Home Secretary appoints a returning officer. If an election occurs after the coming into effect of the draft order, as I am sure that it will, it appears that the Home Secretary will have to take account of the Neath order as regards such an appointment.
How is the returning officer appointed? The Boundary Commission purported to ignore the existence of the Neath order; and there are two operational days in that order. The first is 1 January 1983 and the second is 1 April 1983. Article 41 (a) Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 says:
"The following are purposes for which the order shall come into operation on such day earlier than the appointed day as may be specified therein (a) the application of sections 39 and 40 of the Local Government Act 1982."
The Neath order, for the purposes of section 40 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, came into effect on 1 January 1983. That section refers to the appointment of returning officers, of which there are two sorts. The first, under section 41 (a) in the case of a constituency that is coterminous with, or wholly contained in a county, is the sheriff of the county. In another case, under section 41 (c), in the case of any other constituency, it is such sheriff or chairman of a district council as may be designated in an order made by the Secretary of State.
While it is not clear from the Home Secretary's order when he regards the Neath order coming into effect, there is a clear inference from the Boundary Commission that the Neath order has not come into effect. I have a letter from the secretary of the Boundary Commission—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member is adducing an argument, but I should like him to put his point of order to the Chair. He has now been on his feet for 10 minutes, and I have been listening very carefully, but I wish to get to the point of order.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: It is a very complicated matter.
Mr. Morris: The last thing that I wish to do is to offend the Chair. I am almost coming to the conclusion of my point of order, which I stated at the beginning. I hope that what I have said in addition has been merely by way of providing a factual basis for the point of order, as to whether there should be a statement laid before Parliament in support showing whether it is an order that has been modified or not.
The matter of how the Secretary of State for the Home Department would appoint a returning officer for parliamentary purposes is of the utmost importance. I was about to say, and this goes to the very heart of the matter, that the Boundary Commission has ignored the existence of what took place by way of the order introduced by the Secretary of State for Wales in December, which comes into effect on 1 January.
Mr. G. P. Barnes in his letter to me on 31 January this year says:
"The Neath (Communities) Order 1982 was made on 3 December 1982 and comes into operation on 1 April 1983."
That is a clear demonstration, and puts it beyond peradventure, of when the commission thinks that the Neath order came into effect.
The Boundary Commission seems to have misunderstood the effect of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 and ignored what is stated in the Neath order as regards the date that it comes into effect on 1

395
January 1983. Given that the officers of the Boundary Commission for Wales believe that the order does not come into effect until 1 April, how can the Home Secretary appoint an appropriate returning officer under the appropriate part of the statute? When there is no crossing of a county boundary, the returning officer is the sheriff. When there are no coterminous boundaries, the returning officer is the sheriff or the chairman of a district council as designated by order.
Bearing in mind the anxiety that I have expressed and the need for the Home Secretary to clear the preliminaries before it is in order for him to introduce the order and for us to debate it, I submit that it appears that there is more than one difficulty in being satisfied that the order is in proper form. In any event, the Home Secretary should not move the order now. He should return with a fresh order, having satisfied himself that it meets the real fears that I have expressed.
10.30 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you showed some impatience with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), I wish to advance two short arguments in support of his submission. First, I ask you to consider the matter carefully. Although it seems to be a purely Welsh matter, it is one that may be duplicated in the English and Scottish orders that will come before the House in due course. Clarification now can only be to the advantage of the House.
Secondly, my right hon. and learned Friend referred to a letter dated 31 January 1983 from the Boundary Commission for Wales, although the exact date of it is open to some doubt. However, it refers to a letter that my right hon. and learned Friend wrote to the commission on 18 January. It cannot be said that he has taken the Government or the commission by surprise. He gave the commission plenty of notice of his request and it chose to ignore him, to the extent that he wrote to it on 18 January and it made the order on 21 January. The order was completed on 24 January.
If my right hon. and learned Friend's arguments are right, we are left in the following position: if the commission did not take into account the Neath order, it has crossed county boundaries to an extent to which it is not entitled by reason of its statutory powers under rule 5. If it took account of the order, despite what it said in the clear terms set out in its letter, the Home Secretary has a duty to the House to say that he is modifying the commission's proposals. In either case we are entitled to question the present position and to ask you to give it careful consideration.
10.33 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: I support the submission put to you so cogently, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and congratulate him on his diligence and on the degree of research that he has undertaken. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, the issue is not limited to Wales. It is of wider application throughout all the constituencies of Great Britain. It is an issue that appears at first sight to be technical, but it is fundamental to our constitution.
396
Obviously, there is no statement attached to the order of the reasons for the modification or whether account has been taken of the Neath order. The Home Secretary has a statutory duty to make such a statement if the order includes some modification of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission for Wales. Similarly, rule 5 is clear about the limited circumstances in which the county boundaries can be crossed.
On any reading of the order, there are no disparities in this case. There must be if the crossing of county boundaries can be justified. Therefore, in either event, the order as currently drafted is defective and I call upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as have my colleagues, to ensure that the constitution in this case is upheld and that the order is returned so that the Government can put their house in order and present the order in its proper form.
10.36 pm
Mr. Ray Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not a member of the legal profession, but I should, nevertheless, like to draw your attention to the fact that I am given to understand that the secretary of the Boundary Commission for Wales is supposed to be independent of the Home Office, yet he is now sitting in the civil servants' Box.
My other point of order is that I tabled an amendment to the draft order. I was advised that I was able to table an amendment, but then I was given to understand that the amendment could not be called because the order is not amendable. It is ludicrous that we are faced with an order that deals with 36 constituencies in Wales and my constituency of Ogmore, and I can submit an amendment to amend an order that cannot be amended.
I submit that I, my colleagues and some Conservative Members agree with 35 of the recommendations for constituencies in Wales, but that in regard to one constituency we should like to object to and amend the order. Therefore, I ask you to consider the matter, because I feel that it is ludicrous and crazy for us to be able to submit an amendment to the order but cannot be called because the order is not amendable.
Finally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you, will recall that earlier today I asked you whether, when we came to debate the order, you would extend the time set down to consider it.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have not even started the debate. That point is not for consideration now.
Mr. Keith Best: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is this not actually a point of order for the House? If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes modifications to the Boundary Commission's report, he is obliged to publish a statement of reasons with it. What Opposition Members have been raising as a point of order is that, in their submission, the Boundary Commission has not complied with its own rules. That is not a point of order for the House. At the most, it is a matter for adjudication in the courts because the Boundary Commission is bound by the rules of legislation. In my respectful submission, it is an entirely bogus point of order.
Mr. Skinner: The hon. Member is a bag carrier for the Welsh Office.
Mr. Best: It is no good Opposition Members— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Other right hon. and hon. Members who have raised points of order have been heard in silence. The hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has an equal right to be heard.
Mr. Best: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall conclude my point of order. With great respect to the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), it is no good his claiming that I do not understand the point that he has made. If there is any misunderstanding, it is entirely as a result of the way in which he expounded the matter, not as a result of my powers of comprehension.
Mr. Arthur Davidson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Despite what the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) has said, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) has raised an important point about the validity of the order that the Government are introducing today. It is not a point of limited application. The order has far-reaching effects with regard to the ultimate legality, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, of the appointment of returning officers. If the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983 takes account of the Neath (Communities) Order, and if my right hon. and learned Friend has accurately described the territorial effects of that order, it is clear that that order makes a substantial modification of the Boundary Commission's recommendations. The Home Secretary is clearly required to state his reasons for that modification. Equally clearly, the Home Secretary has not stated his reasons for that modification.
If the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order does not take account of the Neath order, it includes two new constituencies—Neath, and Brecon and Radnor. It is clear that those constituencies cross the country boundaries as amended by the Neath order.
As my right hon. and learned Friend said, in amending community boundaries in Neath that order also alters the county boundary in two places. Under the statutory rules, which are clear, for constituency redistribution, the Boundary Commission cannot recommend constituencies crossing county borders unless such crossing is necessary to avoid excessive disparities between electorates. It is not suggested in this case that there are such excessive disparities in the west Glamorgan-Brecon area.
In either of the two cases that I have described, the Draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983 should be withdrawn and modified either to include a reason for the modification or to take account of the Neath order. That is what the Government should do tonight. My right hon. and learned Friend has clearly shown that there is a risk that the order may turn out to be invalid.
Mr. Donald Coleman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the assumption that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) could be right on his point of order and that the Secretary of State has failed to fulfil his statutory duties but it is ruled that the order can be moved and it is passed by the House, can I be given some guidance? What recourse have my constituents, who would be affected? Secondly, what certainty is there that the order will be valid?
Mr. S. C. Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Having listened to what my
398
right hon. and hon. Friends and Conservative Members have said, and without knowing in advance the point that was to be made, one thing that has particularly struck me is that at this stage, at any rate before we hear what, if any, reply comes from the Government Front Bench, the House must be in doubt as to the boundary that is intended for the two constituencies that are affected by the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris). That in itself is something that Parliament cannot accept. If Parliament is asked to debate and subsequently to approve an order without knowing what the effect of that order is, that is something that Parliament ought not to be asked to do. Furthermore, the electorate cannot be asked to accept a provision that Parliament has passed into law without knowing what the effect of that provision may be. Therefore, I support what my right hon. and learned Friend has said.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the right hon and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for giving me notice that he intended to raise that point of order, as it enabled me to look into the matter very carefully. I have to inform him and other right hon. and hon. Members who have tried to help me with their points of order, however, that, although what they have said is perfectly valid as grounds of argument in the debate on the motion, it does not give me any reason to withhold from consideration of the House a motion whose terms are entirely in order and relate to an order that has been properly laid and which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, so I think that we must now move on.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling.
Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it a different point of order?
Mr. Anderson: It is a point of clarification.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that that can arise. I have given my ruling. I do not think that any further point of order can rise on it.
Mr. Anderson: It is a related point concerning the validity of the order. As I understand your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you have said that the points are well founded but that, nevertheless, the order will proceed. What is then the answer to the point about the uncertain status of the constituency boundaries that will result and to the very important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) about the problems relating to his own constituency and indeed to the returning officers involved?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are very valid points to raise in the debate, which I believe should now take place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given my ruling. The matter has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and in my judgment the motion is in order.
Mr. John Silkin: On a further point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems to me that since, as I understand it, advance notice of this point has already been given to the Home Secretary—
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. William Whitelaw): That is totally untrue.
Mr. Silkin: I understood that that was so. Whether it was or not, however, perhaps the Home Secretary or someone on the Treasury Bench will give us the Government's explanation of how this has arisen. With respect, I do not see how we can possibly go ahead until we have heard from the Government on this, before there is any possibility of the order being moved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the House should allow the Minister of State to give his explanation in moving the order.
Hon. Members: No.
Dr. Edmund Marshall: On another point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that this one is relatively simple. It relates to the spelling of names in the draft order.
On page 4 of the order, in the definition of the proposed Vale of Glamorgan constituency, reference is made in the penultimate line to a ward called "Peterson-super-Ely". In the corresponding recommendation on page 95 of the report of the Boundary Commission for Wales, however, the definition of the Vale of Glamorgan constituency includes a ward called "Peterston-super-Ely". There is therefore a difference between the spelling in the report and that in the order.
The point is very simple. The spelling in the order is either correct or incorrect. If it is correct, it represents a modification of what is included in the report of the Boundary Commission. The Home Secretary should therefore have tabled his reasons for that modification. However, if the spelling in the draft order is incorrect it should be corrected. The Home Secretary should go away and return to the House later with a corrected order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may well be so, but it does not make the motion that we are about to debate invalid. I call the Minister of State to move the order.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It must be a different point of order.
Mr. Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to you for your tolerance and patience when I moved my first point of order. You told me that my arguments were well-founded, for which I am grateful. I shall, in future as in the past, prefer to take guidance from you rather than from the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) who described my point of order as bogus, which I regard as an insult.
Having regard to the fact that it is well founded and that the order is properly laid, should it not be incumbent upon the Home Secretary, before the order is introduced, and now that it has been challenged—I have no recollection in my perhaps too long time in the House of such a challenge being made and of the Home Secretary sitting dumb in his seat—to assist you and the House on whether he is satisfied that the text of the explanatory memorandum on these regulations is valid now having regard to my "well-founded" observations. The same point is made by my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) about modifications. How can a matter which, on the face of the record, is different to what is in the Boundary Commission's recommendation, not be a modification?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. To correct the right hon. Member, I believe that I said "well-founded grounds for argument", which is rather different from what he is trying to say.
Mr. John Silkin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether it would help the House— [Interruption.] I believe that the House requires some help and certainly the Home Secretary does. Plainly, as the Home Secretary cannot deal with this matter, the best solution might be for the House to adjourn.
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
I hope that you will accept the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It will enable the Home Secretary to consult, I should hope among others, the Attorney-General. The Home Secretary tells us, and I believe him, that he was unaware of the points that have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Silkin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). It is a complicated point. It seems to me, therefore, that it would be correct to allow sufficient time for the matter to be considered properly and for the Home Secretary to return to the Dispatch Box and give a proper, authoritative reply. There can be nothing worse than for this matter, which has been lucidly put, to be misunderstood and for an order such as this to be moved and for the Home Secretary to have to come to the House to withdraw it and apologise. I know that he would not wish to do that.
Mr. Skinner: No.
Mr. Silkin: The best thing would be to adjourn the House for a reasonable period—an hour or so—during which the Home Secretary can obtain all the advice that he will. The Attorney-General can be brought to the House to give such explanations as are necessary.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not able at this juncture to accept a motion for the Adjournment of the House. The Minister of State has not had—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.—any opportunity to give an explanation. I call the Minister of State to move the motion.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I can help the House with the two points that have been raised. The substantive point of order raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) was based upon the Neath (Communities) Order. He founded his point on the fact that there was at least, as he put it, ambiguity about the relevant boundaries upon the fact that the Neath order had been made. He will know that the Neath order takes effect in April this year, and the order with which the House is concerned tonight deals with that matter.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary must give reasons if he proposes to modify any recommendation of the Boundary Commission. The draft order is not accompanied by any statement of reasons because it gives effect only to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. The House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 requires that, if the draft order is only to give effect of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, no reasons must be provided. That is exactly the position here. The commission's recommendations for

401
Neath are based upon the present wards and boundaries, as is the draft order. No modifications have been made. If a constituency boundary were subsequently to cross a county boundary because a community order coming into effect later—in this case in April—changes the boundary, there is provision in the Act for the commission to deal with it in an interim order. However, it has no bearing upon the question with which the House is concerned—whether the effect of the order is to give exact effect to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, which it is.
Mr. John Morris: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister is arguing that the Neath order comes into effect on 1 April 1983. If he is wrong and the Neath order comes into effect not on 1 April 1983 but on 1 January 1983, would he reconsider what he has just said? Paragraph 4(1) (a) of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 states:
"The application of section 39 and 40 of the Local Government Act 1972."
That may relate to 1 January 1983. That parent Act sets out the matter in exactly the same way. That is the difficulty that we have. I should be very grateful, now that the hon. and learned Gentleman has nailed his colours to the mast about 1 April 1983, if he will tell us what will happen if he is wrong. What if the date is 1 January 1983? Do not those regulations then come into effect?
Hon. Members: Answer.
Mr. Mayhew: My duty to the House is to set out what I understand the position to be and not to engage in speculation about what it might otherwise be. I have tried to explain that the wards about which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is talking do not yet exist. The draft order gives effect to the commission's recommendations without modification, because the constituencies are based upon wards and not upon communities. The recommendations of the Boundary Commission are not based upon wards that do not yet exist.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that we have exhausted points of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]
The points of order now being raised are not matters for the Chair. This is a matter of argument between the two sides of the House. The only points of order that I can deal with are those raised on matters that are the responsibility of the Chair. I have already ruled that in my judgment the motion is perfectly valid. The order has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House should now proceed with it.
Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can I draw your attention to Standing Order 121? The administration of Standing Orders is a matter for your attention. Under Standing Order 121, there has to be an explanation if a statutory instrument is not laid properly before the House. That is not in question at the moment. There has to be an explanation as to
"why such copies have not been so laid before the instrument camc into operation, Mr. Speaker shall thereupon lay such communication upon the Table of the House."
It is accepted by both sides of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is an omission so far as a statement of
402
reasons is concerned for this order. You accepted my right hon. and learned Friend's outline of the deficiency in the statement of reasons so far as this order was concerned.
Under Standing Order 121, if that statement of reason is a valid requirement under the legislation as outlined by my right hon. and learned Friend, and this question has not been raised in the House before, surely that statement of reason should be treated as part of the statutory instrument. As it has not been laid, there should be an explanation as to why it has not. The statement should be laid by yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on the Table of the House in order for both sides of the House to consider that statement. This is an important point. It might arise on future similar orders. As a statement of reason applies in this narrow area, it would be fair and equitable for you to rule that such a statement of reason should come under Standing Order 121 so that it is laid on the Table by your direction and submitted beforehand by the Government. That would require the Government to submit a reason why their statement of reason had not been tabled along with the statutory instrument so that the matter could be considered by the House.
That is something you would need to consider at your leisure rather than rush into a hasty decision on hasty advice from the Clerk. On that point, the House could be adjourned for proper consideration of the matter. I hope that you see in your wisdom that Standing Order No. 121 should apply to this statement of reason as a supplement to a statutory instrument, which is clearly set out as being subject to that standing order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee, which passed the order as being in order.
Mr. Cryer: Mr. Deputy Speaker, it appears that a statement of reason is required. The statement of reason should be treated as a statutory instrument. I made the point at the beginning of my submission that this statutory instrument has been properly laid. Standing Order No. 121 clearly does not apply to the instrument itself, but it should apply to any statement of reason that accompanies the statutory instrument, otherwise there is no opportunity for a statement of reason to be considered. Standing Order No. 121 specifically allows for reasons where an instrument is not properly tabled to give the House an opportunity to examine it. That is why Mr. Speaker has the power to lay such communications on the Table.
Where a statement of reason, which is inextricably linked to the statutory instrument, is deficient, surely Standing Order No. 121 should apply as much to the statement as to the instrument. The instrument has been properly laid, but the statement of reason has not. I therefore ask you to treat the statement as coming under Standing Order No. 121, to ask the Minister for such a statement, and to require it to be laid on the Table of the House so that it can vbe properly considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Neither the hon. Gentleman nor his Committee asked for any such communication. They passed the order as valid. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is on a good point at all.
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking no more points of order on this subject.
Hon. Members: Oh.
11.6 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Patrick Mayhew): I beg to move,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7 February, be approved.
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have three hon. Members on their feet at one time.
Mr. John Morris: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a long time since I heard anyone in the Chair say that he would take no more points of order. It goes back to 1962, when there was uproar in the House when that point was made. I respectfully suggest that that does not assist our real concern that the proprieties are observed by the Home Office when it brings legislation or orders before the House.
I repeat that I still require guidance on this fundamental point. Having regard to what the Minister of State said a moment ago—that he relies on the fact that the Neath (Communities) Order comes into effect on 1 April 1983—how does he reconcile that with what is contained in article 2(1) of the order, which states that it comes into effect on 1 January 1983? We still have not had an adequate explanation on that point.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman was directing his question to the Minister of State and not to me. That is not a point of order for the Chair. I have already ruled on that.
Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third periodical report—
Mr. Skinner rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Skinner, on a final point of order.
Mr. Skinner: Several Opposition Members—not primarily from the Benches below the Gangway, but Privy Councillors and other of my right hon. Friends, many of them in the legal profession—have advanced arguments about the verification or otherwise of the date of operation of the Neath (Communities) Order. You have said that you have considered the matter raised by my right hon. and learned Friend at your leisure as you had been given prior notice. Since you made that ruling, there has been an altercation between the Minister of State and one of my right hon. Friends about whether it was 1 January or 1 April.
In his response to the point of order, the hon. and learned Gentleman said that it was a matter of speculation. Those were his words, not ours. I suggest that this is a very sensitive matter for all hon. Members, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This matter should be considered properly by Mr. Speaker when he returns. I am concerned to know what all the hurry is about. Is it a matter of a day? Or a couple of days? What is the frantic hurry? Why cannot the Home Secretary and his Ministers explain precisely whether the date is 1 January or 1 April?
There is speculation. There is doubt. There is ambiguity. All arose, Mr. Deputy Speaker, after you had
404
made your original ruling. I am not suggesting that your original ruling was in doubt. The speculation arose because of the ambiguous answer by the Minister of State. In view of that, we should adjourn to allow the matter to be dealt with. It would be possilbe for Mr. Speaker to inform the House of his findings tomorrow.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I repeat that the matter has been considered by the Statutory Instruments Committee and found to be in order. I have given my ruling. I find the motion in order. So far as the Chair is concerned, no further points of order can arise on that. What is now at issue is argument across the Chamber. The Minister of State has not had an opportunity to deploy his argument.
Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is purely a matter for the Chair. Since you made your ruling, there has been considerable controversy. There are some unanswered questions. The Home Secretary has said that he did not know about the points that have been raised. I accept what he says 100 per cent., unreservedly. In the light of this, is it not sensible that we adjourn for a short time while— [Interruption] I am trying to help. Hon. Members can continue this as long as they like. Is it not sensible that we adjourn to obtain an answer to the points that have been made? They have not yet been answered. I accept that they may not be a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but they are a matter for the House. The House should know. It would be the worst thing in the world if an order that subsequently turned out to be defective was moved on this occasion. I suggest a short adjournment to find out the answer to the points that have been raised. This should not take long. If there is any difficulty, it may be possible for the Attorney-General to be summoned to give his ruling.
A short adjournment might help the House to resolve what is a difficult matter. This is not a passing point of order. It is an important, and, I would hasten to say, fundamental matter for the whole House to consider. In the light of that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you accept such a motion now?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At this juncture, I would not accept such a motion. The debate has run for not much more than six or seven minutes. The hon. and learned Gentleman should now be allowed to proceed with the arguments that he has not yet had the opportunity to put.
Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said that the points being put to me were not matters for the Chair. I have given my ruling. The Statutory Instruments Committee has passed the order. As far as the Chair is concerned, the motion is in order and I think that we should get on with it.
Mr. Mayhew: On the matter—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have six or seven hon. Members on their feet at the same time. As far as the Chair is concerned, no point of order can arise. Certainly matters of argument can arise, but the Minister of State must have an opportunity to deploy his case.
Mr. Mayhew: I will begin—
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have twice said that the Statutory Instruments Committee has approved both orders. That Committee is charged with the duty to consider whether each of the orders is in order in relation to the law under which the instrument is made. The point that has been raised in the House tonight is not on whether the orders are correct but on the relationship of the two orders to each other. It surely was not the duty of the Statutory Instruments Committee to consider the relationship of the two orders to each other.
As a member of that Committee, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), I do not think we could be expected to take each order and test it against every other order that is laid before the House, as opposed to testing it against the powers in the statute under which it is being made. Therefore, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for you to rest your case on the fact that we approved it is unfair to the Committee, because the Committee had only to test whether the two orders themselves were in order, as opposed to the question that has been raised tonight, which is the relationship between the two orders and the date on which they come into operation.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I must answer the point of order first. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered this order on 8 February and did not find it necessary to draw the attention of the House to it. It has been fully discussed and considered.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: I think that I can assist the House on the matter that has been raised—
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had called the Minister of State.
Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I will not take it at this moment. I have called the Minister of State.
Mr. Mayhew: Having moved the motion, I think that I can assist the House—
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced parliamentarian. I have called the Minister of State to give his explanation.
Mr. Ioan Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not called the hon. Gentleman to make his point of order. I have called the Minister of State to give his explanation.
Mr. Mayhew: If the House is genuinely concerned with the question that has been put, I hope that it will allow me to answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). I think he conceded that if I was correct in saying that for all material purposes the Neath (Communities) Order comes into force on 1 April 1983, his point fell.
The right hon. Gentleman then questioned whether that was the case. I can tell him, as appears from the face of the order, which is Statutory Instrument No. 1751, that for
406
the purposes described in article 2(1) of the order it comes into force on 1 January 1983, and for all other purposes it comes into force on 1 April 1983. Therefore, we need to examine the purposes embraced in article 2(1). They are these: preparatory matters only; preparation of register of electors; constitutions of community meetings; appointments of officers; the incurring of expenditure; valuation lists and other such matters. The things that come into operation on 1 April 1983 are changes to the communities and the county boundary. I therefore repeat that the Boundary Commission's recommendations are based on existing boundaries, and the draft order before us relates to those boundaries. If there is a subsequent change by virtue of an order that comes into effect on 1 April 1983, it can be dealt with by means of an interim order, for which the Act makes provision.
The Boundary Commission for Wales—
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Mr. Mayhew: The Boundary Commission for Wales submitted its third periodical report on 21 January, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes that—
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) knows perfectly well that the Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Morris rose—
Mr. Evans rose—
Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes that its final recommendations should be—
Mr. Evans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall take a point of order from the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans).
Mr. Ioan Evans: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I raise this point of order because the Minister rose to give an explanation. Having given an explanation, he should not go on to deal with the order. Why is there such undue haste? We are discussing the parliamentary boundaries for Wales. The people of Wales will want the House to conduct itself properly. The Chairman of the Statutory Instruments Committee has virtually said that information has come to light in points of order tonight of which the Committee was unaware in reaching its decision.
The Home Secretary is a fair man in such matters, and my only point for him to consider—through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—is why the issue cannot be clarified before the order is discussed. The Minister has already given two differing opinions. He is not fully conversant with the situation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has suggested, we should adjourn the House, as that would be fair.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Minister is in the process of explaining. I should point out that we are already on the order—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—Order. We are already on the order—
Mr. Edward Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker: On what basis did the Minister rise to his feet? We understood that he rose on

407
a point of order— [Interruption.] He did not move the order. We understood that he rose on a point of order, and that was the basis on which he tried to answer the point. Will you rule whether the Minister rose to his feet on a point of order, or whether he started to move the order?
Mr. John: Further, to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I called the Minister to move the order some 15 minutes ago— [Interruption.] Since then, other points of orders have arisen. The Minister is now in the process of moving the order and of giving his explanation. — [Interruption.] The House must be fair. Varied and complicated points of order have been put to the Minister—not to me. I called the Minister to move the order and give his explanation. He is in the process of doing so.
Mr. Mayhew: As I was saying— [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unusual for a Welsh debate to see such behaviour. The House is anxious to hear the Minister's explanation— [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is anxious to hear the Minister.
Mr. Mayhew: Article 2 of the order substitutes the constituencies— [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), raised his point of order at some length. It was a complicated point. I am sure that he, of all people here, is anxious to hear what the Minister has to say—
Mr. John Morris rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must have proper debate in the Chamber. I judge that the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to hear what the Minister has to say. [Interruption]
Hon. Members: Order.
Mr. John Morris: Did I hear the words "Kick him out" a moment or two ago?
Mr. John: I heard them.
Mr. Mayhew rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot hear what is being said.
Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Let it be put on the record that the Home Secretary, from a sedentary position, said "Kick him out"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful".] That is dishonourable. The Home Secretary owes the House an apology. He is supposed to represent law and order. While the right hon. Gentleman is contemplating his responsibilities and whether he will acknowledge those words, I must tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am amazed to find that you originally called the Minister to move the order. We raised a series of points of order and the Minister was positively invited by you to give an explanation to the House. Under what heading, other than a point of order, could he give such an explanation?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself a great disservice by behaving in this manner. We should now calm ourselves and allow the Minister to continue with his speech.
Mr. Mayhew: If the House wishes— [Interruption.]
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have taken two or three points of order, and I am not taking another.
Mr. Mayhew: If the House wishes— [Interruption.]
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) does not sit down, I shall have to ask him to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Mayhew: Article 2 provides— [Interruption.]
Mr. Ray Powell: We are dealing with the boundaries of Wales—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must resume his seat.
Mr. Mayhew: If the draft order is approved by both Houses, my right hon. Friend will—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no point of order. The hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) is indulging in argument. If the hon. Gentleman does not now resume his seat, I shall have to order him to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Mayhew: Article 1(2) provides that the order comes into operation on the fourteenth day after the day on which it is made—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Ogmore does not have a point of order. I have already ruled upon it.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not having an argument with the hon. Member for Ogmore.
Mr. Mayhew: —but the new boundaries will take effect only at the first general election to be held thereafter.
Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Minister is trying to give part of a speech intending to move the draft order, would you be kind enough to tell the House at what time you asked for the order to be moved, because I fear that none of us on the Opposition Benches heard that? Perhaps you could inform the House whether this is part of the debate on the order and, if so, at what time the order was moved?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At 11 minutes past six o'clock [Interruption.] Even I am becoming confused. The order was moved at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.
Mr. Mayhew: The commission gave notice on 23 February 1981 of its intention to proceed, and since then has taken just under two years—
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Member for Ogmore tries to interrupt again, I shall ask him to leave the Chamber.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not taking another point of order from the hon. Member.
Mr. Mayhew: This is a notable achievement when one considers the statutory requirements and detailed procedures—
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is concerned about his amendment, I have to tell him what he well knows—that it has not been selected.
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. How is it possible for an order to be moved before you have told us whether amendments have been selected?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who is much more experienced in length of parliamentary service than I am, knows that there can be no amendments to orders of this kind.
Mr. Mayhew: —the care it has taken in formulating its proposals. I am therefore confident that the House will join me in thanking all those who have served as members of the commission, of which the Speaker is the ex-officio chairman—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. John Silkin rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I call the Shadow Leader of the House on another point of order.
Mr. Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which is needed as, when I am putting points of order to you, I do so on behalf of the House, and do not wish to be interrupted while I am doing so. As you, perfectly rightly, told my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) that his amendment had not been selected, and I understand the reasons why, should it not to have been done at the beginning before the Minister was called to move the order? Then everything would have been in order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has been Leader of the House and he is now Shadow Leader of the House. He knows that when these orders are laid it is in order to table amendments to them, but they are never selected for debate. Therefore, it was not necessary for me to make an announcement.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: The House will thank them for the speedy and meticulous conduct— [Interruption.]
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to accept any more points of order. We are already
410
debating— [Interruption.] Order. The House is not showing itself in a very good light. We are debating the order and we must proceed in a proper parliamentary fashion.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: —of this review and the detailed explanation of the final recommendations in the report. I should also like to record our thanks to the assistant commissioners for the careful and conscientious way in which the commission approached its task.
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) to resume his seat.
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Mayhew: It has sought to apply the statutory requirements of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, and the rules made thereunder, so as to take account wherever possible for local preferences. It would be impossible, of course, to reconcile these conflicting demands in every case, but we believe that the commission has, nevertheless, been remarkably successful in that difficult task.
I turn now to the recommendations themselves—
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Cryer rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Members for Keighley and Ogmore (Mr. Powell) to resume their seats.
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: The implementation of the final recommendations will increase the number of constituencies—
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised several points of order and there have been points of order for nearly one and a half hours.
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Cryer: May I raise a point of order about the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House is doing itself a grave disservice by behaving in this manner. I think that we should now proceed to debate the order.
Mr. Mayhew: —in Wales to 38, two more than at present, and alter most of the existing constituencies to varying degrees. Only the present Anglesey, Caernarvon and Montgomery constituencies will remain unchanged in area. There will also be a reduction in the number of borough constituencies from 10 to six and a corresponding increase—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Members for Keighley and Ogmore to resume their seats.
Mr. Mayhew: —and a corresponding increase in county constituencies from 26 to 32.

411
Changes of this radical nature were essentially forced on the commission by the changes to the pattern of local government which had taken place since the last general review, and by movements in the electorate.
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Ogmore kindly to leave the Chamber.
Hon. Members: Disgraceful! Why?
Mr. Mayhew: When the commission began its review, nine of the existing constituencies crossed the new county boundaries; now the number is 12 in consequence of recent orders made on the recommendation—
Mr. Ray Powell rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Ray Powell: I have objections on behalf of my constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I order the hon. Member for Ogmore to withdraw immediately from the House for the remainder of the sitting.
The hon. Member withdrew.
Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
Mr. Mayhew: —of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Wales. In other words, one third of the present constituencies in Wales cross county boundaries now. Inevitably if that situation was to be rectified major changes had to take place. But at the same time population shifts in Wales have resulted in wide disparities between the electorates of different constituencies. On top of other considerations we had under the rules also to take geographical considerations into account.
Mr. Canavan: I spy Strangers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What did the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) say?
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I spy Strangers. I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that Strangers were present, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—
The House divided: Ayes 41, Noes 125.

Division No. 70]

[11.40 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Davidson, Arthur

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Cant, R. B.

Dixon, Donald

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Dubs, Alfred

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

Ennals, Rt Hon David

Cowans, Harry

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

Cryer, Bob

Evans, John (Newton)

412

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Rowlands, Ted

Haynes, Frank

Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

John, Brynmor

Skinner, Dennis

Jones, Rt Hon Alec (Rh'dda)

Snape, Peter

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Wardell, Gareth

McWilliam, John

White, Frank R.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

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

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Morton, George

Tellers for the Ayes:

Parry, Robert

Mr. Dennis Canavan and

Pavitt, Laurie

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Prescott, John

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Ancram, Michael

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Aspinwall, Jack

Lyell, Nicholas

Banks, Robert

McCrindle, Robert

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Macfarlane, Neil

Beith, A. J.

Major, John

Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

Marlow, Antony

Best, Keith

Maude, Rt Hon Sir Angus

Bevan, David Gilroy

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Mayhew, Patrick

Blackburn, John

Mellor, David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Bright, Graham

Moate, Roger

Brinton, Tim

Morgan, Geraint

Brooke, Hon Peter

Mudd, David

Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

Murphy, Christopher

Bruce-Gardyne, John

Neale, Gerrard

Buck, Antony

Needham, Richard

Carlisle, John (Luton West)

Neubert, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

Newton, Tony

Churchill, W. S.

Normanton, Tom

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Osborn, John

Cope, John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Cranborne, Viscount

Pattie, Geoffrey

Dorrell, Stephen

Penhaligon, David

Dover, Denshore

Proctor, K. Harvey

Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

Rhodes James, Robert

Durant, Tony

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Emery, Sir Peter

Sandelson, Neville

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Sims, Roger

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley

Fletcher-Cooke, Sir Charles

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Fox, Marcus

Speller, Tony

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Spicer, Jim (West Dorset)

Goodhew, Sir Victor

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Goodlad, Alastair

Squire, Robin

Gow, Ian

Stainton, Keith

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Grist, Ian

Stevens, Martin

Gummer, John Selwyn

Stewart, A. (E Renfrewshire)

Hamilton, Hon A.

Stradling Thomas, J.

Hampson, Dr Keith

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Hawkins, Sir Paul

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Hawksley, Warren

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Heddle, John

Thompson, Donald

Henderson, Barry

Thorne, Neil (Ilford South)

Home Robertson, John

Viggers, Peter

Hooson, Tom

Waddington, David

Howells, Geraint

Wakeham, John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Wells, Bowen

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Wheeler, John

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Wigley, Dafydd

Knight, Mrs Jill

Wilkinson, John

Lang, Ian

Winterton, Nicholas

413

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Anthony Berry and

Mr. Carol Mather,

Tellers for the Noes:

Question according negatived.
Mr. Mayhew: At the outset, the commission decided to use district wards as the building blocks for its new constituencies—
Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: —thus at that level minimising the extent to which local ties would be disrupted—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy speaker. I genuinely want to help the House on this.
First, I think that it is beyond contradiction that the start of the debate by the Minister was somewhat obscure and difficult to follow. Therefore, I suggest that either you start the debate again as the Minister has been gabbling and it has been difficult to follow his arguments, and re-time the debate on that basis, which would be fair and allow everyone to listen properly to the debate, or that you express now your intention to exercise your power under Standing Order No. 3 to state that because of the importance of the subject you will allow the debate to run for longer than the hour and a half. It would be helpful to the House if you would make it clear now that you intend to do just that.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall certainly give consideration to that when the hour and a half is fully taken up. I can certainly say that to the hon. Gentleman. Now, however, I think that the Minister must continue.
Mr. Mayhew: In making recommendations for constituencies the commission is required to give effect to the rules set out—
Mr. Denzil Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: —in schedule 2 to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act—
Mr. Davies rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already ruled on that point of order. I do not think that any further consideration can arise out of it.
Mr. Davies: On a new point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You said that you would give consideration to extending the debate. Does that mean that you will exclude the time taken for the Division, or will you take the hour and half from 11.6 pm?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate began at 11.6 pm. Anything that has gone on thereafter, including the time of the Division, comes out of the time of the debate. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that.
Mr. Mayhew: —printed as appendix A of the report. The cumulative effect of those rules is to confer a wide discretion on the commission—
Mr. Harry Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Mayhew: —in the way it tries to reconcile—
Mr. Cowans rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Mr. Cowans—a new point of order.
Mr. Cowans: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell)— [Interruption.] If Government Members listened they might hear the point of order. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has been removed from the Chamber purely for exercising his democratic right to speak on behalf of his constituents. Will you rescind that order and allow my hon. Friend to return to the debate so that he can exercise his democratic right on behalf of his constituents?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly why the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) was ordered to leave the Chamber; it was not for putting any arguments on behalf of his constituents, because at that moment he had not been called upon to speak. That question did not arise.
Mr. Mayhew: —equal representation with the need to preserve local ties and take account of the difficult terrain in parts of Wales. Such a task calls for a high degree of judgment, integrity and impartiality, which is why the Commission, under the ex officio chairmanship of Mr. Speaker, is led by a High Court judge and comprises other members acceptable to all the major parties. It would therefore be inappropriate for any Home Secretary to modify a Boundary Commission's recommendations unless there were wholly exceptional grounds for so doing.
The Commission originally set about reducing the present disparities—
Mr. Peter Snape: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I realise that it has become the practice, under this Government, for Ministers to gabble through ministerial briefs, but it is difficult for those of us who are interested in Welsh affairs— [Laughter.]—to follow the gist of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech if he persists in pointing his nose at the Dispatch Box and gabbling the words at his present rate of knots. Could you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as the guardian of the rights of the House, kindly instruct the Minister, as I said earlier amid ribald laughter, that those of us who are interested in hearing the full debate about Welsh matters should be properly allowed to do so? The Minister for once should carry out his duties properly.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member is on to a very good point. It was difficult to hear exactly what the Minister was saying because of the noise in the Chamber. If other right hon. and hon. Members take account of what the hon. Member has just said, we shall all be much better off.
Mr. Mayhew: —the same number as at present—one of which crossed the county boundary between Powys and Gwent and another of which divided the town of Bangor—by including—
Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You referred to your discretion a moment ago and said that you would exercise it on whether to extend the debate. Will you tell us when you will exercise that discretion and what time you will give us?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: At the end of the one and a half hours. I thought that I had made that very plain to the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies).
Mr. Mayhew: Following consideration of the representations received and the assistant commissioners' reports, it decided that one extra seat should, in effect, be allocated to Gwynedd and Powys respectively, because of special geographical considerations and, in the case of Powys, because the crossing of the county boundary was strongly opposed. The report contains other examples of the flexibility—
Mr. Denzil Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has a valid point of order.
Mr. Davies: You told my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) that at the end of one and a half hours you would consider extending the debate. Will you extend the debate at that time?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. Under Standing Order No. 3, if, in my judgment, sufficient time has not been allowed for this debate, I shall certainly consider extending it. If it will help the House and enable us to continue, I say now that, at the end of one and a half hours, I shall give very careful consideration to an extension under Standing Order No. 3.
Mr. Mayhew: Lastly, I mention the objective of securing evenness in the distribution of the electorate. If one compares appendix C, the current position, with appendix G, the commission's recommendations, it is clear that the commission has here again been remarkably successful. Only five of the 38 recommended constituencies, as compared with the present 21, have an electorate which varies—
Mr. Joseph Dean: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that this debate tonight will, in some respects, create history. Will it he the first time that Hansard has been unable to follow any part of the Minister's speech because it has been delivered so terribly, so quickly and is so difficult to catch and understand?
Mr. Mayhew: In all the circumstances, my right hon. Friend has accordingly concluded that there are no grounds to justify modifications to the final recommendations, which I believe the House can confidently accept.
12.1 am
Mr. Alec Jones rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is,
That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Wales) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th February, be approved.
Mr. Jones: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for putting the Question, because most of us were unaware that the motion had been moved.
I must say at the outset that we Welsh Members of Parliament are extremely grateful for the tremendous support that we have received this evening. I have never known so many people to be present for a debate on Welsh affairs.
It is clear from the early exchanges challenging the validity of the order that there is still considerable doubt about whether the order should be made in its present form. It is true that the Government, if they are so disposed, can push through the order with their majority,
416
but it is equally true that we have had no adequate explanation in answer to the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and many of my hon. Friends. We heard a small portion of the Minister's speech, but the little bit that was understandable provided no explanation.
If the order is found to be defective, we shall have done no service either to the House of Commons or to the Welsh constituencies that are affected by it. Any Government in their right senses would have taken away the order, and we should not have been subjected to the offensive comments by the Home Secretary about my right hon. and learned Friend.
The order is supposedly based on the preliminary recommendations of the Boundary Commission, which were published in June 1981, but the final proposals that we are discussing are so far removed from the original proposals that they must cast serious doubts on the value of the original proposals and the procedures by which they were drawn up.
The original proposals appear to have been drawn up purely as a mathematical exercise with the aid of a flat map, as though all the valleys, mountains and communities in Wales did not exist. One could take many examples to illustrate that point. I had intended to cite south Glamorgan, but for other reasons I shall not do so this evening. However, if one wished to find an example of how badly the first proposals were drawn up, one could not think of anything worse than the suggestion that Aberfan should be taken out of the Merthyr Tydfil constituency.
How could anybody in his right senses believe that Aberfan should not be part of Merthyr? That shows what little thought went into those original proposals. Flow anyone claiming to have any knowledge of Wales could make such a proposal defies belief.
The commission in its early days seemed to be totally unaware of the strength of community feeling in Wales. Once the communities were alerted to the problem, they were so incensed at the original proposals that they soon took up arms at the local inquiries. At those local inquiries, political parties of all persuasions played honourable roles, not least my own party. Frequently, opposing political parties supported the same proposals.
Throughout Wales, theatre clubs, rugby clubs, allotment associations and various groups of people were associated in their objections to the original proposals at the local inquiries.
The changes between the original proposals and the revised proposals that we are now discussing show the value of public participation and involvement in this exercise. At the same time, grave doubts were cast on the competence of those who drew up these bird-brained proposals for the Commission.
Despite some successes by local communities following the local inquiries, other changes proposed in the order we are debating tonight deal a heavy blow to many existing communities throughout Wales.
Tonight's order proposes to transfer north Pembrokeshire to Ceredigion, despite the fact that all the organisations present at the local inquiry, with the exception of the Pembrokeshire Conservative association, outrightly condemned the proposal. Even that association, at the inquiry, requested the commissioner to amend its written evidence to read:

417
"alter the words 'accept the recommendations' to 'does not accept the recommendation'."
Nevertheless, the views of the local inquiry were ignored and that transfer is to take place. These proposals play ducks and drakes with historical communities and destroy existing communities. There are numerous examples of this. Ebbw Vale and Abertillery are to be merged into one constituency, Rhymney is to be split from Tredegar to Ebbw Vale, and Porterdown and the upper Swansea valley are to be transferred from Gower to Neath. One could repeat this throughout Wales. Hirwaun, Cefn and Brynmawr are being transferred from Brecon-Radnor, and the old industrial areas of Wrexham are now being detached from Wrexham. One could find many examples, including the fact that the historic borough of Newport is now to be divided.
Mr. Rowlands: Not only was there nonsense in the case of Aberfan and Merthyr being transferred to another constituency, but the commission never produced a shred of evidence at any inquiry to justify its proposal. Is that not in itself a most curious proposition? It never came forward with any justification for the proposal at any time.
Mr. Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend. I was not satisfied, and I do not think the House ought to be satisfied, in view of the initial proposals, with the guidelines and instructions given to the commission. I think the House would do a service to itself and to our people if we tried to ensure that in any future boundary redistribution the problem that Aberfan illustrates should never arise again.
Apart from those areas which still feel strongly, two particular areas are concerned, one of which I have to mention because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) has had to leave the Chamber. The Commission insisted and still insists in these proposals on an east-west division of the Bridgend and Ogmore constituency, despite the fact that the local inquiry put overwhelming weight on, and opinion expressed to that inquiry was in favour of, a north-south split.
The commission accepted the counter-proposals for Cardiff almost in total, but still insisted, without any adequate explanation, that Radyr and St. Fagan's should be placed in Cardiff, West rather than in Cardiff, North.
We started off with 18 constituencies in Wales below the electoral quota. After all this redistribution, we end up with 24 constituencies below the electoral quota, five of them more than 15 per cent. below. One wonders whether the whole exercise was worthwhile.
Despite what has happened this evening and the fact that the debate will be extremely curtailed—hence my remarks will be similarly curtailed—I do not believe that a one-and-a-half hour debate is sufficient to discuss the full implications of this order. What has happened tonight is clear evidence of that. There is dissatisfaction with the orders, which are extremely complex. That was illustrated by the various points of order that were raised.
Had this debate lasted more than one and a half hours, some of those points could possibly have been dealt with then. However, one and a half hours is not sufficient to give full weight to the points behind the recommendations.
The House must look extremely foolish outside, when our procedures allow us to table amendments but do not allow us to vote on them or to discuss them. I refer not only
418
to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore, who, had he been present, would have spent some time on his amendment, but to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer). The hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on many political issues, but we agree on other things. His amendment
"regrets the Boundary Commission's proposals for the County of Clwyd wantonly and unnecessarily destroy three of the existing four county constituencies".
Those are pretty strong words. The hon. Gentleman rightly felt so strongly about this issue that he tabled that amendment, yet such are our procedures that it cannot be discussed or voted on. That makes a mockery of placing amendments on the Order Paper. In truth, these amendments are not worth the paper they are written on. That is not good either for boundary redistribution or for Parliament.
The commission's proposals should not be regarded as quite as sacrosanct as we seem to regard them, particularly in view of the extensive differences between the first proposals and tonight's order. If the commission was so sure that its first proposals were reasonable, why is only one Welsh constituency now subject to its original proposals? I hasten to add that it is my own constituency, so I am relatively unbiased.
If the commission's first proposals were changed so drastically to suit political parties of all persuasions and hon. Members in all parts of the House, it does not say much for the way in which they were drawn up. The House would be well advised to look at this again. It should consider how the commission is set up, as well as the guidelines that we give it.
The House and certainly the Government, who have responsibility, should urgently re-examine the constitution of the Boundary Commission, the guidelines under which it operates and our procedures for dealing with this report. Until that is done, there will be constant repetition, I fear, of what took place tonight and we shall not achieve boundary proposals that are acceptable to the people of Wales or to the House.
12.15 am
Sir Anthony Meyer: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) has said, although I dissociate myself from the earlier efforts by the Opposition to cheat the hangman's noose at the last moment.
I have some hard things to say about the boundary commissioners. Had it been possible for an amendment to be called, I should certainly have voted for it. I believe that the boundary commissioners in Wales had a comparatively easy task compared with that which faced the boundary commissioners in England. There are no rotten boroughs in Wales. There are no deserted city centres. All that the Boundary Commission had to do was to tidy up to take account of recent shifts in population.
It is not unfair to say that in every county where they could make a mess of it the boundary commissioners did so, and that whenever a sensible solution stared them in the face they chose a silly one. In every county, except one, local indignation forced them dramatically to revise their proposals. The one exception is the county of Clwyd, which has the fastest growing population in Wales, and which clearly needs a fifth seat. The fifth seat could easily

419
have been brought into existence by carving a piece off each of the existing four seats, while leaving the heartland of those four seats intact.
I can take my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Members for Flint, East (Mr. Jones) and for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) to some point between Mold and Wrexham where none of us could be certain of the constituency. All four constituencies meet at that point. It could have been the centre for a newly carved out constituency that would have left all the existing constituencies intact. It was the obvious solution. The Conservative associations in Clwyd put up a carefully worked-out proposal on these lines. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh defended the proposals brilliantly before the commission at the inquiry. The Conservative proposals met all the criteria put forward by the commission. They were much closer to the electoral quota than the commission's own proposals. They were also similar, to a startling degree, to proposals put forward by the Labour-controlled Wrexham Maelor district council.
Faced with these perfectly reasonable proposals, the commission listened—we thought attentively—to what we had to say. I thought that the oratory of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Denbigh had convinced the commissioners. What is their answer? The report states:
"The only alternative solution for Clwyd as a whole which remain for consideration are the Wrexham Maelor/Clwyd Conservative proposals. On balance I consider the Clwyd Conservative proposals slightly the better of the two because they involve no division of Rhuddlan borough and because they achieve electorates closer to the average than Wrexham Maelor's proposals and indeed than the Commission's own proposals."
One would conclude therefore that the commission had accepted our case. The report goes on:
"Had the matter been a simple choice on the merits"—
one would have thought, heaven knows, that the commission was in the business of making simple choices on the merits—
"I would have on the whole preferred the Conservative counter proposals to the Commission's proposals because whilst both plans have their merits and their disadvantages I feel that the Conservative counter proposals have the balance of advantage especially in the Wrexham and Rhuddlan areas, two of the County's most populous regions."
It continues:
"The Conservative counter proposals were supported by three of the six districts, resisted by the other three and were either not supported or were actively resisted by Liberals, Labour Party, Social Democratic Party and Plaid Cymru."
The final and astonishing conclusion is:
"I see no sufficient reason to suggest any change in the name or the outline of any of the proposed constituencies."
In other words, because the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and two out of four of the Labour parties in Clwyd saw electoral advantage in the commission's proposals, the commission decided that a bad solution was preferable to a good one.
There is a further slap in the face from these faceless men. Since 1552, in the reign of Edward VI, representatives from the constituencies of Flint and Denbigh have sat in the House. Indeed, they were here when the hon. Member for Calais took his seat below the Gangway. He was the last, I believe. Now the commission has abolished these 400-year-old names and replaced them with the supremely forgettable Clwyd North West and South West.
420
I remind the House that the Speaker is a representative of the noble city of Cardiff. I wonder how many hon. Members can say whether it is north, south, east, west or mid-Cardiff that he represents. I have to look it up.
Mr. John Morris: Good Lord.
Sir Anthony Meyer: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, "Good Lord." He frequently refers to me as the hon. Member for Flint, East.
The damage has been done. We Conservatives in Clwyd dared not risk the expense of legal proceedings against the commission, although I am sure we would have won. The new seats will come into being. Those of us who are fortunate enough to be relected as candidates and eventually elected should devote all our efforts to getting to know the new constituencies, welding the new associations into one and forging anew the close personal and political bonds that bind an MP to his party workers and to the wider circle of his electors.
I shall not vote against the motion, because of the importance of safeguarding the independence of the Boundary Commission—even this inept and insensitive commission which has done its work so badly.
12.22 am
Mr. John Morris: May I assure the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) that it would be the last thing in the world I would do to confuse him with my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mr. Jones)? I was surprised at his confession that he was not aware that the Speaker is the right hon. Member for Cardiff, West. There it is. We live and learn in the course of these debates.
I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern and his strictures and the strictures of my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East against the Boundary Commission. There was a feeling in some parts of Wales that the commission had adopted the flat map approach. In defence of the Commission, its proposals for West Glamorgan received tremendous approval in all but one part of the county. The record should be put straight; while there was dissatisfaction in many parts of Wales with the commission because its approach was so unrealistic, certainly in west Glamorgan that was not the position.
I agree with my hon. Friend that the time limit of one and a half hours for discussion of such a subject and the fact that we are not allowed to table amendments are two matters worthy of serious consideration. When in due course the proposals of the Boundary Commission for England are to be debated, again only one and a half hours will be allowed to deal with a greater number of constituencies. It is intolerable when one considers the time span of the Commission and realises that its recommendations will remain in force for the best part of 50 years.
If the Home Secretary and the Minister of State had been more ready to respond to the points made earlier and if they had not sat there dumb in their seats, much of the difficulty would have been avoided. Opposition Members were very concerned about what was happening and about the total lack of response from the Government. They should have been there to assist us with our representations. When the Home Secretary reads the record of events in the morning, he will no doubt regret what I think he said to me.
The order will be debated, and presumably carried tonight. If the Government find, on mature reflection, that

421
there is any validity in our points—which we made as best we could, and without the panopoly of the law, which is there to assist the Government—he will have opportunity to consult. I did not seek to make any bogus point, as the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Best) implied. A Parliamentary Private Secretary to a Minister at the Welsh Office does not usually speak, but I can only assume that he was speaking on behalf of the Welsh Office. I am sure that it is a matter of regret that he also used the word "bogus" about a point that I made to the best of my ability.
If, on mature reflection, there is any matter that causes concern to the Home Office, the Home Secretary will have an opportunity to consult. I ask him to consider what has been said carefully. After all, he is the custodian of law and order and he must ensure that right is done. If, contrary to our expectations, it is found that there was no fault in the preparation of the order, and that there was no need for an accompanying statement, so be it. The Home Office has an opportunity to examine what has been said, and to have discussions with the Attorney-General. Sometimes Departments do not sufficiently use the Law Officers' Office. I wonder whether the Home Office has consulted the Attorney-General at all.
I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an assurance that if, on mature reflection, he decides that a point is valid, he will consult with the Law Officers before the matter is introduced in the other place. That is the minimum that we can ask, and I hope that it will engender a positive response. We have had assurances from the Minister that article (2)(i) of the Neath (Communities) Order does not apply on 1 January. When that is coupled with regulation 4(1) (a) of the Local Government Area Changes Regulations 1976 and the type of returning officer who should be appointed, it gives rise to concern. I do not seek to make a bogus point. I hope that the Government will confirm that the Attorney-General will be consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall) raised a point about the spelling of Peterston-super-Ely. That place is familiar to all hon. Members from South Wales. It is not spelt "Peterson". Whether or not there is any validity in my hon. Friend's point about a modification, I can assure the Secretary of State that it is not spelt "Peterson". It has never been Peterson. The name goes back to Norman times. It is Peterston-super-Ely—Peter abound the river Ely. Peterson refers to nothing. I ask for an assurance on that point, and ask that the Attorney-General be consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) placed an amendment on the Order Paper. I added my name to his amendment. Given the nature of our proceedings, it cannot be either debated or voted upon. Obviously, I can refer to it in my speech. I cannot anticipate what speech my hon. Friend might have made had he remained in the Chamber. He has very real concern, on behalf of his constituents, that the wrong decision was taken in dividing that constituency from east to west rather than from north to south. I was not present at the hearing, but I made my representations in writing to the assistant commissioner. A whole host—the overwhelming majority—of the representations were to that effect.
I hope that the House will understand why my hon. Friend feels so passionately about the matter. Had he been
422
here, he would have made that point with much greater force than I. The feeling remains in the area that a mistake has been made.
I suggest that the Minister goes away—despite his refusal to support the move to adjourn the House—and considers the points made and, in due course, give the assurance that Parliament has not had tonight.
12.32 am
Mr. Tom Ellis: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate, and comment on one or two points made by the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris), the right hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones) and the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer).
I cannot help saying that our behaviour this evening has been a poor advertisement for Members of Parliament. Many people cannot help suspecting that the real trouble with the report is that the cookie has crumbled the wrong way. If it had crumbled the other way, it might have been more readily accepted by the Opposition. That is probably so shallow as to be obvious.
The right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon said that the one and a half hours allocated to the debate were not sufficient. A debate on the report, talking about individual wards, should not take place in the Chamber in the first instance. Each Welsh Member—the same will apply when the English proposals are debated—has a direct, personal vested interest. It would have been better to have considered the whole process whereby the Boundary Commission was asked to perform the impossible—that being to introduce a system of representation. That simply cannot be done under the present system. I can cite any number of instances where representation does not take place, and cannot do so, under our system.
For example, any person living in Tonypandy who wishes to vote Conservative knows before he does so that he is wasting his vote. Similarly, any member of the Labour party who happens to live in Colwyn bay will also waste his vote when contributing to the election of a Member of Parliament. He may make a demonstration, but he is wasting his vote. We will not have a Conservative Member in the Rhondda valley for a long time, and I suspect that we will not have a Labour Member in Colwyn Bay. There are many other examples.
The other example of an individual not having the right to representation is that twice since the war, a party that has had fewer votes than the other party has formed the Government. That is saying that the voter is irrelevant and one can do without the voter or even the election. That is an obvious point that wants making.
The right hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about the incompetence—or words to that effect—of the commission. He used harsh words, and I am sure that when he goes home tonight, he will—
Mr. John Silkin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will agree that this is a matter for your discretion—I think that you said so earlier—and I hope that you will use it. There has been insufficient time for debate this evening, and I therefore hope that you will accept a motion to adjourn the debate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: We must continue until 12.36 when I shall make a statement to the House under Standing Order No. 3.
Mr. Ellis: I shall be brief. The right hon. Member for Rhondda spoke about the need to have natural communities and criticised the commission for failing to couple Abefan and Methyr Tydfil, and so on. It is clear that to be an hon. Member for Cardiff, North, or Cardiff North-West or South, is not to be in a natural boundary—
It being one and a half hours afer the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER. being of opinion that because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion the time for debate had not been adequate, interrupted the business, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), and the debate stood adjourned till this day.

Seal Products (Community Imports)
12.36 am
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10390/82 of 25th October 1982 concerning a Proposal for a Council Regulation on common rules prohibiting the import of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom into the Community; and supports the action taken to meet public concern through effective national measures against the import of the products concerned, pending any decision about action at Community level following further investigation of all aspects of the cull.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss the Community document that has been circulated, relating to the meeting of the Council of Ministers on 17 December in Brussels. The debate in Brussels will continue at the end of this month, and I am sure that the views of hon. Members will make a useful contribution to our deliberations, which is why I welcome the timing of the debate, even though the hour is rather later than might have been expected.
It will be for the convenience of the House if I first remind hon. Members of the history of the Commission's proposals for a regulation to ban the import of certain harp and hooded seal pup products into the Community. The killing of these pups, mainly off the coasts of Canada and Norway, has in recent years led to considerable public outcry, not just in this country, but in most of the nations in the Community.
For the benefit of non-biologists, which may exclude the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), who I think is a scientist, I should explain that the harp seal pups, otherwise known as whitecoats, are the attractive fluffy white creatures that have received most publicity, while the hooded seal pups, known as bluebacks, are killed in much smaller numbers in the same areas. In a wide-ranging resolution on seals last March, the European Parliament urged that the Community should stop importing these products, and thus put pressure on the Canadians and Norwegians to end the annual cull. The Commission consequently proposed to the Council of Ministers the draft regulation which is before the House this evening.
As I have already reported to the House, I led the United Kingdom delegation at two meetings of the environment council in December when this proposal and possible alternatives were discussed at great length. I should like to expand on my earlier reports now by highlighting some of the issues which were considered.
The immediate obstacle to acceptance of the Commission's proposals as drafted as objection to the use of article 113 of the Treaty of Rome in this way. The article, as I am sure hon. Members will know, is concerned with the Community's common commercial policy, and it has been argued that action under that article must be justified on commercial grounds and no other. Both the Council's legal advisers in Brussels and the legal advisers of several member states, including the Attorney-General, advised that this article could simply not serve as a legal basis for the regulation as drafted. That was because it was based upon moral grounds and not commercial grounds.
The council considered whether there were alternative bases for action, in particular a proposal put forward by the Danish Presidency for a directive under article 100 of the treaty. This article is intended to be used to liberalise

425
trade by harmonising national measures which are distorting the functioning of the Common Market. Given that there were few national measures in force, with very limited effect, and that the proposed directive would clearly restrain and not liberalise trade, there were obvious difficulties in the use of that article as well. Further, the draft proposal before the Council was, like the article 113 proposal, based explicitly on moral rather than purely commercial grounds, and so we and some other member states saw it as trespassing on the perogatives of national Governments.
This brings me to a fundamental point on which I should particularly welcome the views of the House: that is, the extent to which it considers Community—as opposed to national—action on such matters to be desirable. Acceptance of either of the draft proposals before the Council would have given the Community some competence for action in the trade field on moral or ethical grounds, and there would have been a corresponding diminution of national powers. The Government thought that this House, and the country as a whole, would not wish its freedom of action to be constrained in such a sensitive and subjective area, by the consensus views of other member states, on proposals inspired by our European counterparts in Strasbourg.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He may be coming to the point that I want to make. We now have a resolution and we may well have a regulation. If we have a regulation, it will be based on the same pretext as the resolution—in other words, a moral basis rather than a trading basis. If that were to happen, would we not be faced in this country with a fait accompli whereby we would have to accept the regulation on that basis?
Mr. Shaw: That would depend on whether the regulation that came before the Council achieved the unanimity required to make it an effective Community instrument and whether it was based on the identical grounds of the regulation that was originally drafted and presented by the Commission to the Council in early December. The regulation that is now before us will be on the agenda at the next meeting of the Council on 28 February. The matters raised by my hon. Friend are germane and I am grateful for his comments.
The competence of the Community is of course already established in certain areas of conservation, a subject which is of particular concern to me and my fellow Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Macfarlane). Reports last year from both the Nature Conservancy Council and the International Council for the Exploration of the Seas drew attention to the very uncertain status of the hooded seal and I suggested to the Council that the Commission should explore further the justification for a regulation under article 235 of the treaty on conservation grounds. That is the article under which the conservation regulation on whales was taken some years ago. I must tell the House that unfortunately that suggestion found no support.
Apart from the difficulties of finding an appropriate legal basis, member states had some doubts about the principle of Community action on moral grounds. For example, the cull has been condemned too because seal skins are used primarily for luxury items, such as fur coats
426
and apres ski boots. The trade is, however, certainly not a luxury for the several thousands of fishermen in isolated communities in Norway and Canada. They are dependent on the cull for income during the harsh winter months when fishing, which is their main activity, is impossible, and it provides the funds to purchase new equipment for the fishing season. In recent years, about 9,000 fishermen in Canada have been licensed to take seals and sealing has provided one third of the income of many fishermen in Newfoundland. Loss of this income may cause extreme hardship—a point strongly represented to us by the Canadian Government and the premier of Newfoundland and his colleagues.
Mr. David Ennals: What is the relevance of the point that the hon. Gentleman is making? The regulation is concerned with stopping the importation of pelts and the products of pelts into certain countries. At the moment, the Minister is talking about what may be done by the native peoples of Canada for an entirely different purpose. Surely they will not be covered by the regulation that will be put before the Council of Ministers.
Mr. Shaw: The right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) is quite right, in that the regulation does not have a direct effect on any Canadian person or people. It requires the Community to take action on a certain basis under a certain article. I shall answer what is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind more directly later in my speech.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that the Canadian Government and some of the states in Canada have been making strong representations about the impact that this has on fishermen? Does he agree that they are a small number of people and that it would be easy for a country that is as rich as Canada and, by all accounts, Norway, to compensate those fishermen if they were unable to continue with that activity?
Mr. Shaw: I must have considerable sympathy with the view that the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has expressed. It is clearly a small community that is part of a large country. Nevertheless, it is only fair to tell the House that the representations were made in the form that I have described.
Seals are an important seasonal food supplement for many Canadian fishermen. However, there is a more important link between sealing and food supplies. As the House will know, it is that seals consume large quantities of fish. The Canadian and Norwegian Governments have made it clear that they would have to ensure that sealing continued to protect fish stocks, even if there were no market for seal products of the type that are dealt with in the regulation. Such a cull would be likely to concentrate on breeding females. That would have most effect on numbers. It would not concentrate on the young, which have aroused the greatest concern of members of the public.
It is not only the Canadians who are interested in fish stocks in Canadian waters; European fishermen have an interest that must also be considered. That brings me to another issue that I wish to stress—the need to influence Canada and Norway, as the culls take place within their jurisdiction, not the Community's. Merely imposing import bans would not necessarily limit the culls. Canada proposed to the Council that it should establish with the

427
Community and Norway a preparatory commission to investigate the ethical and economic aspects of the cull and to draft an international sealing convention for Atlantic seals, on the lines of the Internationl Whaling Convention. In the Government's view, it would have been foolish to ignore those proposals, which might have a greater long-term effect on sealing than import restrictions ever could, and ensure that sealing is undertaken on a sound scientific basis.
There were, in December, many aspects of the cull which required further examination. There were also legal objections to Community action on the basis proposed. The Government, however, like the Governments of other member states, wished to respond positively to demands for an end to imports, while doubts remained about the humanity and consequences of the cull. Hence the form of the resolution adopted unanimously by all member states which involves preventing imports through national measures, pending a decision about action at the Community level. This Community-wide action will close completely the main market for these products, as the European Community has hitherto accounted for over 90 per cent. of the trade. It has clearly been effective. In Norway, the Seal Hunting Council has recommended a complete halt to hunting seal pups this season and it has recommended that the number of vessels participating in sealing should be reduced from 10 to seven.
I can also inform the House that the major fur traders in Canada have also stated that they do not propose to purchase any seal pup skins in the spring. It is fair to say that this means that closing the main market, as a result of the Community's action in December, has put pressure on the Canadian Government to such an extent that the prospects of continuing with a traditionally sized seal cull must now be severely reduced. I sincerely hope that hon. Members will recognise that the action that has been taken so far has led in the two nations most directly involved to changes in their traditional views of the matter.
The United Kingdom has in the past acted as the major entrepot for skins from Canada destined for other European countries. In view of the public concern about sealing, the British Fur Trade Association has undertaken not to import any seal pup products resulting from this year's cull. Hon. Members will I know be pleased at this responsible action taken by the Association. Those voluntary measures will be monitored by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, which is establishing three new tariff headings to enable any importation of harp or hooded seal material to be clearly identified if it is properly declared. In addition, customs officers will be scrutinising a proportion of the importations declared under closely allied headings to check that they are not being used, either deliberately or inadvertently, to mask harp and hooded seal material.
I remind the House that the Government had already responded to public concern about sealing, by ensuring that people could identify—and avoid if they wished—the products derived from it. Hence, since the beginning of 1981, all sealskin goods have had to be clearly marked as such, showing the country in which the seals were taken. No other EC country has a marking regime. This measure remains in force, and indeed the European Parliament recommended that this practice should be extended throughout the Community. The Government would, of course, be prepared to support any such proposal by the Commission.
428
As well as preventing imports, the December resolution requested the European Commission to undertake a comprehensive examination of the cull and to explore the Canadian proposals with the countries concerned. We have just received the Commission's preliminary report of those investigations, which will provide the basis for the Council's review of the issues on 28 February. At first sight the Commission's report—perhaps understandably in view of the timescale—adds nothing significant to the information available to the Council in December, and the Commission makes it plain that it still backs the draft regulation under article 113, which was considered then.
I remind the House that, while we shall be taking a close look at what the Commission proposes, the machinations through which the Council went in its previous discussions make it extremely difficult to proceed on the basis of article 113 or 100. However, what the Government would look for and would press their colleagues on the Council to find is a satisfactory solution that avoids those complex legal problems. The Government wish to respond to the views not only that have been pressed on them by the public at large but that have been expressed by great numbers of hon. Members, that a way must be found to try to secure the prevention of the importation of pup products.
The House should take considerable comfort from the fact that in the action so far taken a fundamental change has occurred—90 per cent. or more of the cull has been prevented from reaching its markets, one Government have announced a suspension of the cull—the Norwegians—and the second Government are under great pressure from their fur trade association to review, and I hope reduce substantially, the traditional cull of seal pups.
12.53 am
Dr. David Clark: I am very disappointed with the Minister's speech.
Mr. Marlow: Why?
Dr. Clark: I shall explain why in a moment. If the hon. Gentleman had followed the issue over the years as closely as some of us, he would understand why.
I have a stack of press comments suggesting that the Government are selling out completely to the commercial lobby.
Mr. Marlow: Nonsense.
Dr. Clark: Let me try to explain. We have in front of us not a regulation, but a take-note motion that is cleverly worded. It says two things; first, that we take note of the European Community document and, secondly, that we support any action
"to meet public concern through effective national measures … pending any decision about action at Community level."
It seems that that motion is satisfactory to most people in this country. I am sure that hon. Members have received much correspondence on the issue. Over 300 Members, a record number, signed an early-day motion on it last Session, calling on the Government to prohibit this scandalous trade.
Let us be quite clear about what we are discussing. I do not think that the Minister, in his haste to get as much as possible into as short a time as possible, made this quite clear to the House. We are discussing prohibition of the import of the skins of two specific seals—the harp and the hooded seal—and we are talking not about adult seals but about pups. I emphasise that.

429
The EC has a great responsibility in this, as it is responsible for 70 per cent. or more of the market for the product in question. Prohibition is needed now, on grounds of cruelty and on grounds of conservation. I am not so stupid as to think that there is no need to cull animals, including seals in certain cases. I recognise that there are good grounds for culling grey seals in certain parts of this country. I am not naive in these matters. Nevertheless, the way in which the pups that we are discussing are culled and the conservation issue demand that we consider the matter far more seriously than the Government seem prepared to do.
It is, of course, an emotive subject. We have all seen the horrific television films of the brutal clubbing of what look like very pretty mammals. They are white, fluffy and cuddly, with big eyes, and when one sees their blood contrasted with the white snow as their mothers look pathetically on. One's heart is naturally moved. Not only are people's hearts moved, however, I am sure that there is cruelty involved.
As a nation and as a Community we must respond to public opinion. No Member here can deny that public opinion is against this trade. A petition was signed by nearly 5 million people and early-day motions were signed by more than 300 Members of the House. Extremely responsible bodies have organised campaigns to put across not propaganda but the truth about this issue. There is the Seal Protection Group, composed of the RSPCA, the World Society for the Protection of Animals, the World Wildlife Fund and many others. They are not fly-by-night organisations but highly reputable bodies in the conservation world.
The Government are trying to have their cake and eat it as well. We get plenty of tears and sympathy from them, but they must be crocodile tears, because there is no action.
The Minister seems to dismiss the conservation issue. He referred in passing to the Nature Conservancy Council. That body is funded by the Government and has an immense international reputation. In its evidence to the Commission it said:
"In the NW Atlantic management has halted the previous dramatic decline to less than half the unexploited size."
There has been some improvement, but that is only in relation to the harp seal. The situation is still dangerous, but it is certainly not critical. Referring to the hooded seal or blue-back, however, the council says:
"The position of the hooded seal is in every respect more serious. On the available evidence management measures appear to have only reduced the rate of decline rather than halted it."
In considering conservation measures, we have a responsibility to proceed very cautiously, to err on the side of the animals and to make the most positive assumptions when reaching decisions affecting conservation measures. I could cite many other examples, but I will stay with the British Nature Conservancy Council as its reputation and international standing are such that I am willing to accept its findings. We should take those findings as seriously as we can.
I have heard a great deal talked about how this will affect the Greenlanders and the Eskimos, but it has been made plain that we are trying to exclude aboriginal hunting. The Greenlanders and the Inuit Eskimos are generally not as barbaric as we civilised people, who club young seals to death. It means more to them to hunt the
430
adult mammal so that they can obtain food and the skin for their own use. That makes sense and it is a sad commentary on civilisation that it is the supposed civilised element of society that goes around clubbing the baby seals to death. We can exclude that aspect.
We hear that it will upset economics; and the Minister has played on that. There is plainly a problem. The Minister says that it is a small problem, but I concede that it is 100 per cent. important to the people involved. Basically it affects two countries only. The Norwegians traditionally have 30 per cent. of the killing. Their Government are not of my disposition. It is the Hoyre Government, who are similar to that of the Minister, but they have responded to public opinion. They are not arrogant like this Government. They do not block their ears. They have no election coming. They have something to lose economically, whereas we have nothing to lose. They have said that this year there will be no pup cull, which is to be welcomed. I take my hat off to the Hoyre Government in Norway. They are prepared to make an economic sacrifice because they believe that it is morally right so to do. They do not shilly-shally as the Government do.
Mr. Giles Shaw: The hon. Gentleman has suggested on four occasions that the Government have done nothing. I must refute that in the strongest possible terms. The Government have put in place a national ban by virtue of the arrangement made with the Association of Fur Traders which has effectively prevented something like 90 per cent. of the import of seal products through us into the Community. The hon. Gentleman is right off the beam.
Dr. Clark: The Minister says that there is a national ban. If there is, why is it not made law? There is a voluntary ban which has no legal backing. The Government are depending on the good will of the importers and traders. The Minister can do nothing to stop anyone importing seal pup products. There is no ban; there is a voluntary agreement. I shall return to that point later.
The Norwegians have acted in an honourable way. The Canadians have problems, but if one looks at all the sea take of Canada, which is a rich country, 1·4 per cent. only is in the form of seals or other sea mammals. It compares with 3·8 per cent. for seaweed. It is chicken feed and affects only those small communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) said, surely a country as large as Canada can do something to offset and mitigate the problems.
The Minister has skated over what is happening in the EC. He has not been as forthcoming as I should have liked.He did not tell us much about the Commission's meeting yesterday. Has he had no reports about the meeting? I understand that the Commission studied this subject in great detail and came to the conclusion that the conversations that it has had with the Canadians and Norwegians have introduced no new elements and have done nothing to dissipate the doubts in the public's mind. The Commission agrees that the scientific evidence must be collected and it is willing to do everything that it possibly can in that respect, but it believes that the ideas put forward by the Canadians, particularly, for a convention to look into the problems of baby seals will mean more and more procrastination. That does not cut much ice with the Commission and I believe that it will not recommend the Council, which meets in a couple of weeks, to take any such decision.

431
But what the Minister did not tell the House, and I believe that he should have done so, is what the European Commission recommended at its meeting yesterday. I shall tell the House if the Minister is not prepared to do so. It recommended taking into account the observations about which I talked, and states:
"The Commission is led to the conclusion that it should maintain as it stands the proposal transmitted to the Council on 19 October 1982."
It is saying that the original ban and the regulation that it proposed on 19 October should be carried out. I go along with that, and I should have thought that the majority of the House would go along with it. The early-day motions last year attracted 304 and 272 signatures. The opinion is backed up not only in Britain but in Europe.
The Minister told us today that he is not prepared to support that resolution at the Council of Ministers on 28 February. I may have misunderstood him, but that was my understanding of his speech. That will cause deep disappointment, not only to me and to many will cause deep disappointment, not only to me and to many Conservative Members but to people throughout the Community. We have no friends. The Germans were our allies, but perhaps the Minister has not realised that there will soon he an election in Germany. That country has "green politics" and many politicians are becoming worried. Herr Vogel is catching up with Herr Kohl, and Herr Genscher has now changed his mind and said that the German presidency of the EC Council would press for an immediate import ban. The British Government are now in isolation and have lost all their friends. I do not understand why the Minister is prepared to take such a dog-in-the-manger attitude. It is very strange.
I could understand the Government's attitude if they had a strong economic case or a great deal to lose, or if they believed that there was a moral reason for resisting the regulation, but none of those grounds apply. The Labour party does not accept the Minister's view that there is doubt about the legality of article 113. The Commission does not believe that there is doubt, nor do the other EC countries. The Germans are calling for an immediate import ban. The Prime Minister has assured the RSPCA and other bodies that she is concerned about those poor little mammals, but at the end of the day she is prepared to do nothing. It is sad that the British Government should be the only Government in Europe to hold up the regulation. It will cause great disappointment to millions of British people. It is a pity that the debate is taking place at this time of night— [Interruption] Hon. Members may scoff about that. Perhaps Conservative Members do not worry about how the British people feel. However, I do not believe that that is true, because the 300 hon. Members who signed those early-day motions will stand by them. We have had animal welfare debates in the House before. I have stood at this Dispatch Box and I have seen the Government defeated on animal welfare because there were always sufficient Conservative Members who, when it came down to it, were prepared to give their Government a bloody nose if they believed that they deserved it. I am disappointed that this time we shall not have more pressure on the Government to change their mind.
I hope that the Minister will not put the Government out on a limb. The Germans have gone along with the regulation, and we should do the same. I plead with the
432
Minister to stop this barbaric trade and to ensure that we support the Commission's recommendation when it comes before the Council on 28 February.
1.9 am
Mr. Jim Spicer: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State knows that my interest in this matter goes back a long way; indeed, to when it was first raised in the European Parliament by my good friend Mr. Stanley Johnson, a Conservative and a Member of the European Democratic Group. But we moved on from there and had the full-hearted support of the Parliament in taking the matter to the Commission, whose subsequent actions speak for themselves.
Mr. Johnson's motion called for an EC import ban on products coming from young harp and hooded seals, or from seals whose stocks were depleted, threatened or endangered. It was the starting point for one of the most enormous upsurges of public feeling, especially in Britain. Three million people—we have heard that it was nearer 5 million, which may be right—in Europe signed a petition. I, and certainly many other hon. Members, had our fair share of the 60,000 letters that came in from our constituents. The early-day motion that was supported by more than 300 hon. Members has already been mentioned.
What happened thereafter has already been referred to in the debate. The Commission responded by calling upon its scientific advisers to make a report. Subsequently, the Commission prepared and transmitted to the Council on 17 October last year a proposal for a Council regulation, which is the subject of our debate.
The Council, meeting at the level of Environment Ministers, has twice considered the Commission's proposals but has not yet given its final approval. I had hoped that one result of the debate tonight would be that the United Kingdom Government would find themselves, with full parliamentary support, able to come out in favour of that regulation. The Commission's proposal is in its view—I say "in its view" because I do not put to one side the views of the Attorney-General as lightly as the Opposition seem to do—based firmly in Community law. It has taken the view that it cannot be right for different countries within the Community to have different standards for the importation of seal products. An import ban is an import ban and cannot operate sensibly on a voluntary basis.
My hon. Friend talked about articles 113 and 235 and the difficulty of taking action on a Community basis. If that cannot be done, can action be taken on a national basis? What national action can be taken? I take the point made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Clark), that a voluntary ban in these circumstances is not good enough.
Other member countries have already taken the step of imposing a total ban within their own countries. If we do not go to the next meeting and support the Commission's proposals, I cannot see why we cannot go along and say "All right, but we will impose a national ban instead." As was said by the Minister, the terms of the Commission's proposals were:
"The member states pending any decision about action at Community level will take all necessary and possible measures within the limits of national competence to prevent the importation into their territory of products of young harp and hooded seals."
If we are unable to agree with that, and if we are to stand fast and say that articles 113 and 235 do not apply,

433
can we not take upon ourselves the national responsibility of turning that voluntary ban, which is a temporary measure, into a full blooded ban, which everybody in the House would support?
The point has been made that the West Germans are not backsliding any more. Many other community states have already taken action. If we take similar action, we shall effectively ban the importation of baby seal products into the Community. We are the people most closely identified with this importation. If we were not importing, the entire trade would collapse.
There are other hon. Members who wish to speak and I therefore move on quickly to add one further point, which came to my notice the other day. Recently, a delegation of seal hunters from Greenland spoke of the adverse effect that the public discussion of the Canadian seal hunt had had on their lives. Those Greenlanders are taking adult seals from non-endangered species. There is a world of difference in that, and that is what culling is all about. One does not go up into the Highlands and cull deer at birth. One takes ones cull from the upper end of the age bracket. That can be done on a massive scale, if need be, when dealing with seals, particularly if a fishing industry is suffering.
Those Greenlanders said that they were not killing baby seals or threatening seal populations. Because of the present uncertainty, they are finding that their markets are being threatened. An EC regulation or directive which is clearly defined, as in the Commission's proposal, would remove that uncertainty and enable the legitimate activities of Arctic and Greenlander populations to continue unimpeded.
The Government have much to be proud of in terms of environmental policies, both within the Community and outside it. Some mention was made of our position on whaling. It was the clear lead from our Government that led the way to the ban on the importation of whale products. That ban was based not only on conservation grounds but on humanitarian grounds. In particular, the Government and most people in the country were rightly concerned about the methods of hunting, especially the use of the cold harpoon.
I appeal to my hon. Friend, in advance of the meeting on 28 February, to review the Government's position with his colleagues—his colleagues in the Department of Trade most particularly. If he finds it impossible to support a Community regulation, for heaven's sake let us at least go there prepared to undertake our own positive ban on the importation of seal products.
That is what our people want. It has nothing to do with politics. It is simply that we as a nation do not like this sort of senseless killing, which is quite unnecessary and the products of which are used only in a luxury trade which we could well do without.
1.17 am
Mr. David Ennals: I warmly welcome the thrust of the speech of the hon. Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) on the vigour with which he presented his case. I do not go along with him entirely, because the Government have done something.
434
Before the two meetings on 3 and 17 December, there is no doubt at all that the British Government were campaigning hard behind the scenes to persuade other members of the Ten not to take action, as was recommended by the Commission. I believe that they gave in to the pressure of public opinion.
I am sad that, even now, the Minister underestimates the depth of feeling that exists about the massive cruelty which the Canadian cull has caused over the years. I sometimes find it sad that people in Britain seem to be more concerned about cruelty to animals than about cruelty to human beings, but I associate myself with the depth of feeling about cruelty to defenceless creatures.
I can scarcely remember an issue on which the public has expressed itself so explicitly, emotionally and strongly. All hon. Members have received a massive mail bag on the subject. In addition, we have now had three all-party early-day motions that have been signed by more than 300 hon. Members. It is not a party issue in any sense at all.
The Government decision to persuade the British Fur Trade Association to enter a voluntary agreement was a worthwhile but temporary step. A temporary and voluntary agreement cannot be satisfactory. It means that we constantly have to return to the House with all the uncertainty that this causes in Greenland and Canada about where we stand. How will the Government monitor the extent to which the fur traders operate the voluntary agreement? What happens in the case of fur traders who are not affiliated to the association? I myself might return from Canada with two large suitcases containing pelts. It must be realised that there are grave difficulties involved in operating a voluntary agreement.
This is recognised by the Commission. The resolution passed on 17 December was a temporary arrangement pending the studies that the Commission was required to make before reporting back to the Ministers for a final decision. The moment of decision on 28 February is rapidly approaching. I do not think that the Minister did actually say—I am glad that he did not—that he was committing himself to vote against the regulation when it comes before Ministers on 28 February. If he did, I ask him to intervene to make it clear. I hope that he will not intervene because it is the purpose of Opposition Members and of the public to persuade him.
The Minister must consider seriously the conclusions reached by the Commission. It considered that recent conversations with the Canadian Government had not introduced elements that would enable the doubts expressed by public opinion on a much wider scale than in Britain alone on the baby seal hunt to be dissipated.
The Commission underlined the point that
"the reinforcement of scientific work, and of measures leading to an improved management of the stocks … are not such as to deal with the problems which are the object of the preoccupations expressed by public opinion. The Commission considers that measures tending to reduce substantially the baby seal hunt will also contribute to improving the conservation status of the species concerned."
It was concerned with conservation as well as the humanitarian aspects of cruelty. The conclusion was:
"The Commission is of the view that these measures"—
the voluntary measures—
"are very disparate and their comparative evaluation is for this reason very difficult. The maintenance of the present situation risks provoking distortions and discriminations".
which means, I suppose, that some countries will carry them out more effectively than others.

435
"and that the compatibility of the national measures with the rules of the Treaty is far from being assured."
This is a reference to articles 30 and 85.
The Commission added:
"This unclear situation cannot overcome the uncertainties bearing upon the fur trade as a whole which have led it to come down in favour of a clear ban. Taking account of the above ob servations"—
I have not read all of them—
"the Commission is led to the conclusion that it should maintain as it stands the proposal transmitted to the Council on 19 October 1982.
The commission is clear about it. It has fulfilled the mandate placed upon it by the decision of Ministers in December. Now we come to the final moment of decision. Some people thought that when the Ministers had their meeting and a voluntary ban was agreed, it was all over. All of a sudden there were no more signatures on the early-day motion and the postbag dried up. Everyone thought that everything had been resolved. We now know that it has not been resolved, but we are determined that it will be. The German Government, who had been one of the sticking points in getting the regulations through, have completely changed their point of view. What would the reaction be if the British Government were the only Government who would block a ban for all time on the admission of these two types of baby seals, harp and hooded seals? The Government would come under great criticism if it were thought that they were standing in the way of general agreement. The Minister would not have heard the end of it.
I hope that we continue to act across the Chamber in the spirit that we have done tonight. If the British Government were to be the Government who prevented the ending of the importation into the Commission countries of baby seal pelts and products it would become a sharp issue. I would want to see a vote against the Government on that. I would campaign in the country against the Government. I do not want to do that.
This is a non-party matter and the all-party nature of the early-day motion can be preserved only if the Government go along with the other members of the Community on 28 February in support of a mandatory ban for all time so that everyone knows the position. I hope that the Minister has not ruled that out, and that he will agree with the other Ministers. If not, public opinion will be harshly against a Government who are so pusillanimous as to stand in the way of a general ban.
1.27 am
Sir Dudley Smith: Hon. Members have been rather less than generous to my hon. Friend about the explanation he gave at the outset. I am satisfied with what he said and with the terms of the motion. The Government will go along with the Community in due course. He was right to make the point, as I understood it, that we must always be masters of our own fate. On moral and commercial issues we must reserve the right to take our own decisions, however emotional the subject may be.
We are a member of the European Community, as we should be, although there is controversy about that. To a certain extent we have to go along with many diktats of the EC, but in other cases we must exercise our own judgment, even if at the end of the day we agree with the decision of the EC. My hon. Friend was right to make that point.
436
I declare an honorary interest in the issue under debate. I am chairman of the United Kingdom branch of the Wilderness Foundation, which is dedicated throughout the world to the preservation of the wilderness and to the preservation and conservation of wild life. There are large numbers of animals under attack. They do not all get the same exposure as seals because, as has already been said, seals are peculiarly attractive animals. When the subject is given television and press coverage, emotions are aroused immediately and we get an avalanche of correspondence. One thing which the Wilderness Foundation did successfully was to preserve the white rhino in Africa. Today, far from being in danger of extinction, it is flourishing. No one would say that compared with the seal it was a cuddly, nice animal. Therefore, we must retain a sense of proportion when talking about any species of wildlife. However, I agree that much has been wrong. It is no good others saying that the livelihoods of Norwegian and Canadian fishermen will be at stake if they are not permitted to go ahead with the cull, or to get the pelts and skins for manufacturing luxury goods. One could argue in favour of all sorts of dubious activities on the basis that to stop them would lead to unemployment. The countries concerned, particularly Canada, should consider other ways of sustaining those who would be materially affected if large-scale culling were stopped.
There is no doubt that the culling that we have seer and heard about is very distasteful to the public. It cannot be sustained by Britain or other European countries, because it involves, almost exclusively, luxury goods that are imported into Europe. Different criteria would apply if it were a question of food or essentials. However, there can be no defence in this case. No one in his right mind would pretend that the slaughter of seals was unnecessary, but it should be necessary only when there is a severe threat to fishstocks or when the balance of nature is being affected. That applies to all sorts of wild animals. If we bear that point in mind, we shall be on the right lines.
I defend the attitude of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. We must use our own judgment. The Government have not been hesitant about sticking up for animal interests. Although they may not be affected by the more hysterical elements of the animal lobby, they take account of the moral dilemma facing us. From what my hon. Friend has said, I believe that we are on the right lines. However, we must be in a position to exercise our own judgment. I should be very surprised if we did not support the final decision in respect of the Community. Like the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), I shall bring to bear whatever slight influence I may have on the Government so that they take the right decision.
1.32 am
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief. I hope that the House will be able to give the Minister a more or less unanimous message to take with him to the EC. The people of Britain want a permanent enforceable ban as soon as possible. I am sure that most of my constituents find the killing of baby harp and hooded seals barbaric, and they want it stopped very quickly. They want it to be stopped because of the cruelty, and because of the whole argument about conservation. They fully

437
accept that some form of culling may be necessary should the seal population become too great. However, they believe that baby seals do not need to be attacked.
My constituents are correct to believe that there is no overpopulation of either of those species, and no justification for killing any of them. My constituents also accept that, if livelihoods are put at risk, there must be some compensation. However, since the two countries involved are relatively rich, my constituents rightly believe that Norway and Canada can provide that compensation without causing any hardship. My constituents believe that that should happen. They do not want to take away anyone's livelihood.
There is a tendency for my constituents, and many others, to be concerned about conservation of species elsewhere in the world—perhaps more glamorous species—and to forget that there are many less glamorous species at risk in Britain. We must be careful that we do not become hypocritical and insist that the Canadians and Norwegians do something while we are prepared to allow species of dragonfly, butterfly or other small creatures to become extinct because we are not prepared to take conservation measures. It is important that, when pressing other people to do things, we are prepared to do them ourselves.
The essential point is that we do not want voluntary and temporary measures. They mean that we must continue to campaign because there is slow erosion of those powers. My constituents want the clubbing of baby seals to be stopped for ever as a result of permanent, effective, enforceable legislation.
1.36 am
Mr. Teddy Taylor: I accept the opinion of the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett), and the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), that what we are discussing tonight probably stems from the great upsurge of anger and anxiety about the inhumane killing of baby seals. Undoubtedly it is a wider issue and is not concerned only with seals. There is growing public concern about the appalling and inhumane practices in factory farming and some of the practices nearer home, such as the clubbing of young foxes. That is another intolerable activity. I hope that the Government will respond to what is undoubtedly an upsurge of concern.
My only fear is that there appears to be a great deal of concern about whales and seals, which are far away and largely outwith our control—other than the importing aspect—and not so much concern about things nearer to hand and well within our control. All parties will have to take account of that.
We should concern ourselves with how we can best take action. My fear is that if we adopt the policy suggested by the Opposition and my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West, it might be a means of washing our hands of the position. I wonder whether it would have as much possibility of succeeding in eliminating the practice of clubbing baby seals as the course of action proposed by the Minister. Most of the seals come into Western Europe, and to impose an immediate ban would have a dramatic effect on the market. But for how long would that last? Other markets could well be found, perhaps in the Far East, and
438
we could find ourselves able to absolve our consciences while not having had an impact on stopping the clubbing of baby seals.
What my hon. Friend the Minister said showed the course of action that he put forward as basically designed to obtain a change in attitude by the Canadian Government and others. That is a far more fruitful, helpful and constructive attitude than simply to say that Britain and Western Europe will wash their hands of the position by not purchasing any more baby seal products. We should not disregard the fact that there is always a danger of extending, far more dramatically than hon. Members might think, the scope of the Treaty of Rome by introducing legislation that would be an unusual use of article 113.
I should not oppose a ban on the importation of seal products. We are aware of public anxiety and of the need to do something. If we are genuinely concerned about the inhumane treatment of seals, we should set out sights on how we can stop the practice in Canada, and not only do something ourselves.
My hon. Friend the Minister expressed very clearly and fairly the views that I hold, and which the majority of those concerned about animals hold. If he continues with determination on the course that he has set, which is how to bring about a change of attitude and practice in Canada, he will have my wholehearted support and that of the majority of people in Britain.
1.40 am
Mr. David Mudd: I do not disagree with anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has said, and would go so far as to endorse everything that he has said, particularly his expression of the widespread concern of the civilised people in this country about the annual culling massacre of these helpless creatures that we witness on our television screens year after year. Anything that we can do to prohibit the importation, availability and sale of these products, we should do without hesitation.
However, were this resolution a once-and-for-all act, I should share the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness that has been expressed by so many hon. Members in the debate this evening. I do not see this as being a once-and-for-all move, or a final move. It is the first and very helpful step forward to securing some form of Community agreement. It should be forcefully expressed that the resolution goes on to ensure that the justification for further Community action on, for example, conservation grounds, is fully investigated, and the Canadian proposals for the international management of seals are considered thoroughly. This is a means of opening a door to even more positive Community action.
I address a personal note to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. When the matter comes before the EC, it is obvious that the Community will take action. Knowing that the Community has an obsession for harmonisation, I should like my hon. Friend to consider that the United Kingdom should be a pace setter, rather than being swept unwillingly and unwittingly to accepting what is common sense, humane, compassionate and dignified.
1.42 am
Mr. Giles Shaw: By leave of the House. I have valued every contribution made from both sides of the House on this issue. It is extremely helpful for me to hear the views

439
of hon. Members, and it is clear from the way that each hon. Member has addressed this problem that there are certain views that we can all share. The first is the view that the practice of clubbing baby seals has reached the point where hon. Members are clear that action should be taken as far as possible to see that that practice ceases. Secondly, hon. Members are anxious to see that the initiatives taken so far are fruitful in stopping the importation of products.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer), the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) and the right hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals) were critical that the actions so far taken are insufficient to achieve that objective. I plead with hon. Members to recognise that the actions that we have taken have not yet become effective, and will not be effected by the British Fur Trade Association until 1 March. I know that hon. Members will agree that the actions proposed are designed to prevent products from the traditional culling period from finding their way to this market.
I emphasise to hon. Members that the consequence of the United Kingdom, through the fur trade association, achieving a voluntary agreement against the importation of these products has been, above all else, a major determinant of the size of the problem faced from the other side of the Atlantic. Absolute access to the market is not now available.
Without the action taken, through the fur trade association, by the United Kingdom Government, we should not he able to tell the House that some 90 per cent. of the trade in these products will not take place this year. It was as a consequence of that that there was initially the decision by the Norwegian Government to abandon culling seal pups, and latterly, and only very recently, the decision by the fur traders in Canada to react also. I accept the strictures that have been laid at my door on the Government's apparent unwillingness to go along with the immediacy of a ban as requested by the Commission to the Council. However, the actions that have been taken have shown that they are having an effect.
Dr. David Clark: I understood the Minister to say that the Government will not go along with the proposed regulation of 28 February. Am I right or wrong in that assumption?
Mr. Shaw: We have not yet decided what action we shall take on 28 February. It would be a discourtesy to the House to invite its comments on this problem if we had prejudged the issue. Action is already in place that is not based upon the regulation that was drafted by the Commission and it has already had an effect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West said, in effect, "The action taken so far is all very well, but it is only voluntary." He and others wish to see a positive statutory base for the action that is proposed. I think that the House would be well advised to allow the voluntary ban to proceed. However, if the monitoring procedure that we have introduced shows that the voluntary ban has not proved successful in preventing the importation of pup products, I agree to consult my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade, whose responsibility this is, on the possibility of taking statutory action. It is clear that we wish to see the trading in these products cease. We believe that the method that we have selected is the quickest and most effective way of doing so.
440
The origin of the trade, the method of the cull and the emotional problems that are so rightly worrying the hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) and many others are outwith the competence of the House or the Community. They lie within the competence of the Canadian and Norwegian Governments. It is crucial that the United Kingdom should play its traditional role of being a Government who have, and wish to develop further, relations with Canada of a character that will allow us to use our good influence, I trust, in fulfilment of what hon. Members wish us to do.
Mr. Ennals: The Minister knows that I gave credit for what is, I hope, a temporary step pending a later decision. I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say that a decision has not yet been taken. If it is decided that we should have only a voluntary agreement, that will ensure that every other country has a voluntary agreement. Without Britain's support the regulation would not be approved. That would mean that the Commission's fears that different countries would operate the agreement in different ways would all be true. I do not understand why there is any doubt left in the hon. Gentleman's mind whether he should sign the regulation and go along with what I understand will be all the other countries in the Community.
Mr. Shaw: Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear to the right hon. Gentleman that all of these matters were discussed at two Council meetings in December. There was considerable resistance by many states to accepting the Commission's proposals. We arrived at a point where a resolution was the only effective way of taking some Community action. As the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, that resolution combines both a voluntary and two statutory methods. I hope that it will have some effect. It is difficult to find a legal basis upon which the Community can act on what is essentially to do with the emotional nature of the cull and the reactions to it, when the Community's legal instrumentation is entirely based on trading factors or factors that are of a measurable and commercial character.
The exception to that is article 235, the conservation article. I accepted what the hon. Member for Stockport, North said. The conservation case is one that I, on behalf of the United Kingdom, pressed most vigorously at both the Council meetings.
With regard to the hooded seal, there must be considerable doubt whether its population is of a size at which conservation should not be introduced. With regard to the harp seal, there are fairly substantial numbers of breeding stock, and there is little doubt that there is hardly a conservation case there. I assure the House that I shall do my utmost to raise the conservation issue in a way that will try to find a regulation or directive that is based on article 235.
I accept that the problem is a continuing one. We should not turn our backs on the problem on the assumption that we can sit back, even in the Council on 28 February, and believe that the matter has been dealt with. We must ensure that the trade is effectively stopped in so far as the Community members of the Community can make that happen, and ensure that our influence is brought to bear. Therefore, I believe that the offer that has been made by the Canadian Government of some commission on sealing is worth examining. I believe that

441
the extent of the contact that has been made so far should be increased if that is possible so that we can get more scientific evidence on the conservation case for the hooded seal.
The opinions that have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House with great clarity will be of great importance to the Government in being able to say, "This is what the United Kingdom Parliament wishes us to do." We understand and take the message. I shall do my best to ensure that we can build on the point we have reached. That is the important achievement of a voluntary ban here which will effectively prevent, if it is successful, the majority of the importation of these products.
We shall build on the fact that the Norwegian Government have stopped, and we hope to build on the fact that the Canadian Government are now under pressure to review, their culling practice, and we shall see whether there are ways forward that we can legitimately accept as a basis for Community action. The ways forward that were previously offered were very difficult and may not have had the flexibility that is essential to deal with a case which could have a significant conservation component, which we must examine most carefully and which may not be necessary if we can achieve the banning of the products by other means.
I am most grateful for the speeches that have been made from both sides of the House. I shall bear all these matters most carefully in mind.
Question put and agreed to,
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 10390/82 of 25th October 1982 concerning a Proposal for a Council Regulation on common rules prohibiting the import of skins of certain seal pups and products derived therefrom into the Community; and supports the action taken to meet public concern through effective national measures against the import of the products concerned, pending any decision about action at Community level following further investigation of all aspects of the cull.

Health Provisions (Brent)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Brooke.]
1.53 am
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have taken an interest in health matters ever since I came to the House. During the past 12 months—the latest occasion was on Tuesday of this week—Ministers have claimed that the National Health Service has been getting more resources and funds than ever before. Every hon. Member, however, is finding that in his own patch district health authorities are under acute pressure to cut patient care and services to meet the balance sheet demands of their accountants.
Last year Brent district had a cut of £200,000 in real terms in comparison with the 1981 allocation. This year the heart-breaking task of my district health authority is to find a cut of £750,000 in real terms for 1983–84. That is in complete contrast to the figures that we get from the Dispatch Box about the increase of resources for the Health Service.
The nonsense of the Resource Allocation Working Party formula falls hard on Brent. Because the North-West Thames region is one of the big spenders, there has been a cut of another £8 million this year. The RAWP formula fails to recognise that within a region there are areas of poverty and distress where the RAWP formula should not apply.
If fully applied according to present statistics, the options open to my district health authority are to close half of its one and only district general hospital—the Central Middlesex—or to close two thirds of the Shenley psychiatric hospital, the whole of the service for geriatrics and the service for the mentally handicapped. However, it would be no good trying to meet the demands of the balance sheet by closing down the whole general practitioner service, because we would need to do that twice to meet the present amount that is required in cuts. The regional health authority figures show that of all the hospitals in the region, my district general hospital, the Central Middlesex, is one of the top third for efficiency.
The Brent health district has been in a state of perpetual siege since its inception on 1 April last year. Brent borough has 250,000 inhabitants, and 43 per cent. are from the ethnic minorities. It is a classic inner city, rundown area from the point of view of industry, housing and amenities. From prosperity 30 years ago, when it was a highly industrialised area, it has declined to a twilight industrial desert in many industrial estates because of factory closures. We have the highest unemployment in the history of the borough. The housing shortage and homelessness of 500 people mean an extra charge on the community. Serious social problems prevail. Yesterday that was recognised by the Secretary of State for the Environment when Brent was declared to be one of the areas designated for urban aid.
That does not affect the basic problem of health. My concern is about the whole health provision—hospitals, general practitioners and the community. I shall concentrate on the hospital sector. I remind the Minister that the core of my area is the district general hospital—the Central Middlesex—with 650 beds. It is the only general district acute hospital in the area. Last year there were

443
17,000 inpatients and 170,000 outpatients and casualties. The hospital houses the only neuro-sciences department in the region.
I remind the House of the proud history of the hospital. Sir Richard Doll was one of our consultants. Sir Francis Avery Jones is perhaps the greatest gastroenterologist in Europe. The hospital also teaches students from the Middlesex hospital. The only occupational health service in existence was pioneered by the Central Middlesex hospital. There were two 25 years ago—one at Slough and one at the Central Middlesex. However, that at the Central Middlesex is the only one that has been retained.
I bring this matter to the attention of the Minister because of the acute anxiety caused by a secret document produced by his Department and the regional health authority, which was so secret that, like most of these things nowadays, it received publicity on BBC "Nationwide" and headlines in the national press the next day.
The authority claims that it is only a background paper, but it is a soulless statistical exercise with highly selective figures, many of which are inaccurate, and completely devoid of any real understanding of the health needs of my constituency.
Last night there was a special meeting of the district health authority with the regional health authority. We sought a guarantee that there was a future for the Central Middlesex hospital. The regional authority would give no such undertaking.
I therefore ask the Minister for a categorical assurance today that the Central Middlesex hospital will be retained, with all its many sectors and disciplines, as a continuing service in my area.
Most of us accept that there is no decision for immediate closure, but the uncertainty endangers the future of the hospital because blight sets in. Posts are advertised, but consultants do not apply for them. Medical posts remain unfilled. There is a general rundown and over a period of years viability will disappear. Already, when we were about to interview for two very important operating theatre sister posts, both applicants cried off after the BBC "Nationwide" report due to the fear that there might be no future career for them. The hospital had to readvertise.
I have been through this before. In 1968, when I was on the regional health authority, there were plans to close the Willesden general hospital. That hospital had 140 beds and provided a number of surgery and other acute services. In the event, the hospital was not actually closed—I raised the matter in debates and at Question Time on many occasions over a dozen years—but the nice little label "change of site use" in the end has achieved the same purpose. What used to be a general hospital in the heart of a densely populated community now has just 38 geriatric beds, with a further 20 beds, about which I am very pleased, about to be opened for the young chronic sick.
Over a period, creeping paralysis of that kind has exactly the same effect as the decision to close a hospital. I therefore ask the Minister again to give a definite reassurance to all those who work in the Central Middlesex hospital and all those who use it that its future will he as great as its past.
The district health authority now faces the awful necessity of closing another hospital in the area—the Leamington Park hospital, which has 95 geriatric beds and
444
is bound to close within the next few months. The geriatrics will be sorted out to other hospitals in the area. Again, however, it means an enormous curtailment of the geriatric facilities available.
Wembley hospital, which was a district hospital with many specialties, is now being run down. To meet the savings demanded by the region, the district health authority is about to close the casualty department, trying to transfer the service to the Central Middlesex hospital on the other side of the borough and to absorb some of the geriatrics from Leamington Park.
Wembley hospital, again, is the centre of a residential community. It is esteemed and beloved by families who have usd it for generations, but it seems now to be a candidate for death by attrition.
I ask the Minister to consider two economic problems which to me are nonsense. The Central Middlesex hospital was encouraged to spend £250,000 on upgrading its laundry services on the understanding that it would be taking over the service of Northwick Park hospital, which at that time was under the same area health authority. That laundry is now being sent to a private firm in Birmingham, although I understand that that firm's tender was higher than that of the Central Middlesex hospital. That seems to go against all local government principles. There is to be a further tender in a month's time. I ask the Minister to examine this seriously so that the money invested by the National Health Service is not dissipated and the full laundry capacity at the Central Middlesex hospital is used.
The second economic problem is caused by the administrative nonsense of questioning people who might be foreign visitors to see whether they are entitled to treatment. At the Central Middlesex hospital, in the first half of October, 1,203 patients went through the stage one interview. Of those, nine needed to go to stage two, at which point a foreign student who had just arrived in the country was found to be ineligible for treatment and he went away. The other eight were all eligible, including one who would not have been eligible under the old rules. The number going to stage two was about the number that we would have expected to question more closely under the old rules. The effect of all this is that the queue of new patients has moved more slowly than it otherwise would and many patients have felt upset about being asked these questions. It seems a great deal of effort for little result. When one realises that 43 per cent. of the patients in that area are likely to come from the Caribbean, a racial problem is created at the same time.
I regret having to say that the Secretary of State and the Minister are such experts in statistics, politics and polemical debating points that they treat my health authority with contempt, as is shown by a letter written by the chairman of Brent DHA on 30 September last, to which the Secretary of State replied on 10 February—six months later—only with platitudes, in a brush-off letter.
The Ministers involved know little about ordinary people or patients, and I regret that their understanding and compassion about health and the National Health Service are woefully meagre.
2.06 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) follows the example of so many of his colleagues in turning what could be a helpful debate into a foolish, political polemic. He should not pride

445
himself on being the only person who cares about people or patients. Despite all the figures that he trots out time and time again, he knows full well that we are spending 6 per cent. more money in real terms than when his Government were in office.
Mr. Pavitt: Not in my area.
Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman will remember well that the Chancellor he supported had to rush back from the airport because of the financial chaos caused by him and his colleagues by irresponsible and gross over spending.
Mr. Pavitt: No, quite wrong.
Mr. Finsberg: The hon. Gentleman does not like the points he has made answered. I sat listening peacefully to some of the nonsenses he trotted out. He might now listen to some of the answers that I propose to give. He has said that there are problems in his health district. I agree with him, but he knows well, as has been said by successive Health Ministers in all Governments, that resources for the National Health Service are finite, whereas demand is infinite. We have to ensure that we make available as much as the national resources will permit. That is one of the reasons why we instituted, many years after it should have been done, charges for certain overseas visitors. It will be extra income for his health district. I note that he wants to chuck it away. That type of thing should be noted carefully.
There are one or two points that the hon. Gentleman raised in a more constructive manner, and I should like to deal with them. There are clearly many misunderstandings about the resource position of the NHS as a whole, and certainly of the way in which money is allocated to health authorities—some of these contribute fairly to the feelings of concern in Brent.
Brent, as the hon. Gentleman said, is one of the larger health authorities, and its statutory responsibilities encompass the health needs of a population of about 250,000 people and the management of eight hospitals. They include two very large hospitals—Shenley with more than 1,000 beds for mentally ill patients drawn from a wide area, and the Central Middlesex hospital which provides, in theory at least, general acute hospital services for the district's population. That the Central Middlesex hospital treats almost as many people from outside the district as from within, and that more of Brent's population is treated at hospitals in other district health authorities than in Brent, are important anomalies that underline the planning problems about which I shall talk later.
Brent has significant responsibilities, and to discharge them it has an annual budget in excess of £40 million. I repeat that, to place this discussion in a national context, the NHS has never before had so high a level of resources as it has now. That is not just in money terms—the number of doctors and nurses is also higher than it has ever been. Despite the world economic recession, we have not reduced the funds allocated to the Health Service. On the contrary, total expenditure has nearly doubled from £6·5 billion in 1978–79 to nearly £12 billion in the current financial year.
However, the hon. Gentleman said that the Brent health authority faces the need to reduce its expenditure. That is
446
correct, although I disagree with the figures that he quoted. The regional health authority has not yet completed its sums, and Brent's allocation for the financial year 1983–84 has not yet been finally worked out. But it may well be that the quoted figures are not far off the eventual outcome and, although the scale of figures is important, we are considering the principle of why and whether a health authority's revenue allocation should be reduced.
The most important reason is the Resource Allocation Working Party. I remind the hon. Gentleman that RAWP was introduced by the Labour Government when he was still a Whip, and I do not recall him making loud protests—
Mr. Pavitt: I spoke about it.
Mr. Finsberg: I do not recall the hon. Gentleman making loud protests when he was a Whip. Perhaps he did so when he was released from those onerous responsibilities, but he cannot get away from the fact that RAWP was the creature of his Government. RAWP recognised that there were significant inequalities in the geographical distribution of NHS resources. It recommended a way of calculating health authorities' allocations, based on the population served, with adjustments designed to take account of the varying health needs of populations of equivalent size in different parts of the country. The mechanism proposed by RAWP, although no one has ever acknowledged that it was perfect, has not been seriously challenged as the most practical way—
Mr. Pavitt: In the Black report.
Mr. Finsberg: No one has ever seriously challenged it as the most practical way of changing the allocation of funds to achieve the objective that all of us wish of having the same figures overall.
Mr. Pavitt: Read the Black report.
Mr. Finsberg: I have read the Black report frequently. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that what he is saying comes, not from a proper reading of the Black report but from selective quotations.
Brent district health authority is currently funded at a level significantly above its target calculated according to RAWP criteria. According to the region's most recent calculations, Brent is currently 16 per cent. above its target on a regional basis, and almost 30 per cent. above its target calculated on a national basis. Overall, the region is significantly over target by 11 per cent. It means that even if Brent met its regional target, it would still be much better off than many health districts.
What do the factors that make up those calculations show us? They show clearly that they are designed to take account of relative social deprivation. The North-West Thames regional health authority considers the proportion of ethnic minorities, elderly pensioners living alone and households lacking amenities when calculating its districts' targets. As the hon. Gentleman said, those factors are evident in his district and they are taken into account when North-West Thames authority works out the RAWP position for its region. Cross-flows of patients between districts are also taken into account and, as I said earlier, about half the patients who attend Central Middlesex hospital are not from Brent district.
The operation of RAWP has and will have a significant effect on North-West Thames region and on Brent. The

447
region has received only a quarter of the average development increase available to the NHS as a whole during the past five years. Not only that, but for this year and next year we have agreed with regional chairmen that an element of NHS development money can be funded from money saved by making more efficient use of NHS resources, one aspect of which is the significant reduction in the number of chief officer posts in the NHS consequent on the changes in NHS management structure that we introduced last year.
Based on the region's calculations following the provisional allocation figures issued in July, the most likely pattern for Brent is a reduction in real terms of £200,000 in the current financial year, and a further £500,000 in 1983–84 and in 1984–85—at least half of which the district will fund from increased efficiency in the provision of services. However, based on the region's calculations following the provisional allocations figures issued in July, the most likely pattern is that Brent will need to find efficiency savings of £700,000 in the current financial year and about £250,000 in 1983–84 and in 1984–85. In addition, it will also be required by the region to release a further sum in 1983–84 and 1984–85—of about £250,000 in each year—reflecting its distances from its RAWP target. This money will be used, for example, within the region to enable major improvements in services to be made in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, which are seriously underfunded even on a national basis.
To set this in perspective, in 1980–81, the then Brent and Harrow area health authority spent £170 per head of its resident population on health service provision—compared with only £100 per head available to Bedfordshire area health authority. A similar contrast exists between Brent and other over-funded London health authorities and many health authorities elsewhere in the country.
The really important point, however, is that the problems faced by Brent health authority are not simply about the level of resources available, nor are they problems unique to this health authority. The major problem is a planning problem, and it is one experienced by many other health authorities in London. Put very simply, in common with many other health districts in London, Brent has a much higher per capita expenditure on NHS services than most—even taking account of its level of social deprivation—because of a higher than average level of provision of expensive acute hospital services, arguably higher than is needed. An illustration of this is provided by the fact that there are 10 other major acute hospitals—including four teaching hospitals—within a five mile radius of the Central Middlesex hospital. These 11 acute hospitals between them provide more than 7,000 beds.
The hon. Member referred to press reports of a possible threat to the future of the Central Middlesex hospital. I am not aware of any specific proposals to close or change the use of the Central Middlesex. Indeed, I understand that the region has, over the past few years, invested significant capital funds in upgrading most of the wards in the hospital to provide a much needed improvement in the services provided there, and officials in my Department are currently considering proposals for an acute psychiatric unit to be built there.
I suggest that if the hon. Gentleman wishes to help morale and job applications he should stop saying that he has read the reports in leaked documents to the effect that
448
the Central Middlesex hospital is under threat of closure. That does more harm than anything else. If he were to rely on published information instead of on leaked documents, he would be able to do a better job for his hospital, for which he cares so much.
However, I must underline the complexity of the planning problem in this part of London. Partly because of the historical concentration of medical teaching in London and partly because significant advances in medical knowledge and technology in recent years have changed the basic requirements for an effective pattern of health services, there is now significant over-provision of acute hospital services in Inner London, matched—it must be said—by insufficient provision for certain of the priority services, particularly services for elderly patients. Other factors—such as the quality of primary health care services and those services provided by local authority social services departments—are also relevant.
The steps that we have taken will help to ensure that the plans made to change the present pattern of services to accommodate these changes properly reflect local needs, but we cannot stand still, and this may mean that in some cases well-loved hospitals and institutions will need to undergo changes of use or structural changes to accommodate different functions.
Brent cannot be exempt from this process, but I emphasise that I have received no firm proposals. It is the regional health authority's job to develop a strategic plan for the region's services, and the work is still at its early stages. However, the local health authorities—including Brent—will be given a full opportunity to participate in this process. Indeed, much of the strategic planning carried out by the region will be based on proposals generated by district health authorities themselves. In view of the complexity and importance of this, I am delighted that the regional chairman made it clear to my hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health—when they met to review the region's activities last year as part the new accountability arrangements—that she considers the production of a proper strategy to be a top priority for her authority.
The hon. Gentleman has also referred to his concern about the specific changes proposed by Brent as part of its operational plan for the coming year. In particular, he has raised the proposal to close Leamington Park hospital, a geriatric hospital situated just outside the territory of the district. As he must know, there is a formal consultation procedure which health authorities must follow when they intend to close or change the use of health buildings. One of its basic tenets is that health authorities must seek ministerial approval if their proposals meet objections at local level from the CHC which they are unable to accommodate. This means that it would be premature for me to comment on the detail of the proposal. However, it may be helpful if I put on record at this stage what I understand to be the basis of the authority's proposal.
I understand that the building itself is in poor condition, and it is estimated that it will require approximately £1 million to keep the hospital open. Empty wards at Willesden and Neasden can be used to rehouse the patients, and two wards have already been upgraded for this purpose. There will be no reduction in geriatric provision, but a reduction in acute beds, of which Brent has an excess of 130 over regional guidelines.
The facts speak for themselves. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the resources available to the nation

449
are limited. The resources that we have made available are a larger share of the cake than any previous Government have been able to put forward. If districts and regions work in the most efficient and effective way—making full use of private contractors where that will save money and give additional money for patient care—that is the way
450
forward. It does no good for Labour Members constantly to repeat the falsehood that we are cutting the NHS. That is not so. We have provided a larger cake, and it is for the regions, under the NHS system, to allocate the slices according to local needs.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.

TRADE
  Galecron
  Galecron
  Merchant Shipping Act 1970
  Merchant Shipping Act 1970
  Manufacturing Trade
  Manufacturing Trade
  Japan
  Japan
  Radmark Engineering (UK) Ltd.
  Radmark Engineering (UK) Ltd.
ENERGY
  Oil Sales
  Oil Sales
  Offshore Supply Vessels
  Offshore Supply Vessels
  Oil Production
  Oil Production
  Oil Price
  Oil Price
  Gas Flaring
  Gas Flaring
  Oil Refining
  Oil Refining
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Cereal Substitute
  Cereal Substitute
  Oilseed
  Oilseed
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Beer Production
  Beer Production
  Rice
  Rice
  Bonamia
  Bonamia
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Galecron
  Galecron
  Food (Export Subsidies)
  Food (Export Subsidies)
  Soviet Union (Food Exports)
  Soviet Union (Food Exports)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Northern Ireland (Black Economy)
  Northern Ireland (Black Economy)
  Beer (Revenues)
  Beer (Revenues)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  North Sea Oil and Gas
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  Petroleum Revenue Tax
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Stamping Offices
  Stamping Offices
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Magistrates' Advisory Committees
  Magistrates' Advisory Committees
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Prisoners (Remand Appearances)
  Police Witnesses (Hypnotism)
  Police Witnesses (Hypnotism)
  Dwellings (Fire Statistics)
  Dwellings (Fire Statistics)
  Crimes and Offences (Statistics)
  Crimes and Offences (Statistics)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Citizenship
  Citizenship
EMPLOYMENT
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants (Redeployment)
  Civil Servants (Redeployment)
  Walthamstow-Leyton (Statistics)
  Walthamstow-Leyton (Statistics)
INDUSTRY
  Mr. Ian MacGregor
  Mr. Ian MacGregor
  Steel Casting Industry
  Steel Casting Industry
  Contracts (Approval Procedures)
  Contracts (Approval Procedures)
PRIME MINISTER
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Hospital Conditions)
  Mentally Handicapped Persons (Hospital Conditions)
  Mr. Walter Rauff
  Mr. Walter Rauff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Mandatory Awards
  Mandatory Awards
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Recommendations)
  Equal Opportunities Commission (Recommendations)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Industrial Aid
  Industrial Aid
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Commissioner Tugendhat (Visit)
  Commissioner Tugendhat (Visit)
  Departmental Services (Cash Limits)
  Departmental Services (Cash Limits)
  Republic of Ireland (Compensation Claim)
  Republic of Ireland (Compensation Claim)
WALES
  Marginal Land Review
  Marginal Land Review
  Animal Welfare Standards
  Animal Welfare Standards
  Housing (First-time Buyers)
  Housing (First-time Buyers)
  House Purchase Assistance Scheme
  House Purchase Assistance Scheme
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sir Richard Posnett
  Sir Richard Posnett
  Brandt Commission Report
  Brandt Commission Report
SCOTLAND
  Home Improvement Grants
  Home Improvement Grants
  Housing Repair Grants (Glasgow)
  Housing Repair Grants (Glasgow)
  Cromarty Firth
  Cromarty Firth
  Portavadie
  Portavadie
ENVIRONMENT
  Islington
  Islington
  Council House Rents (Islington)
  Council House Rents (Islington)
  Local Authority Contracts
  Local Authority Contracts
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Property Services Agency
  Property Services Agency
  Abell House and Cleland House
  Abell House and Cleland House
  Blood Lead Levels
  Blood Lead Levels
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Caravan Sites Act 1968
  Motorways (Property Blight)
  Motorways (Property Blight)
TRANSPORT
  Cycling Policies
  Cycling Policies
  Consultancy Contracts
  Consultancy Contracts
  Road Building (Northern Region)
  Road Building (Northern Region)
  Learner Motor Cyclists
  Learner Motor Cyclists
  Serpell Report
  Serpell Report
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  British Railways Board (Chairman)
  London (Public Transport)
  London (Public Transport)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  British Rail Engineering Ltd.
  West Midlands (Motorways)
  West Midlands (Motorways)
  Branch Lines (Privatisation)
  Branch Lines (Privatisation)
  Cycle Tracks
  Cycle Tracks
  Okehampton Bypass
  Okehampton Bypass
  Lorry Routes
  Lorry Routes
  Approved Revenue Expenditure
  Approved Revenue Expenditure
  Associated British Ports
  Associated British Ports
  London (Transport Policy)
  London (Transport Policy)
  Road Direction Signs
  Road Direction Signs
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Roads (Expenditure)
  Concessionary Fares
  Concessionary Fares
  South Yorkshire (Rail Network)
  South Yorkshire (Rail Network)
  British Rail (Investment)
  British Rail (Investment)
  Lorry Control Schemes
  Lorry Control Schemes
  Rail Network
  Rail Network
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  Northern Area Traffic Office, Newcastle
  Northern Area Traffic Office, Newcastle
  Louth Bypass
  Louth Bypass
  Sealink
  Sealink
  Crewe-Holyhead Rail Service
  Crewe-Holyhead Rail Service
  Transport Committee (London)
  Transport Committee (London)
  London (Fares Policy)
  London (Fares Policy)
  Motor Car Tyres
  Motor Car Tyres
  Motorway Construction
  Motorway Construction
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Leighton-Linslade Bypass
  Leighton-Linslade Bypass
  Road Construction (South Yorkshire)
  Road Construction (South Yorkshire)
  Aire Valley Motorway
  Aire Valley Motorway
  M1 (Repairs)
  M1 (Repairs)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  "Drinking Sensibly"
  "Drinking Sensibly"
  St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington
  St. Mary's Hospital, Stannington
  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux
  Pregnancy Advisory Bureaux
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Respiratory Syncytal Virus
  Respiratory Syncytal Virus
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Anorexia Nervosa
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  Illness (Self-certification)
  Illness (Self-certification)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Balderton Hospital (Eastdale Unit)
  Balderton Hospital (Eastdale Unit)
  Greenfield Report
  Greenfield Report
  Smoking, Drinking and Overeating
  Smoking, Drinking and Overeating
  Falklands Campaign (Disablement Pensions)
  Falklands Campaign (Disablement Pensions)
  Medical Publications
  Medical Publications
  General Practitioners (Interviews)
  General Practitioners (Interviews)
  Repeat Prescriptions
  Repeat Prescriptions
  FP 10 Forms
  FP 10 Forms
  Treatment (Waiting Lists)
  Treatment (Waiting Lists)
  Regional Medical Officers
  Regional Medical Officers
  East Anglian Regional Health Authority (Manpower)
  East Anglian Regional Health Authority (Manpower)
  Dentistry
  Dentistry
  Opren
  Opren
  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Prescription Pricing Authority
  Funerals (Financial Assistance)
  Funerals (Financial Assistance)
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Housing Benefit Scheme
  Married Women's Half Test
  Married Women's Half Test
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Personal Social Services
  Personal Social Services
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Lead in Petrol
  Lead in Petrol
  District Health Authorities
  District Health Authorities
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Retirement Pensioners (Earnings Rule)
  Heating Allowance
  Heating Allowance
  Low-income Family Tables
  Low-income Family Tables
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  National Health Services (Inner london)
  National Health Services (Inner london)
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
DEFENCE
  Censorship (Study Group)
  Censorship (Study Group)
  Luton Airport (Chilean Air Force)
  Luton Airport (Chilean Air Force)
  Prisoners of War (Pay Deductions)
  Prisoners of War (Pay Deductions)
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles

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

Lord Taylor of Hadfield
Sir Francis Taylor, Knight, having been created Baron Taylor of Hadfield, of Hadfield in the County of Derbyshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cullen of Ashbourne and the Lord McAlpine of Moffat.

Maiden Speakers: Practice of Congratulation
2.48 p.m.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Leader of the House whether she is satisfied that Lords are sufficiently aware that the Procedure Committee, in their first report 1980–81, which was agreed to, considered the growing practice of successive speakers in a debate congratulating a maiden speaker, and stated that the next following speaker is assumed to speak on behalf of the whole House.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, this matter was considered by the Procedure Committee on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as recently as February 1981. The committee noted that the Companion states on page 89 that:
"It is usual for a Lord making a Maiden speech … to be congratulated by the next following speaker".
The committee's opinion, with which the House agreed, was that the speaker who follows a maiden speaker is assumed to speak for the whole House when offering his congratulations.
As I understand it, the Procedure Committee were not seeking to deprecate congratulations from subsequent speakers. I think they were indicating that, since the speaker who follows a maiden speaker has offered his congratulations, no other noble Lord need feel under any obligation to follow suit because the first Lord to offer congratulations is assumed to speak for the whole House.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, I am very much obliged to the noble Baroness. However, is there not the danger that if several successive speakers offer their congratulations, then everyone else thinks that they must offer theirs for fear of being thought unfriendly?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords, that is always a danger; but, as always in your Lordships' House, it is a matter for each individual peer to do as he thinks right. I felt it right to quote in full what the Companion to the Standing Orders says.
Lord Kilmany: Yes, my Lords, but may we take it from what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said that, although there is no obligation on other than the immediate follower of the maiden speaker to offer congratulations, if the maiden speech is particularly good or is made by a personal friend, there is nothing whatever against subsequent noble Lords making mention of it and congratulating the maiden speaker?
Baroness Young: My Lords, of course there is nothing to prevent any noble Lord doing exactly as my noble friend has suggested, and there may indeed be a great many special reasons why subsequent speakers wish to congratulate a maiden speaker. But what is important is that it should not be regarded as a discourtesy if a subsequent peer does not make these remarks.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, would the noble Baroness think that much the same applied to congratulating the mover of a Motion? I have noticed that over the years it has become more common for half the speakers, at least, to thank the mover.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that precisely the same kind of considerations would apply in that case.

UK High Technology: Government Orders
2.51 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their policy is to order British products in the high technology field, particularly for defence requirements, to provide a basis for exports, given that this country's main competitors do this regardless of the merits of the case.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are seized of the importance of domestic sales of high technology products as a basis for exports. British products are ordered by Government departments whenever possible, but they must offer value for money.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that reassuring reply. Can he say what steps, if any, the Government are taking to ensure that British high technology industry gets a really good share of Government and public sector requirements?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the Government are committed to creating the most favourable climate possible for industrial progress and much has already been done especially in the fight against inflation. The effective use of public purchasing also has a vital role to play in promoting innovation in high technology

219
industries, and we are, therefore, encouraging the development of a constructive long-term dialogue between the public sector and its suppliers. I may also say that there are specific schemes run by the Department of Industry offering financial support to companies undertaking research and development which will improve the technological base of the United Kingdom industry. All these measures will help industry to win public sector contracts on merit.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is any effort made to ensure that exports of our offensive equipment, which could be used in time of war, are not used against British forces?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am sure that my noble friend will be aware that this subject received a very thorough airing yesterday and was very well answered by my noble friend Lord Belstead. In this particular context I do not think that I can usefully add to what he said.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that on most occasions to order British products will competitively meet the technical requirements for the product and that this is, of course, due to the supremacy of British design and workmanship? I would emphasise the importance of buying British, especially in defence products, in order to establish export markets. One has in mind particularly the anti-radar missile and other projects which have been referred to in the House recently.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes, of course. Yesterday I answered a Question on the anti-radar missile. It is the policy of the Ministry of Defence to buy British equipment to the maximum extent consistent with this country's international obligations, unless there are substantial advantages of timescale, cost or performance in buying overseas. The noble Lord might like to know that in recent years over 90 per cent. of the expenditure of the Ministry of Defence has been with British industry.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that at this moment in this country there is a mission from New York to encourage British manufacturers to invest and sell their goods in New York?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was not aware of that, but I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing it to my attention.
Lord Glenamara: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what the end result will be if the countries to which we export our goods have their own campaigns to buy their own goods?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I was asked an earlier supplementary question on the benefits of our own high technology being used abroad because we are second to none in so many fields. As regards other nations, no doubt they will wish to purchase their own equipment as well.

General Election Voting: Eligibility
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether British nationals working abroad will be eligible to vote at the next general election in Great Britain.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, assuming that the Question remains on the Order Paper, the Answer is that British nationals working abroad who qualify as "service voters" and who have made the appropriate declaration will be eligible to vote at the next general election. Other British nationals who are on the electoral register and who then move abroad will be eligible to apply for an absent vote.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply. I am sure that those working temporarily in Europe will be very grateful to hear that Answer. May I know whether this will take place in time for the next general election?
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I have described is the existing situation. It will indeed apply for the next election.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, will not the Minister agree that any extension of the present position would involve very serious matters which should not be rushed? If there was to be an extension as suggested, could not a very substantial number of persons be involved who have no constituency qualifications whatever? Could this not also involve the question of whether or not there is any intention to return to this country and the question of those who work abroad for tax reasons.
Lord Elton: My Lords, although my noble friend will not agree with the noble Lord that there is a danger of being rushed, I have to say that the anxiety which he expresses is one of which we are well aware, and this whole matter is in fact the subject of investigation by a Select Committee in another place. It is in the light of the findings of that committee that we would wish to examine the whole question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that under the existing law it has been open to a person, such as a single person working abroad for quite a number of years whose parents live here, who has a qualifying address in the United Kingdom to use that address, even if he has not been there for many years? Therefore, there is discrimination taking place within our law between those who work overseas and have a qualifying address that they can pretend to have been at on the qualifying date, and those who have moved abroad with their whole families. This really requires looking into as a matter of urgency.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the test for voting in an election is at present universal, and that is to be on an

221
electoral register. If one can be on an electoral register, one can have a vote.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, can the Minister give an assurance that there would be no difficulty about the existing registrations of service and other overseas voters being included in the registers of new constituencies, if and when they should come into being.
Lord Elton: My Lords, there should be no difficulty. The changes to parliamentary boundaries do not affect the names of individuals on an electoral register. All that happens is that the register is reordered to conform to the new boundaries.

Lands Resources Development Centre: Manpower
2.59 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will reconsider their recent decision to cut the manpower of the Lands Resources Development Centre by 60 per cent.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the then Minister for Overseas Development, Sir Neil Marten, concluded in August last year that it was necessary to reduce the complement to a total of 45 by 1st April 1985. I see no reason to alter that decision.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for at any rate giving me that reply, if not for the content of it. Is he aware that the director general of the international service of National Agricultural Research has said of this particular organisation that it is recognised throughout the world as an outstanding scientific institution which is essential to the development process in developing countries and has brought excellent recognition to the United Kingdom in the field of research and development? In view of that, and in view of the fact that Sir Neil Marten also said that transfer of expertise could be very cost effective, will the Government not now reconsider their decision?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I do not disagree with what the noble Lord has quoted about the expertise of this centre, but we are not entirely certain about future demands from the British aid programme for this expertise. The capacity of the private sector in this area of expertise having increased in recent years, I am confident that calls for services which the centre cannot provide from its own resources can be met in that way.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not this centre one of that most valuable group of units attached to the Overseas Development Administration of which, for example, the Tropical Products Institute and the Directorate of Overseas Surveys are others? Does not this group of
222
units enable the scientists who gained their expertise in service with the Colonial Office to pass it on to a new generation of young scientists, both of this country and of the third world? That being so, is it not false economy of the worst kind to truncate that work? May we hope, at any rate, that the Government are prepared to change their mind on this subject just as they changed their mind on the question of overseas students' fees?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord is always very persuasive, but perhaps I might remind him that there is no question of this centre not remaining in being. It is very valuable. It remains, and that is quite right. Indeed, a reduction in the cost of the centre does not mean that less funds are available for work in the areas which the centre covers. Any savings made on the running of the centre will certainly stay in the aid programme.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Pilotage Acts 1913 and 1936 and certain provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a first time—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Procedure of the House
3.2 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report from the Procedure Committee be agreed to. I shall be very brief as I know that your Lordships are waiting to embark on a very important debate, but I think I must draw your particular attention to the first item of the report on Starred Questions, because this was specifically referred to the Procedure Committee:
As so often happens in my experience, when a particular matter is referred to the Procedure Committee it becomes apparent that in fact no difficulty would have arisen if existing Standing Orders and the guidance given in the Companion had been observed, and the report re-emphasises that same point. If in future we all observe Standing Order No. 31 and the guidance given on page 82 of the Companion, I am pretty sure that very little difficulty will arise.
However, the Committee make three recommendations to strengthen the guidance given in the Companion: first,
"that statements of fact should only be inserted in the text of Questions to the extent necessary to elicit the information sought".
Secondly,
"that the advice tendered by the Clerks on such matters should be accepted"
by your Lordships. Thirdly,
"that supplementary questions should be short".
I think we should guard jealously the freedom we enjoy under our flexible procedures which makes for a

223
lively and informative Question Time. To do so depends on the good sense and understanding of each one of us, and I hope that we can continue to conduct our affairs in this civilised way and without the need for further reference to the Procedure Committee.
There is one other matter I must mention, item No. 4, where the committee agreed that, if they so wish, Lords may
"take the Oath of Allegiance, or make the Solemn Affirmation, in Welsh";
but this, may I emphasise, has to be in addition to the statutory requirement to do so in English. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
The Report was as follows:
1. STARRED QUESTIONS>
The Committee recommend that the experimental practice whereby no Lord is allowed to have more than three Starred Questions on the Order Paper at any one time should now be made permanent.
The Committee have considered the procedure of the House on Starred Questions in the light of the exchanges on the floor of the House on 19th January about the wording of Lord Jenkins of Putney's Starred Question and in view of Lord Belhaven and Stenton's question to the Leader of the House on 26th January as to whether the practice of asking supplementary questions which imparted, rather than sought, information was in conformity with Standing Order 31.
In the Committee's view, few procedural difficulties would arise if all Lords observed Standing Order 31 which provides that Starred Questions "are asked for information only" and that "No debate may take place on such questions, and supplementary questions must be confined to the subject of the original question". However, the Committee believe that the House would wish to see the guidance on the tabling of Questions now given in the Companion to the Standing Orders strengthened; they therefore make the following recommendations:

(a) That the guidance on page 82 of the Companion that "It is considered undesirable to incorporate statements of opinion or the demonstration of a point of view in the text of Starred Questions, Questions for Written Answer or Unstarred Questions," should be reaffirmed, and supplemented by making it clear that statements of fact should only be inserted in the text of Questions to the extent necessary to elicit the information sought.

(b) That the advice tendered by the Clerks on such matters should be accepted by Lords.

(c) That supplementary questions should be short.

The Committee consider that observance of Standing Order 31, taken together with the guidance already given in the Companion and these further recommendations, should ensure that procedural difficulties do not arise in future.
If the House agrees to these recommendations, the Committee recommend that they should apply to all Questions tabled thereafter.
The Committee also make a recommendation concerning a procedural matter which arose on 19th January in connection with Lord Jenkins of Putney's Question, namely that a motion that leave be not granted to ask a Question should only be moved in the last resort.
Finally, the Committee observe that it was stated in error on 19th January that leave to ask a Question has to be unanimous; the practice of the House is correctly stated in the Companion (page 65), namely that leave to ask questions is granted by a majority decision of the House.
2. SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS
In their Third Report of last session, [H.L. (1981–82) 200], the Committee recommended that the Minutes of Proceedings should accompany a Report of a Select Committee where there had been a difference of opinion. They consider that they did not make it sufficiently clear that the Minutes should accompany a report whenever a difference of opinion had been recorded in a division.
3. PROCEDURE AT ROYAL COMMISSIONS
The Committee have considered the procedure observed at Royal Commissions, particularly Royal Commissions for the Prorogation of Parliament. The issue of a Royal Commission for Prorogation is a prerogative act of the Sovereign, and the Committee consider that it would be unconstitutional if the House were to delay Prorogation beyond the time appointed for it.
Accordingly, the Committee recommended that, instead of the Government Chief Whip moving a motion for the adjournment of the House during pleasure for the Royal Commission, as he does at present, the Lord Chancellor should make an announcement modelled on that which he makes on the occasion of the Opening of a new Parliament. Such an announcement would not be debatable. The Committee also recommend a similar course of action on the occasion of the confirmation of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
4. OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
The Committee have considered whether Lords should be permitted to take the Oath of Allegiance, or make the Solemn Affirmation, in Welsh. It is prescribed in the Promissory Oaths Act 1868 and the Oaths Act 1978 that the Oath must be taken in English. However, the Committee recommend that if Lords wish to do so, they should be allowed, in addition, to take the Oath of Allegiance, or make the Solemn Affirmation, in Welsh.
5. USE OF THE CLOCKS IN THE CHAMBER
The Committee have considered their previous recommendations concerning the use of the clocks during the stages of Public Bills.
They recommend that, in future, the clocks should be used to time the length of speeches on Second Reading, Third Reading and on the motion that the Bill do now pass, and to record the time taken on amendments at all stages and, in Committee of the whole House, the time taken on debates on the question that a Clause (or Schedule) stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I raise just one short point which I have already raised with the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees? Has his committee considered the convention—and I stress the word "convention" and not regulation or rule—that normally it will be in order for the instigator of a Question to be allowed two supplementary questions?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I do not think that that matter has been specifically considered, but I have a distinct impression that the committee would not readily accept it.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, as I raised this in the first place, may I make the point that the Standing Orders are the Standing Orders of every Peer, and the responsibility for keeping them rests equally on all of us. It is not for just one or two Peers to call attention to breaches; it is an equal responsibility for all of us, and it would make it less invidious if it were more generally borne.
Lord Spens: My Lords, may I press one question on the Chairman of Committees? The question is whether in supplementary questions a short statement of fact can be made, introduced by the phrase, "Is the Minister aware that"?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I think I am out of order in continually rising to my feet. That has not been specifically put to the Procedure Committee, but I would say, Yes, it is in order.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye: My Lords, may I raise one question largely for guidance from the Chairman of Committees? The point I want to make deals with the passage,

225
"It is considered undesirable to incorporate statements of opinion or the demonstration of a point of view in the text of Starred Questions".
I submit that that may well narrow the ability of noble Lords to put down Questions. Undoubtedly if an opinion is not allowed to be expressed in some form in the original Question it will certainly be expressed in the supplementary. Therefore, we shall spend just as long on Question Time in the future as we have been doing. What I want to get guidance on from the Chairman is this: what will be in order and what will not be in order? I looked at a Question taken yesterday from the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and it was a good Question with which I agreed entirely. Nevertheless, it said that the Independent Broadcasting Authority had been,
"promoting the case for the CND and attempting to discredit NATO".
Surely those are matters of opinion. I ask the Chairman whether a Question like that will in the future be allowed or not.
I take just one more Question, by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, today. His Question says:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their policy is to order British products in the high technology field, particularly for defence requirements, to provide a basis for exports"—
and then it continues—
"given that this country's main competitors do this regardless of the merits of the case".
Surely, that is expressing an opinion, and therefore would be out of order. Will the Chairman say whether this new order is going to be interpreted so strictly that those two cases I have quoted would not be allowed, or would they be allowed?
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, if for the last time I can crave your Lordships' indulgence to speak again, I do not think it is up to me to give rulings of this kind. The fact is that the House is its own master. We are very tolerant in what we accept. I do not think that the Questions to which the noble Lord draws attention really caused any difficulty in the House, and I think that we had much better carry on as we do at the moment and leave to the good sense of the House what it wishes to accept or not accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATO Policy: Deterrence and Disarmament
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carrington Lord Carrington rose to move, That this House endorses the effectiveness of NATO's policy of deterrence in preserving the peace in Europe and stresses the disastrous effects which one-sided or unilateral disarmament would have, not only on our security, but on the prospects for multilateral disarmament.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the subject matter of the Motion is one of the most talked of topics of the moment and, I suspect, will continue to be so over the next few months. It seemed, therefore, right to me that your Lordships should have an opportunity to discuss an issue which will not only affect the political situation in this country and elsewhere over the next
226
few months but, much more importantly, will have an effect on the future of each one of us.
I begin by saying something wholly obvious. There is no one in this House who does not wish to see a very wide measure of disarmament. There is no one in this House, whatever his political views, who is not as much in favour of peace as his neighbour. No sensible man is, or can be, happy to see the vast sums of money which are spent on armaments by the super powers, by the two major alliances and, above all, by the underdeveloped countries of the world in their search for security in an unstable world. And how sad it is to travel round the world and see, as we all have, the hunger, poverty and low standard of life of so much of the world and, at the same time, see so much money spent on weapons of destruction. It is ironic that, in this time of world recession, one of the very few industries which is doing well is that of armaments manufacture.
Therefore, let it not be said by anybody in this House or outside it that, if any of us happens to disagree about the timing, scale, scope or possibility of disarmament at this moment, we do not, all of us, wish to see a wholesale reduction in armaments, provided always that such reduction does not endanger our security or our way of life. All of us seek a peaceful solution to the world's problems and, if I may say so, I think it unfortunate that those who favour unilateral disarmament should have appropriated the title of "Peace Movement", as if those of us who believe differently are in some degree warmongers. Indeed, it could be argued, and no doubt some of your Lordships will do so, that what the Peace Movement proposes is much more likely to lead to war, or at any rate to the loss of our fundamental liberties, than the courses of action which it so roundly condemns.
It seems to me that disarmers, broadly speaking, fall into four categories. There are, first, the pacifists. I do not happen to agree with them, but their argument is logical and I respect them. To take but one example, there is nobody in this House who, when listening to the noble Lord, Lord Soper (with whom over the years I have debated this subject in your Lordships' House) can possibly doubt his absolute honesty and sincerity, and it is good to see him in his place looking as vigorous an 80 year-old as his friends could wish to see. Pacifism seems to be all right so long as everybody else is pacifist, but until such time as that happens, I think I would rather opt out.
I do not know—nor does anybody else, if it comes to that—what the intentions of the Soviet Union are. Of course, we know and have read about the Soviet aim of converting the whole world to Marxism, but more importantly, we can at least see the results of the vast defence expenditure incurred by the Soviet Union over a long period of years. The tanks, aircraft, nuclear submarines and missiles seem to most of us to be on a scale far removed from that necessary purely for Soviet defence, and Russian superiority in conventional weapons in Europe is plain for all to see. As I say, nobody knows the intentions of the Soviet Union. But it would surely not be very wise to make a decision unilaterally to divest ourselves of our own defences until we are quite certain of the motives and intentions of a Soviet Union in such a state of military preparedness.
That brings me to the second class of disarmers—those who believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament—and this seems to be in logic a very much more difficult proposition to defend. In the first place, there is firm evidence that such a proposal would not have the slightest effect on those whom we are seeking to influence. Mr. Andropov has said very clearly that if anybody should suppose that the Soviet Union is going to disarm unilaterally, they had better think again, and no one who has had any dealings with the Soviet leaderships would dispute the truth of that. President Reagan, in effect, has said very much the same thing.
To suggest that unilateral disarmament on the part of the British would persuade either of the two super powers, or anyone else, to follow such a course is, frankly, absurd. Nor, alas, in the light of the failure of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to prevent the possible manufacture of nuclear weapons by other countries, is it a very reassuring policy to abandon our nuclear weapons when a number of other countries—some have said as many, in the next 10 years or so, as 20—are capable of producing, or may have the intention of producing, nuclear weapons; that seems to me to be hardly in the best interests of our own security. To take a recent example, suppose that in the Falkland Islands campaign the unstable Argentine military dictatorship had possessed a nuclear weapon and we had not. Would we have felt all that comfortable?
Those of us—and there are a great many in your Lordships' House—who have had responsibility for international negotiations know only too well the length of time they take and the way in which each side appraises the capacity of its opponents and weighs up the cards it has in its hands and the cards it believes the other side has. Indeed, the most successful negotiations are concluded precisely because there is a balance of advantage for both sides in reach a conclusion.
Disarmament talks are probably among the most difficult of them all, and to ask our negotiators to find a formula for disarmament on the basis of a unilateral decision to dispose of our own defences would be to present them with a negotiating stance which could only lead to total failure. Should we go into a negotiation with nothing to give, having already given it, then certainly the Russians would give nothing in return.
I sometimes wonder whether the unilateralist argument is a very proper one. I know and respect the views of such eminent churchmen as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, but he, I am sure, is as anxious to preserve our fundamental liberties and parliamentary institutions as any one of us. Indeed, I have no reason to suppose that he would not fight for them, or at any rate would not support, rather than condemn, those who were prepared to do so. The Soviet system, after all, is a very nasty one. It deprives its citizens of human rights, it is inefficient and it is unacceptable to millions of people on whom it has been imposed over the last 30 years: the Poles bear witness to that.
But the peace of the world depends, as it clearly has over these last years, and as it will, on, first—as in the
228
old days, in the days of 20 years ago—the vast superiority of the American nuclear arsenal, and, more recently, upon the balance of nuclear weapons as between the Soviet Union and the United States. It seems to me that all that we should be doing by renouncing unilaterally our nuclear weapons would be to ease our consciences at the expense of the Americans, relying upon them to continue our nuclear protection, benefiting from it and their policy, but unwilling to contribute to it. Perhaps that is a comfortable policy to some, but hardly I think very courageous or straightforward. It does not seem to me that such a policy is one that should impress itself on a thoughtful electorate.
Unilateralism is not exactly a new phenomenon. I am old enough, as are many of your Lordships, to remember the years immediately before the Second World War. There were then, as there are now, earnest and sincere people who at that time believed that the way to deal with the German menace was by unilateral disarmament, that by our example we would show to Nazi Germany our goodwill, our lack of aggressive intention, and our dedication to peace. But, my Lords, it did not really work out that way. To use a Falkland phrase, did we not send the wrong signal to Hitler? When war came—and came, no doubt, partly as a result of the policies that we pursued—did we not find ourselves in a position of military inferiority from which we very nearly did not recover? Indeed, I have no doubt that but for the stretch of water between us and the European mainland we would have suffered the same fate as the French. I hope very much that we shall not be swayed by the successors of those men of the 'thirties whose arguments are the same and who are equally misguided.
I do not know, and I do not know whether any of your Lordships know, where the Labour Party stands in all this, and I shall listen with the greatest possible interest to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition who is to speak for the Labour Party. Since the war the Labour Party has been robust in its defence policy, and at times by doing so—by being robust—it has created great difficulties and embarrassment for itself with its own Back-Benchers. Your Lordships will recollect, for example, that it is to the Labour Party that we owe the development of British nuclear weapons. Is the Labour Party unilateralist or is it not? What is the defence policy that the Labour Party is going to ask the British people to vote for at the next election? I very much hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition will set our minds at rest about the direction in which the Labour Party is moving.
Thirdly, there are the disarmers who believe in total nuclear disarmament, though not total conventional disarmament. For myself, I find it very difficult to believe that without nuclear weapons we should not by now have had another European and global war. Russian conventional superiority would probably have seen to that. Though we may dislike the need for nuclear weapons, it really is not possible to argue that they have not been the major factor in deterring war over these last 35 years; nor, as someone said the other day, can you disinvent nuclear weapons—they are there. In my judgment abolishing nuclear weapons would not add to our security.
Recently there have been a number of proposals that the West should renounce first use of nuclear weapons. Such a proposal was carried in the Synod of the Church of England last week, and I have read a paper by four distinguished Americans advocating the same course. I suppose that at first blush this seems a reasonable proposition, but if our deterrent capacity and our security are to be maintained—and if we followed the policy—it would be necessary for us to match, and possibly to exceed, the conventional capacity of the Soviet Union and its satellites. Without such equality, the Soviet Union would know for certain that it could overrun Western Europe without any danger of the West using nuclear weapons.
Therefore, the question which must be asked of those who believe in this policy is whether it is possible, or likely, that such an enormous increase in our conventional capacity could take place. Does anybody really suppose that that is possible? Certainly nobody who has attended recent NATO meetings, or who has seen the out-turn of the modest agreed increase of 3 per cent. annually in defence expenditure, can for one moment imagine that the European countries of NATO are prepared to increase, or in some cases are capable of increasing, their defence expenditure or their Service manpower to the level required. Like it or not, European leaders have to get themselves elected, and a vast increase in defence spending would hardly be helpful in that regard.
The distinguished Americans pointed out that if such a first use ban was in operation, it would be possible for the United States to save large sums of money on the proposed deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles. But that would be an American saving, and I do not see the United States, in addition to its existing forces in Europe, sending thousands of men and thousands of aircraft and tanks over to Europe for its defence. I believe that until the time comes when there can be an equality in conventional weapons, the undertaking not to be the first to use nuclear weapons would pose an additional and a significant danger to Western defence policy.
Why is it that the disarmament movement has become such a talking point in the last few years? After all, one would suppose (would one not?) that a defence policy which has ensured peace ever since the end of the Second World War had not been a total failure, and that public opinion would be satisfied that the policy of deterrence had succeeded. What has happened in the last year or two to alter that position? Well, there are a number of factors, but I suggest that there is perhaps one which is more important than any of the others. Ever since SALT 1, and the failure to ratify SALT 2, and until a few months ago, there was no negotiation or discussion of any kind on disarmament between the two super powers. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan put a stop to all that. Understandably, the Americans and their allies felt that to talk of disarmament at a time when such aggression had taken place was out of the question. How could we talk in constructive and friendly terms with a country guilty of an act so obviously contrary to the Helsinki Pact? At the same time it became apparent that the West was falling behind in an alarming way in its nuclear capacity in the
230
intermediate field, There were being deployed against Europe SS20s, the capacity of which was infinitely more deadly than anything that NATO had. Your Lordships will recall the decision taken in 1979 to deploy equivalent missiles, unless an agreement on reduction and control was reached within a specified period.
I think that in looking at that situation quite a number of ordinary men and women in the street felt a kind of helplessness and hopelessness. There seemed to be a proliferation of nuclear weapons on both sides. No effort was being made to control them, and it seemed that neither side was very interested or anxious to speak to the other, or to seek any agreement on what seemed to many people the most urgent of international problems.
Of course, among those who led those movements there were some whose object was to promote a subversive cause, but not, I think, many. Generally speaking, the crowds who march today are a very different and much more representative body than those of 25 years ago who marched from Aldermaston. But however much we may sympathise with the ultimate goal of those who march, emotion cannot and must not take the place of a hard-headed look at what is necessary to preserve our society and our security. Pacifism cannot; unilateralism will not; the abolition of nuclear weapons is, I think, likely to have the reverse effect. That is why I myself belong to the fourth class of disarmers—the multilateralists.
I am glad, as everyone else is, that the Geneva talks on intermediate and strategic weapons have started, for I believe that the only successful approach to disarmament is by a patient policy of negotiation leading to agreement in steps, sometimes not very dramatic but providing a basis for a better understanding between the two power blocs. For one of the principal causes of the arms race is obviously the fundamental distrust between East and West: the Americans do not trust the Russians, and the Russians do not trust the Americans. The Russians have a fear of being encircled, though to some of us it seems rather a large circle. They have memories of the aggression of Hitler in the Second World War. On the other side, the Americans and their Western allies look at the increasing scale of Soviet defence expenditure—far greater than would seem necessary for the defence of the Soviet Union—and wonder what it is all for.
Until such time as a climate of trust can be created, disarmament is really not likely to get very far. The only way in which trust can be built up is by a series of agreements to the mutual advantage of both sides, and agreements which are clearly verifiable so that the good faith of the parties is there for all to see. It will not be easy. Agreement will have to be reached on data, force levels and comparability, and those of us who have followed the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions know how difficult that can be. Suspicions will abound, and there will be setbacks. But SALT I was a start, and, after all, it is in the interests of both sides to have an agreement.
Of one thing I am absolutely certain, and that is that we must try as hard as we can if we are to carry our public opinion with us. It is not enough to have meetings and issue communiqués, and to appear to make political points, one side against the other. To

231
convince our fellow countrymen we must be seen genuinely to be trying to reach agreement and put all our energy into it. If we do not do so we shall indeed put ourselves in peril.
This, I fear, is neither very original nor very dramatic, but if we allow our emotions to triumph over our common sense we shall ignore the experience of the past and put the security of this country at great risk. I think we have made a start. Let us redouble our efforts to achieve worthwhile agreement. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House endorses the effectiveness of NATO's policy of deterrence in preserving the peace in Europe and stresses the disastrous effects which one-sided or unilateral disarmament would have, not only on our security, but on the prospects for multilateral disarmament.—[Lord Carrington.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in his Motion the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has raised matters of the utmost gravity and importance, and he has enlarged upon them in his speech. He said some very sensible things, especially at the outset, although I thought the balance of his speech was, on the whole, disappointingly negative. But we are grateful to him for introducing the Motion because the policies of NATO and its objectives are crucial to this country's foreign relations.
Perhaps we should, in the light of this Motion, remind ourselves what the objectives and intentions were when NATO was established on 18th March 1948. They were strictly in conformity with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and the treaty laid down:
"The parties to this Treaty reaffirm their faith in the purposes and principles of the UN Charter and their desire to live in peace with all peoples and all Governments.
"They are determined to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisations of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
"They seek to promote stability and wellbeing in the North Atlantic Area.
"They are resolved to unite in their efforts for collective defence for the preservation of peace and security".
Later they say they will:
"maintain and develop their … capacity to resist armed attack",
and that,
"an attack against one … shall be considered an attack against them all".
I have quoted those words because I think it is important that we know exactly where we stood at that time—and that remains the policy of the Labour Party.
The existence of NATO has secured the peace in Europe since the end of World War 2; we have had peace in Europe for 38 years. There are moments when it has been an uneasy peace. We remember the Berlin blockade; we remember Hungary; we remember Czechoslovakia. But the peace has held; and it is hard to doubt that this is because of the existence of NATO.
One of our concerns in this debate is the state of NATO today. The question to which, surprisingly, the noble Lord did not address himself was: how does the
232
alliance stand now? That seems to me to be an extremely important matter. We have to admit that it has come under great strain, partly because of the lack of confidence between the Governments of Western Europe and the United States and partly because of the growing public concern on both sides of the Atlantic about the dependence of the alliance on nuclear weapons. These anxieties have been reflected in the large-scale protests in Europe and America. It is no use saying that the protesters are either agents or dupes of the KGB or that those who sympathise with them are either crypto-communists or "do-gooders" on the rampage. People are entitled to be concerned, and they are fools if they are not concerned.
The world's expanded nuclear armoury is the one issue which dominates all others at this time. On the one hand, the leaders of the great powers, most recently President Reagan and Mr. Andropov, have said that nuclear war would be lunacy. On the other hand, those very powers have been assiduously acquiring the means whereby that lunacy might come about and the final, unthinkable war be fought. This is now understood by people everywhere, and they are waiting to see how far the leaders of NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries are really determined to establish control over the monster which they have created and developed.
Nor is concern about nuclear weapons confined to worried men and women. Distinguished military experts, like the late Lord Mountbatten and the noble Lords, Lord Zuckerman and Lord Carver, have uttered cautionary words. I am bound to say that this Government's record on disarmament, if one analyses it very carefully, is not such as to give confidence to people in this country or abroad. I do not want to make too long a speech, though I could if necessary—my noble friend may do that, if it is required, when he winds up—but there are things which have happened in the United Nations, issues of great importance, where the best the Government have done is to abstain from voting.
It is not enough, therefore, to say, "We must have the bomb", and to leave it at that. The situation is profoundly complicated, and the production and deployment of ever more sophisticated nuclear arms makes if ever more dangerous. Furthermore, we know that remarks by senior members of the American administration, that they could contemplate the prospect of a nuclear war limited to Europe, do not help relations within the alliance; nor do leaks in the American press about the intention to move a base from Germany to Britain, however defensible that might be in certain circumstances. The clumsy way in which it was handled did nothing but create unnecessary alarm and suspicion.
There is clearly some need for clarification of NATO strategy in Europe and General Rogers himself has made certain proposals which, as I understand it, would make the alliance less dependent upon nuclear weapons. The case for maximising NATO's conventional capability and relieving NATO of the commitment to the early use of nuclear weapons has a great deal of support. I also believe, if I may say so in passing, that practical support should be given to the Swedish proposal to have a 200-mile band on both sides of the Iron Curtain in which no nuclear weapons

233
would be held. The House will be aware that some authorities have recommended that NATO and the United States should consider giving a pledge that there would be no first use of nuclear weapons. Among these are Mr. Robert MacNamara, the former Defence Secretary of the United States, and Mr. McGeorge Bundy, a former national security adviser.
I am sure that we all read with the greatest interest the debate in the General Synod of the Church of England last Thursday following the publication of The Church and the Bomb. I thought it was a very impressive occasion and no one's sincerity in that debate can be in any doubt. I have a feeling that the motion which was finally agreed in its totality reflected in general the feelings of the British people at this time. It also helps us to try to take an objective view of the problem. It is not easy to avoid party political arguments on major issues like this, and in a democracy party political arguments are inevitable and desirable. But this does not mean scoring party political points at every opportunity. We are all seeking the road to a stable peace.
While it rejected the unilaterist approach, the Synod's motion also stressed that the,
"tactics and strategy of NATO should be seen to be unmistakably defensive";
and also—and again I quote:
"judges that even a small-scale first use of nuclear weapons could never be morally justified in view of the high risk that this would lead to full-scale nuclear warfare".
The Synod went on to reinforce this by resolving that,
"there is a moral obligation on all countries …publicly to forswear the first use of nuclear weapons in ally form".
This, again, is further support, and very strong support, from the Synod for the arguments of Mr. MacNamara and Mr McGeorge Bundy.
I am sure that the House would like to have the Government's response to these proposals. What is the Government's reaction to the broad proposals of the General Synod last Thursday—because the Synod went on to urge the Government to take immediate steps to further the principle of the motion,
"so as to reduce NATO's dependence on nuclear weapons and to decrease nuclear arsenals throughout the world".
That was the decision of the Synod; that was the motion that they carried.
Of course, this is the very question upon which the hopes and prayers of people everywhere are concentrated. While the people of the West are vocal and free to express their fears, I think that the ordinary people of the Soviet Union and of the countries of the Warsaw Pact cannot voice their fears, but I am pretty sure that they are as apprehensive as we are about the consequences of nuclear weapons. The question is this: What are the real prospects of disarmament? The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, posed the question himself. My personal reaction, if I may say so, is that I find myself going through moods of optimism and of pessimism—and this has nothing to do with being a Welshman. I have a sense of optimism when I hear of conferences being convened in Geneva or Madrid or Vienna, and pessimism when they drag on or adjourn inconclusively.
First, we hear public statements and counter-statements by the leaders of the great powers and these
234
are partly propaganda, but one hopes that they are more than that. President Reagan's offer to meet Mr. Andropov will, I hope, be taken up; but such a meeting might be less than useful unless there is a genuine will on both sides to make progress and unless there has been adequate preparation beforehand. We would all like to see some more progress in the START talks which were resumed on 31st January. We know that the obstacles are the United States emphasis on land-based missiles and the Soviet insistence on including British and French systems in the assessment on warhead numbers. For this reason alone it is unfortunate that France and Britain are not represented in these talks at Geneva, talks which are so vital to our interests and to those of Western Europe.
I asked the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, last week, in an exchange during Question Time, what progress had been made in Geneva. He was unable to say anything then and I fully understood why he was unable to do so, but it will be helpful if we can be told, either by him or by the noble Baroness, whether they have any further information about the progress of these talks. There are very complicated issues on the table at Geneva; for example, the reported proposals by the Soviets to cut the SS20 force targeted against Western Europe by half if there is no deployment of cruise or Pershing. This may not be acceptable but it should still be the basis for negotiation. I personally would not accept it as it is, but it should be the basis for further talks. We should also bear in mind, as the noble Lord has said, that the Soviet Union has a substantial overall preponderance of weapons for use in the European theatre.
I would like to refer briefly to the article by Mr. Denis Healey in last Sunday's Observer. I thought that the case he makes is a formidable one, and I am sure that it will be taken seriously. What Mr. Healey argues is that none of the allies would control either the trigger or the safety catch of the American missiles and that they—the missiles, that is—would introduce a new dimension because they would be on land in heavily-populated areas and not far away at sea and they would be very vulnerable to a surprise nuclear attack. As he says, the Government's plans to move the carrier lorries around the country to prepared sites from Molesworth and Greenham Common do not make them more attractive. He goes on to argue, and I quote:
"If cruise is once deployed, it will make an arms agreement enormously more difficult since its mobility and small size make it impossible to discover by satellite photography (which is the only method of verification that Russia has so far allowed) … The balance of power will then become much less stable than it is today. The more one ponders these arguments, the more one is convinced that a settlement in Geneva is"—
of crucial urgency for both sides.
We have heard a great deal about the zero option proposed by President Reagan and, from an ideal standpoint, including the CND standpoint, and certainly from a pacifist standpoint, this is a desirable solution. Some day I hope that it will be attainable. In the meantime, the Soviet Union do not like it and one has the impression that Vice-President Bush returned to the United States with the object of finding some intermediate negotiating position. I find it extremely encouraging that after travelling around Europe as he did—and I hope and believe that it was an extremely

235
successful tour—he came to certain conclusions which he will discuss with his colleagues in Washington. He is reported as saying that the,
"zero option is not dead as an objective; the question is how can it be reached?"
When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, talks about disarmament, this in my submission is the key question. How can the log jam be shifted, how can we reach the objective we all desire to be attained? I believe that there is a shift in the Russian attitude due primarily to the change of leadership. Mr. Andropov has said that they are not naîve. That we all understand. But they are determined and ruthless negotiators and they will strike the bargain that suits them best. The fact that they are able to speak with a united voice helps them. The United States also wants a fair settlement. Does anyone really believe that the Americans are less anxious for peace than the Russians? I do not think that there is a single noble Lord in this Chamber who would suggest that. For my own part, I am much happier in the company of the "Declaration of Independence" than I am in the company of Das Kapital, but that is merely a personal view given in parenthesis.
There are arguments and differences within the alliance because we are not disciplined, and sometimes unfortunate things are said without proper consultation. Furthermore, the question of a dual key on American missiles in Britain should be settled quickly. Would the Government have an absolute veto in the case of the cruise missile? There is a serious lack of clarity about the Government's ability and right to decide whether or not missiles can be launched from American bases in this country without explicit decisions by the British Prime Minister and the American President.
I read the debate in another place on 7th February, and I was not greatly reassured. To say, as the Prime Minister did—and I quote from col. 789 of Hansard for 25th January:
"The position is exactly the same as it has been for the past 30 years",
is not good enough. If there is to be trust between us as allies, then it must be mutual trust.
I listened with great interest to Mr. Heseltine when he was interviewed about this question on television on Sunday. He said:
"It is not conceivable that a British Prime Minister could be put in a position where they [the missiles] could be used without her knowing about it".
It may be inconceivable, but is it absolutely certain? That is what we are not sure about. Given the changes to which I have referred, however, there does seem to be an opportunity now to try to prevent the arms race from moving into a new and more perilous phase.
On this aspect, I think two points are relevant. I come back again to what I believe is of primary importance, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will agree with me on this. The Geneva talks, where one hopes that both sides will show sensible flexibility, give East and West the opportunity to show whether they really mean what they say. We want substantial and verifiable reduction in SS20s, and this in turn would help the Western allies to move
236
away from large-scale dependence on land based cruise missiles. This is of crucial importance. The objective must be a substantial reduction in intermediate nuclear forces with verification, and if both sides are in earnest there is no defensible reason why progress should not be made in Geneva. It is for this reason that we hope that the Government will press our ally, the United States, very hard in the conference in Geneva.
In the event of slow progress, then a meeting between the leaders may help to remove obstacles and make a settlement possible. It is that point—the progress in Geneva—that counts. Subsequently, if there is a faltering there or a failure to make progress, then President Reagan and Mr. Andropov might meet.
Both sides are now capable of obliterating each other and everyone else several times over. There is only one sensible direction, and that is back from the abyss, back from lunacy, and back from evil. Thank heavens we are at last talking about reducing and not just limiting the nuclear horror! A short time ago it was a question of limitation; now at least we are talking about bringing the numbers of these diabolical weapons down. We must hope that the Government will give constructive and persistent support to these moves for an honourable settlement. We hope that they will bring all pressure to bear upon our ally, the United States, to achieve such a settlement. I believe that it is within the grasp of the great powers now, and a failure to gain it would be a major setback to the cause of peace.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, we on these Benches support the Motion so far as it goes, but we feel it is too negative and altogether too bland. Of course, we agree that NATO's deterrent has been needed in the past and is needed now; that is, its conventional deterrent and nuclear deterrent. But, in our view, NATO's deterrent strategy is wholly unsatisfactory and needs to be radically reformed. Similarly, we agree that unilateralism is mistaken and that it undermines the multilateral approach, but we are far from satisfied with the energy of the Government and the Administration of the United States in pursuing multilateral disarmament.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, put me at something of a disadvantage because one might have gathered from listening to his praise of the Church of England that the Synod had come out four-square for the defence policy of the Labour Party. But of course the Synod rejected the most controversial and important parts of the Labour Party's policy. It rejected unilateralism; it rejected the withdrawal of the United States bases at this time from the United Kingdom. It rejected a resolution calling for unilateral disarmament by the United Kingdom.
Similarly, one might have expected the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to have some warm words for the Synod. Instead, he criticised the Synod for their proposal that NATO defence strategy should be changed to a no-first-use strategy. I should like to try to answer one or two of the points that the noble Lord made against this concept. He will agree, I am sure—as everyone agrees—that the first nuclear weapon that is

237
fired is extremely likely to get a nuclear response. Then it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to prevent a nuclear war in which the whole question of winning and losing, or even of right and wrong, becomes monumentally irrelevant. This cannot surely be a sensible and credible basis for a defence policy.
How can we avoid the feeling in the Russian mind that in fact in a time of crisis the West would not take action which amounted to mutual suicide? They may be wrong. But it is a reasonable chance that the Russians will assume that the West will not by firing the first nuclear weapon bring down the whole house of cards and possibly destroy civilisation. They may take a chance on it. They may then find that the West fires a nuclear weapon first; or they may find that in the chaos of a battlefield situation a nuclear weapon is fired through misunderstanding, panic or by accident. This cannot be a satisfactory defence posture for the NATO countries. It cannot command the loyalty and common sense support of large sections of people who are not unilateralists at all.
The disappointing aspect about the Motion—and, if I may say so, about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—is that he suggested no change in this at all. He suggested a continuance of the extreme dependence of the NATO countries on the first use of nuclear weapons. Obviously, a change of strategy is not something which can be done quickly or easily. We entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it would mean major changes in the composition, size and role of NATO's conventional forces. They need to be so strengthened that they can deter and, if necessary, defeat any Soviet attack without resort to nuclear weapons.
At the same time it requires the restricion of NATO's unclear armoury strictly to the second-strike role—that is, to the deterrence of a nuclear attack. That is the objective, as I understand it, of a first-strike strategy. Unlike the flexible strategy of NATO today, this would be credible. It would not be based on the willingness of any NATO country to commit suicide. It would remove Soviet and NATO fingers a good deal further from unclear triggers; it would restore to NATO's conventional forces self-reliance and a sense of purpose, which are sometimes lacking, and it would be very likely to relax tension and help forward détente.
The problem of course is the gap between the conventional strength of NATO and the conventional strength of the Warsaw Pact. The first thing to say about this surely is that it is wholly disgraceful and extraordinary that such a gap should ever have been allowed to develop. Our gross national product, our industrial base, is far greater than that of the Warsaw Pact. Our military technology is more advanced than theirs. We do not have to face, as they do, both ways: West and East. The fact is that the existence of the gap is entirely due to lack of political will in the past by the peoples and Governments of the NATO countries. It arises from the illusion, which is now rapidly disappearing, that you can get security on the cheap with nuclear weapons. Fortunately, public opinion is becoming increasingly aware of these points. It may well be that if the dangers of the first-use strategy are put plainly to the public, and if it is pointed out that we can at least reduce the chances of nuclear war by
238
stronger conventional forces, we may get a surprisingly positive reply. After all, there can be few times in our history when the standing of the armed forces has been higher than it is now, or when people have been more willing to make sacrifices for peace.
How big is the gap? The facts are well established and are accepted equally, I think, by the United States and the Soviet Union. They are set out in the respected survey of the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the conclusion of which was as follows:
"The overall balance continues to be such as to make military aggression a highly risky operation. Though tactical redeployment could provide a local advantage in numbers sufficient to allow an attacker to believe that he might achieve a tactical success, there would still appear to be insufficient overall strength on either side to guarantee victory. The consequence for an attacker would be unpredictable".
That is unquestionably the best and most considered assessment of the gap in power between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, and it was written before the fighting between Israel and Syria, or indeed to some extent before the Falklands gave us all added confidence in Western weapons. This assessment is made purely on military grounds. There is no reference here to politics or morale; but we know well that if the Russians did attack in the West they would have very great security problems in Eastern Europe. We know, too, that a whole number of the satellite formations are of very doubtful fighting quality.
I think the conclusion for any painstaking and fairminded person must be that there may be a gap but the gap is certainly not unbridgeable. How, then, should we close the gap? Obviously the best way would be by success in the mutual and balanced force reductions talks in Vienna. After long years of failure, it is easy to despair of them; but agreement has been reached there, not only on definitions, procedures and principles, but on specific ceilings for the forces of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO powers—a 900,000 total ceiling of military manpower and, within that, a 700,000 total ceiling of ground troops. Anyone who studies the records of these frustrating negotiations is bound to get a strong impression that the reason for failure is not some particularly intractable feature of the problem itself: the reason is fear, suspicion and caution on an excessive scale on both sides of the negotiating table. It seems just the type of problem which might be solved surprisingly quickly as a result of personal contacts at the highest level—for example, it might be the outcome of a meeting between President Reagan and Mr. Andropov.
But success in Vienna is not by any means the only way in which the gap could be closed. My noble friend Lord Gladwyn is co-sponsor of a new and authoritative study of this whole question of no first use; and when he speaks later he will discuss in greater detail the changes needed in the conventional deployment and size of the NATO forces and also the cost. On cost, at this stage, the only thing I would say is this: the cost to the United States of this new strategy would certainly be less than the cost of the MX missiles, whose value to Western defence is very controversial even in Washington itself. The cost to the United Kingdom would be less than the cost of Trident and the Falklands. It is not, therefore, enough to say as this resolution says, that the NATO deterrent has done well in the past. Circumstances change, time and

239
technology move on, and the resolution really should have referred to the need for a basic change in NATO's strategic posture.
Finally, in numerous past debates my noble friend Lord Gladwyn and I and other noble friends have set out our party's position on multilateral disarmament, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has done in his speech. I will not repeat what we have so often said. On the point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we entirely agree that the most urgent and important thing now is to reach agreement on the intermediate-range weapons discussions at Geneva. We have often said that the Europeans should be much better represented at these talks. It is in Europe that these missiles would be launched and it is in Europe that they would land. Therefore Europe is entitled to participate, and in particular the United Kingdom is entitled to participate and to have the Polaris submarines as part of the negotiating process. There is a very strong case indeed for that.
We on this side would urge a successful conclusion to the talks. If they fail, then we shall take note, in deciding whether to support or oppose deployment, of the position of the Americans and the Russians and the views of our NATO allies and of the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as to whether or not double safety catch systems are provided. Ministers have been energetically attacking the unilateralists, but I think a number of noble Lords on this side hope that they will now attack with equal energy the problems of nuclear strategy and multilateral disarmament.
4.6 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I know that I speak for all my noble friends when I say that we have greatly welcomed the speech of my noble friend Lord Carrington, who has introduced a subject of the utmost importance to this nation and, indeed, to all nations. We have been greatly encouraged by what he has said.
It is worth reflecting on the overriding reason why NATO was set up in the first place; namely, to keep the peace—peace with freedom. This is what it has done. It has safeguarded the peace in Europe since the Second World War—indeed, for by far the longest period this century—and in so doing it has made possible the growth of democracy and prosperity in western Europe on a scale which would have seemed utopian during much of the 1930s and 1940s.
NATO has achieved this through a strategy of deterrence. It is a misconception to suppose that we can enjoy the benefits of peace without ensuring that we have the means to secure it. It is because the Soviet Union knows that the NATO Alliance has the means and the will to defend itself that they conclude that there is nothing to be achieved by the threat or the use of force.
I am afraid it is a fallacy to believe, as some appear to do, that the Soviet Union poses no threat. The Soviet threat is not a product of the imagination of military planners, or something which we can banish through wishful thinking. A glance at the childhood atlases of most of your Lordships reminds us of the
240
way the Soviet Union has been prepared to use opportunities to overrun its neighbours. Since the end of the Second World War the Red Army has been used on two major occasions in Europe: in Hungary in 1956 and in Czechoslovakia in 1968. Today, try telling the Poles, who under the threat of similar Soviet intervention have seen a military government installed whose aim is to suppress the aspirations for freedom and democracy embodied in Solidarity, that the Soviet military power poses no threat. And try telling the 2.5 million Afghans who fled to Pakistan after their country had been invaded by Soviet troops three years ago!
To maintain this effective deterrent, NATO does not need to match Soviet forces man for man or weapon for weapon; but it does need strong defences at all levels. But, of course, the success of NATO's deterrence strategy does not mean that we can afford to be content with the present situation or complacent about the future. We cannot. The Government, and all the Governments of our NATO allies, are working unremittingly for balanced and verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements which will provide security at a lower level of arms on all sides. Multilateral disarmament has already succeeded, through painstaking negotiation, to a far greater extent than is generally realised. The non-proliferation treaty has prevented the spread of nuclear weapons; antiballistic missiles are so limited that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could ever hope to escape retaliation.
Unilateralism, or one-sided disarmament, does not achieve this goal. Unilateral disarmament by Britain, or by NATO as a whole, would not only reduce our security and make war more likely by undermining our ability to deter attack; it would also make a nonsense of the arms control negotiations going on in Geneva, to which we, and all our allies, attach the greatest importance.
There is absolutely no reason to suppose that those in the Kremlin, who have devoted so much effort to building up Soviet conventional and nuclear forces, would be remotely influenced if we were to renounce our own nuclear capability. Indeed, Mr. Andropov has himself described unilateral disarmament as naïve. There is no evidence that unilateral disarmament would evoke a matching response from the Russians, but there is evidence that it might evoke just the opposite. Indeed, noble Lords will recall that it was no less a statesman than the late Mr. Aneurin Bevan who said:
"But if you carry this resolution with all its implications"—
this was on unilateral nuclear disarmament—
"and do not run away from it, you will send a Foreign Secretary naked into the conference chamber. This is not necessarily the way in which you can take away the menace of the bomb from the world."
It is also worth recalling that in 1979 NATO announced its intention to withdraw 1,000 nuclear warheads from Europe. This has been done. But in the same period the Russians, far from matching the NATO reduction, have continued to install their SS20 missiles, on which there are now over 700 warheads targeted against Western Europe, including this country. This suggests that if we in this country, or NATO as a whole, make unilateral reductions in our

241
nuclear forces which are central to our security, we shall reduce our security, increase the risks of war and reduce the chances of negotiating balanced arms reductions.
We all followed with great interest the debate by the General Synod last week, and welcomed the principal message of the motion passed. It made all the greater impact when we remember that it was prefaced by the point that the task of the Church was to give a moral lead, rather than to determine defence strategy. The Synod affirmed that it was the duty of the NATO Governments to maintain adequate forces to guarantee against nuclear blackmail and to deter nuclear and non-nuclear aggressors. We welcomed the statements of the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, when he said that, too often, Britain had appeared to send misleading signals to those who had been tempted to pursue aggression and that, in his view, unilateral measures would not have the effect of stimulating multilateral disarmament.
But, my Lords, we find difficulties in accepting the Synod's call for all countries to forswear the first use of nuclear weapons, however honourable the motives. This was a point to which my noble friend Lord Carrington and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, referred. NATO has gone further. In June 1982 President Reagan and all the other NATO leaders pledged that no NATO weapon, nuclear or conventional, would ever be used except in response to attack. NATO is confronted by massive Warsaw Pact conventional forces, and cannot afford to match them. The cost would be too great to be tolerated in our democracies. I observed that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, did not, in fact, gibe us an estimate of the cost of his proposals.
In foreseeable circumstances, therefore, there could be a temptation for the Russians to use as a political lever the threat of launching a conventional war in Europe, if they saw no danger of a nuclear response by NATO. NATO policy is to ensure that the Russians can never be certain that they will be able to fight a limited war in Europe at any level, without the risk of escalating into nuclear war. The certainty of this uncertainty is what deters. It is, therefore, the multilateral road, the achievement of balanced and verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements, which is the best, indeed the only road to providing peace and security at a lower level of armaments than we have now. Therefore, let me now turn to those crucial negotiations taking place in Geneva.
I should like to nail on the head one misconception that has been voiced: that NATO is stonewalling in the negotiations and rejecting Soviet initiatives. On the contrary, it is the United States, with the full support of Britain and all NATO Governments, which have put forward the proposals for really radical reductions in intermediate and long-range nuclear weapons. And they mean it. One had only to listen to the conviction with which Vice-President Bush spoke at the Guildhall last week to know that.
For example, at the INF negotiations, much has been made of Mr. Andropov's offer of December 1982 to withdraw some of their SS20s from Europe. In important aspects this offer is unacceptable. It would leave the Russians with a monopoly in this class of
242
intermediate range forces, and would not provide us with the balance essential for Western security. But, as we said at the time, if Mr. Andropov's offer means that the Soviet Union is prepared, in principle, to reduce the number of SS20s, and to recognise that there must be such reductions before there can be a greater security, then it would seem to be a small step in the right direction. But amid the talk of the Soviet "peace initiative", has it been forgotten that it is NATO that has offered, through the zero option, to eliminate this class of intermediate-range weapons entirely? President Reagan's recent appeal to Mr. Andropov for a meeting to discuss wiping these missiles from the face of the earth was turned down flat by the latter. Who is stonewalling whom?
Of course it is naïve to suppose that the Soviet Union would not prefer to keep its present superiority in INF weaponry. Of course it would prefer to keep the SS20s without making any concession to NATO. It is not surprising that the Soviet Union has held back to see if political doubts in Western Europe would do the job for it by, in effect, scotching NATO's plans to deploy cruise and Pershing II missiles. But can anyone say that that outcome would be more likely to preserve peace?
We must be right to hold out for something better, more radical and safer. NATO is not inflexible. We believe that the zero option proposal is far and away the best outcome, but President Reagan has made it clear all along that the United States negotiators will listen to and consider any serious proposals by their Soviet counterpart. We believe that in the absence of zero we must have balanced numbers agreed across the negotiating table at Geneva.
I have dwelt at some length on the INF negotiations because I believe that they are, rightly, at the forefront of public concern. However, let me briefly remind the House that radical Western proposals are not confined solely to the INF negotiations. At the START talks, the United States proposals would cut by half the ballistic missile forces of the United States and the Soviet Union; and at the MBFR talks the West has put forward proposals to reduce conventional forces on the central front by making a commitment to this by all participants in the Vienna negotiations—a factor which the eastern bloc had always held to be an obstacle to agreement on conventional forces. This month we have seen a further Western initiative announced by Vice-President Bush during his visit to Europe. We welcome the new proposals by the United States for a chemical weapons convention, tabled on 10th February.
Before I conclude I should like to place on the record again the position over the control of cruise missiles, if they have to be sited in Britain in the absence of agreement at Geneva. The arrangements will be exactly the same as those which have applied for many years to the United States F-111 nuclear-capable aircraft in Britain. These mean that it would not be possible for these weapons to be used without the agreement of both the Prime Minister and the President.
Some of the questions about control have spilled over into anti-Americanism. One hears allegations of American warmongering or lack of United States commitment to the security of Europe. But we should

243
be clear in our minds about what the Americans are doing. They are renewing the invaluable commitment which they made to Western Europe after the war. They are making it clear that our security is as important to them as their own. Let us be clear that the Americans deploy nuclear forces in Europe in full knowledge of the Soviet position that any nuclear strike by United States weapons on Soviet territory, wherever they were launched from, would be met by retaliation against the United States. The American commitment to the defence of Europe is further illustrated by the fact that they have 300,000 troops stationed here. Western Europe depends upon the United States for its security and the Americans depend on Europe for theirs. Our positions are interdependent. Together we have voluntarily pledged ourselves to the common defence of our freedom. Together we are committed to search for ways of reducing the level of armaments while preserving that freedom and that security.
4.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, the Lord Bishop of London was hoping to speak in this debate as the leader of the debate in the General Synod to which reference has already been made. Unfortunately, he has 'flu and at the last moment I have been asked to substitute for him. This means, I fear, that I shall have to leave before the end of the debate, and I should like in advance to offer my apologies.
It is an unusual experience to sit in your Lordships' House and hear references to the General Synod of the Church of England from all four quarters, most of them quite flattering references. Perhaps I ought to make it clear that the General Synod as such is not interested in political parties. Indeed, one of the reactions to the debate has been the relief felt by many ordinary people that a subject of this magnitude can be discussed in a serious but non-political context. I would—though greatly daring—like to suggest to the politicians among us that perhaps one of the most urgent tasks facing politicians in this field at the moment is to try to stop making this a source of party conflict. It seems to me quite essential that, above all things, the nation should be united on its defence policy.
Let me now comment on the General Synod debate. As we have been told, the Synod decisively rejected a modest unilateral motion. To that extent it seems to support the motion in front of us now. But the Synod also expressed grave moral concern about the whole issue and it did not simply wish to endorse the status quo.
Let me say a word first about the moral aspects. There has been much public discussion of what may seem to be some rather high flown and abstract arguments. There has been debate on whether the old doctrine of "the just war" will really carry the load that is placed upon it by discussion of nuclear deterrence. There have been plenty of reminders that one cannot settle complex issues of this kind simply on the basis of abstract principles. There have been those who have drawn a sharp contrast between what they might call an ethics of principle and an ethics of consequence. In
244
fact, it seems to me that any sound moral approach to political questions must make use of both an ethics of principle and an ethics of consequence.
One has to recognise that most of political life is in fact conducted in terms of an ethics of consequence, but an ethics of principle has a vital role in relation to that in acting as a corrective and in setting limits to what can be done in the name of some supposed desirable end. Without an ultimate respect for principle, an ethics of consequence can degenerate into mere expediency. Without an ethics of consequence, an ethics of principle can become foolishly and unrealistically rigid. In a word and to put the matter in secular terms, we need both John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kant. And, because they do not always agree, there is never a simple, straightforward, moral answer to complex problems. In practice, moral decisions emerge out of the attempt to wrestle with both types of ethics.
I realise that it is grossly presumptuous to give your Lordships' House a mini-lecture on ethical theory, but I do so because some of the debate on the subject has been conducted in these terms and it seemed best to comment upon it. What we can say, despite the moral uncertainties in this area, is that even in the most complex political situations there are moral limits which we dare not transgress and that nuclear devastation is one of those moral limits. This is what makes many Christian consciences feel that whatever the arguments from the standpoint of political realism, we cannot afford morally to remain just where we are now. This was the strong feeling expressed in a world context at the World Council of Churches hearing in Amsterdam 18 months ago. This is a position taken up not just by the Church of England; it is gradually being taken up by the Roman Catholic Bishops in the United States. They are not saying, "Let us abandon nuclear deterrence" but, "Let us start moving in a new direction which will make us less dependent upon these weapons".
One very practical reason for wanting to do this is that in the long run nuclear deterrence does not seem to be sufficiently stable. Whatever the truth about the history of the last 38 years and the part that nuclear deterrence has played in it, we cannot, I believe, simply assume that this will be true for the next 38 years, or the next 138 years. I want to emphasise the words "in the long run". I believe that at the moment deterrence is stable. This is why I deplore some of the alarmist talk which is so prevalent nowadays and the attempts to whip up hysteria. This matter needs cool, rational discussion. But, in the long run, I believe, the picture is bleaker, first because deterrence—any deterrence—needs constant updating. The fear engendered by this constant need to update (this applies to all weapons) becomes especially threatening at the high level of technical sophistication now reached in terms of nuclear weapons.
Secondly, the picture seems to me to be unstable in the long run because of the danger that this very sophistication will more and more put the control of these weapons outside the reach of ordinary political decision-making. I think also that part of the instability is that we are dealing not just with vertical proliferation but with horizontal proliferation. We have heard already in this debate how this is likely to

245
increase over the next decade or so. Then again, a further reason for instability which has been mentioned is the squandering of resources, both financial and in terms of expertise. This goes on in a way which cannot possibly bring about the real conditions for peace. We shall only find peace in our world in so far as we are fighting against the conditions which make totalitarian solutions to human problems seem attractive; in so far as we are fighting against world poverty; and in so far as we are searching with all the expertise at our disposal for new areas of co-operation between nations.
These are not reasons for abandoning nuclear deterrence, but they do support the moral arguments against pushing deterrence more into the background of our strategic thinking as a final, unthinkable resort. It is this desire to push it into the background that lies behind the General Synod's very strong call for a no first use guarantee. It was entirely predictable, of course, that such a call would instantly be dismissed as impracticable. Of course it is, at the moment. The synod was fully aware of NATO's present strategy. That is why the statement that there is,
"a moral obligation publicly to forswear the first use of nuclear weapons in any form",
was deliberately linked in another part of our Motion with the call to,
"reduce progressively NATO dependence on nuclear weapons".
The point is not what we are able to do or what we are not able to do immediately. The point is, what do we declare as our aims? There is no reason I can see why the Government should not start a sympathetic discussion of no first use as a realistic aim. I believe that to do so would begin to restore greater moral credit to NATO policy. A policy of this kind does need moral credit. In fact it was fascinating before the General Synod debate took place to see politicians rushing around the Church of England looking for some sort of moral legitimation. This is what it is about and this is why, in the end, we cannot ignore the moral issues.
Such a no first use aim could also create a very different atmosphere for multilateral negotiations. It could take a lot of the steam out of current agitations. Of course I recognise that guarantees of this kind belong to a different order of things from treaties or bilateral agreements. They belong more to the world of propaganda, but that is not to be despised. More important, the setting of the long-term direction in which policy must move could begin to give a real impetus to change.
Again, the General Synod was well aware of the implications of what it was asking for. But if it means—and that this is arguable is a point made already in this debate—greater dependence on conventional weapons in NATO, with all the extra financial and social costs that that might entail, then so be it. In the course of the debate of the General Synod I quoted Professor Michael Howard's recent remark to the effect that Europe needs to grow up by becoming less dependent upon the United States' nuclear weapons. This would in no sense entail any weakening of the Western Alliance. In fact, it could strengthen the alliance by removing some of the present causes of friction and by making us seem to be a little more equal partners on both sides.
246
Professor Howard also pointed out the moral implications of the fact that Europe has had its defence on the cheap. I agree with him. Part of the process of coming to terms morally with these frightful weapons must surely be to pay a greater share of the real cost of defending our ideals. My welcome for this Motion is therefore a very cautious one. I do not wish in any way to doubt the sincerity of the Government's desire to take genuine steps towards multilateral disarmament. But I would plead for a greater willingness to acknowledge that there are other intermediate goals. One such goal would be a shift in NATO strategy leading to a no first use declaration; intermediate goals could be of real value in the maintenance of peace.
4.36 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, in view of the exchange we had immediately after Questions on the subject of procedure, I am not sure whether it is any longer correct for me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for introducing this debate. I personally at least am very glad that he did introduce it, and I am always pleased to hear what the noble Lord has to say.
I was pleased also to hear the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, who speaks for his party on this occasion. It was a very multilateral speech in reply to a Motion that calls for no unilateral action. His was a good speech, but it did not deal with the question of unilateralism. There is no good pretending that many people in this country—probably the majority—are not extremely worried, and genuinely so, about the whole question of nuclear disarmament. If one reads yesterday's opinion poll, as I did, one finds that in the course of three months the number of people who are concerned about multilateral or unilateral disarmament has in fact doubled. People place unemployment top—as we would know is bound to be the case, and it could not be otherwise—but defence and disarmament come second. People are genuinely worried.
They are worried too by the nonsense one sometimes hears about nuclear-free cities or nuclear-free towns. I even read the other day of a nuclear-free street. What does this mean? It may be a lot of nonsense, but a poor lady who is extremely worried may feel that if she moves from a nuclear-free street to one that is not, she is jeopardising her life in some way. That is nonsense, and the people who start that sort of thing are simply being mischievous and worrying people unnecessarily.
Nevertheless, there is genuine fear. As has been said already, our main hopes must lie in the intermediate nuclear force discussions in Geneva. But there are grounds for optimism. Currently, we learn that the United States are no longer going for what was known as the Zero Option. This is a move in the right direction. We read also that the USSR are prepared to reduce their SS20s to 162 in number. That is something, but it still remains a considerable force. I was interested to read in the speech made by Mr. Denis Healey in another place on 15th December that he was not too happy about the decision to reduce to 162 the number of SS20s and that he did not think it was altogether wise to accept it. That is the view of most of us who are a bit sceptical about offers of that description which would leave Russia with a very considerable

247
force. Nevertheless, we must consider any worthwhile proposal that may come to us in Geneva during the discussions.
I do not agree entirely with the idea that has just been advanced on the question of no first use. If one thinks in terms of both sides having battlefield nuclear weapons, it is going to be difficult for a side which is losing out on a conventional war—perhaps being driven back to the sea—not to use a weapon in its armoury which could easily, if not stop the other side, help to delay it. I do not think that the idea of no first use is viable, but I do feel that one could perhaps get somewhere with an agreement on no early use of battlefield nuclear weapons.
There is a question whether battlefield nuclear weapons are credible at all, and a good many experts are not sure whether that is so, but nevertheless they do exist. I think I am happier about the Swedish proposal for a band or zone in central Europe in which no nuclear weapons are sited. It does not prevent intermediate nuclear weapons from flying overhead, but that band would prevent what starts as a conventional war from becoming a nuclear war almost overnight.
I accept that if we do that we shall have to build up conventional forces, and that can be very expensive. The hope of matching the conventional forces of Russia is, in my view, an almost impossible one. But we can build up. We only have to remember the successful Falklands war a few months ago and whatever we say about it, our conventional forces were pretty stretched. Therefore, building up is necessary. I think that we could save some money by dropping the Trident inter-continental missile idea. That would save a considerable amount of money, some of which might be used to build up conventional forces.
Those of us who take the line that I and my party take are entitled to ask: what then if Geneva fails? There can be only one answer. Intermediate nuclear missiles would have to be deployed with the hope that one could get them down to as small a number as possible, bearing in mind that, if one accepts the reduced Russian figure, 162 missiles will be facing us.
So, despite the protest of the ladies at Greenham Common, who are protesting at a site where there are as yet no nuclear missiles or launchers, if we have to deploy them, we have to. But I hope it will be done within NATO, with NATO's agreement and, finally, with the endorsement in this country of both Houses of Parliament. This is much too serious to leave it to one person to decide, no matter how tough that one person may be.
This Motion is about unilateral nuclear disarmament for Britain. That is the policy of the Labour Party, whatever may be said to the contrary, and it is the policy passed at its annual conference. It was endorsed by the party on 15th December at a meeting of its National Executive at which the Leader of the Opposition and Mr. Denis Healey were present. The policy is, in fact, for complete unilateral nuclear disarmament. That may not be the view of all members of the Labour Party. I know many of them well because I was with them for many years, but I am afraid that it is the policy of their leader.
248
A complete unilateral policy for Britain cannot do otherwise than mean withdrawal from NATO. One cannot stay in NATO with a unilateral nuclear policy while members of NATO are going ahead. I am sure that the USSR would be delighted with any decision for unilateralism. Many people seem to think, wrongly, that the abolition of nuclear weapons would make us nuclear safe. Of course it does nothing of the sort. I agree with what has been said by the Leader of the House that in the 40 years since the last war it is almost certainly the existence of nuclear deterrents that has kept the peace. It has been rather a restless peace, but at least it has not been open war.
So from these Benches we completely reject unilateral nuclear disarmament. I remind the House—and the speech has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, although I believe he paraphrased it—of what Mr. Andropov is reported to have said. It was:
"No one can ask that we disarm unilaterally. We are not naive people. Nor do we expect unilateral disarmament of the West."
Our answer to that must be that the British people are not naive either. We hope and pray that the Geneva talks will succeed and that the employment of intermediate nuclear weapons will not be necessary. However, if they are we shall have to face it. I hope within NATO. Should there be a Division tonight—and I do not for one moment suppose that there will be—there is no doubt which way my colleagues and I on these Benches will vote. It will be with the Government.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Carrington has deployed with such clarity the reasons why NATO has adopted a policy of deterrence pending multilateral disarmament, and exposed with such clinical precision the fallacies in the belief that the Soviet Union can be disarmed by example, that I need not cover any of that ground again. I shall be content with three reflections. The first concerns British weaponry, so long as military confrontation exists; the second is a reflection on the no-first-use formula for reducing tension; and the third, some of my feelings as a layman about the moral content in the nuclear debate. It will be a sad day when the Church does not speak out in this House. Happily, there is no danger of that as far as I can see while the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues occupy those Benches—and often may we hear the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham.
First of all, a thought about British nuclear weaponry. A short time ago the attack was against the adoption of Trident. It has now moved to questioning the cruise missiles and the Pershing. My feeling is that if Britain is to have a nuclear weapon at all, let it be Trident and let it be these two missiles. I say that for these reasons. America has taken Polaris out of production and is bringing Trident into production. If Britain's deterrent is to carry any conviction at all, we cannot be seen to be divorcing ourselves from access to the Trident production line. If we give up Polaris and do not adopt Trident, we shall have nothing convincing at all. As long as the military confrontation lasts, I would also suggest in relation to the cruise missile and the Pershing that, if the potential enemy

249
are to take any notice at all, one must have weapons comparable to the weapons which they themselves deploy.
I turn to the suggestion which came from the Synod of the Church of England that a declaration should be made by the Russians and by the Western allies of no first use of nuclear weapons. The democracies in the NATO Alliance have already said that they will not launch a war with any weapons and will not take aggressive action. But, of course, the difficulty in the NATO Alliance is that for 10 years NATO has failed to rearm in this respect. That is why, if I may say so to the right reverend Prelate, nuclear weapons come into the foreground. It is because we have placed ourselves at such a disadvantage with the Warsaw Pact countries.
The difficulty which I have with the latest proposal supported by the Synod is rather different. I have seen the Soviet Union solemnly put their signature to, for example, the non-intervention clause in the United Nations Charter. Much more recently I have seen the Soviet leaders pledge themselves not to invade their neighbours—they did that in the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference. Within three years they had in fact invaded Afghanistan. So I am afraid that the proposal for no-first-use will be just another paper declaration, and that is why I much prefer to go for a substantive reduction of arms which can be verified on the ground.
Inspection and verification have been only casually mentioned in this debate, and they have been rather lost sight of in recent months. But it must be made clear now, and particularly to the Russians so that they have no excuse for saying that they were misled, that any agreed plan of disarmament must be verified on the ground. Against the contemporary background of occupied Czechoslovakia, of occupied Afghanistan with four million refugees, of the continuing war in South-East Asia and of the refugee problem of the boat people, to say nothing of the Berlin Wall and the Russian domination of what is happening in Poland, I am afraid that nothing can be taken on trust.
Therefore, with that catalogue of Russian actions in front of us, we must say that the onus of proving their good faith in disarmament must be placed on the Russian leaders. The West, of course, has accepted inspection, and no doubt the Soviet Union has the same kind of suspicions of the Americans and NATO as we have of their intentions. But I cannot get over the fact that these awful facts of life are with us now, and they are the result of Soviet action. Therefore, verification must be a part of any disarmament proposal.
Finally, I turn to the morality of nuclear deterrence. Each clearly must consult his conscience and his reason. I should like to take a very few moments in explaining my approach. It starts from the premise that all wars of aggression are immoral and unchristian, with whatever weapons they are fought; that there are evil men in the world prepared to use force and to impose their political will on others; and that we cannot in the existing circumstances overlook the enormity of that evil of which I said something just now. Faced with such evil—and I cannot find any other word which fits those cases—I can find nothing in Christian teaching that denies to an individual the
250
right to defend his life and to preserve from destruction the values—religious and democratic—in which he believes. Still less do I find anything unchristian in seeking to deter such evil people from starting another war.
The only argument which has some appeal to me (but it is very difficult to judge) is the one that is constantly used—and it was used in my hearing in the Oxford Union debate the other day by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who is a pacifist and, I think, a unilateralist. He says to us that we must not think in terms of confrontation because God will see to it that in the end good will prevail over evil. I confess that I am unable to take quite such a detached point of view. I strongly suspect (although he is more likely to be able to interpret God's nature than I) that God will expect man to do something positive to halt evil before it takes over His world.
But to return to earth from theology, I draw some practical comfort from the doctrine or the religion of the Russian communists. It is explicit and written time and again in all the Russian military manuals that if Russians find themselves confronting superior or equal strength, the order of the day is then tactical retreat against the day when the possible victim will become less alert. That is a practical argument in favour of the nuclear deterrent. I believe that Russia has no intention whatever, so long as the West is sufficiently strong, of attacking either the United States or Europe. But if we were to drop our guard and allow weakness to appear in our policies, that would be a very different thing.
Therefore, I am not pessimistic about the future so long as we maintain our strength. It ought at this time to be possible to find a better way to guarantee the peace than the balance of power. But we have tried, and tried our hardest, to find a way by negotiation. I happen to be one of the few people who have negotiated a settlement with Russia—the only one that has been negotiated within the last 30 years—and that was the nuclear test ban treaty.
My noble friend was right: the only way in which we will reach an agreement with the Soviet Union is by finding a formula from which both they and we benefit. It will not be very easy; it will be one step at a time; but I think it is coming. So I conclude that, pending multilateral disarmament, the NATO strategy is the most likely to keep the peace until the Russians recognise that mutual and balanced disarmament is in their interest, too.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I am quite sure that Members of the House on both sides will have rejoiced to hear the voice of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, again. The regret of some of us that it was not uttered from the Government Front Bench. In his forceful and reasoned speech, he put forward two fundamental views: one was physical and the other was psychological. I hope to return to the latter before I conclude. His fundamental view in relation to physical affairs was his belief in the nuclear deterrent. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, knows the deep respect which I have for him, but I must confess that I find it difficult to understand how someone of such high intelligence and

251
such breadth and depth of thought can accept the nuclear deterrent as determining peace in the world.
It is a deterrent of fear. Yes, for 37 years each side has had the fear of the other, and because of that has made a contribution to peace over these 37 years. But what at the end of it? Nuclear weapons have now developed to a point 4,000 times as destructive as the weapon which fell on Hiroshima. That is stated in the experts' report to the United Nations. Not only are these weapons enormously more devastating, but at the end of 37 years there is more danger that they will be used than there was at the beginning.
People are now talking quite calmly of a limited nuclear war. Anyone with any knowledge of history knows that a limited war between great powers, with their very security dependent, cannot be limited, and a limited nuclear war inevitably becomes a full nuclear war, with all the new devastating consequences. Therefore, I find it impossible to believe that the nuclear deterrent can be a basis for a secure peace.
The Government have recently placed great emphasis on multilateral disarmament. I think the fact that they have done so is a tribute to the strength of the unilateralist peace movement in this country. It is a reply to them, as indeed is the Motion before the House. But the peace movement in this country is not only the unilateralist movement. It is a movement urgently and passionately desiring multilateral negotiated disarmament.
I am chairman of the World Disarmament Campaign. We were geared to the Second United Nations Assembly. We are now re-establishing. We shall soon have as director a recognised international figure. We shall have as co-chairman, with myself, a religious leader. We have the support, not only of the Labour Party, but the Liberal Party, the Social Democratic Party, Plaid-Cymru of Wales and the Scottish National Party: all the Opposition political parties are now supporting us, except the Ulster Unionists. All the major Churches are supporting us; the Trades Union Congress and the great trade unions are supporting us. So are the welfare organisations. I say to the Government that they have to face, not only the unilateralist campaign in this country, but those who desire fundamental world disarmament.
The Government will have to transform their policy if they are to prove credible as supporting multinational disarmament. Five years ago the United Nations Special Assembly on Disarmament recommended a comprehensive programme for disarmament, beginning with the ending of all nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, proceeding over the years in a planned way to world disarmament, and the transference of the costs of military preparation to ending poverty in the world. When the Government came to office, at first they said that they supported the findings of that United Nations Assembly. In fact, in their policy they have continually opposed them.
The United Nations appointed a preparatory committee at Geneva and a majority of that committee prepared a comprehensive programme for peace, carrying out the recommendations of the United Nations. It was opposed by the representatives of this
252
Government. The Government dissented on so many issues as to make the programme worthless, and when it went to the Second Session at New York the combined opposition of America and this Government led to the failure of its adoption. If the Government are to convince the people that they are determined to bring about world disarmament, they will have to change the whole of their policy.
These last few days I have been going through the minutes of the United Nations General Assembly during the one month of December. It may seem almost incredible, but during that one month the Government representative either abstained from voting or voted against 25 resolutions in favour of disarmament. I shall not delay the House by reading those resolutions in detail. I have classified their subjects, which include a motion for the cessation and prohibition of nuclear weapon tests; the Government voted against. A motion for no first use of nuclear weapons; the Government voted against. The prohibition of the neutron bomb; the Government voted against. A proposal for a nuclear freeze; the Government voted against. A proposal for an international convention prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons; the Government voted against. An international convention to strengthen the security of non-nuclear weapon states; the Government abstained. The prohibition and destruction of chemical, bacteriological and biological weapons; the Government abstained. The renunciation of the use of new discoveries and scientific and technical achievements for military purposes; the Government voted against. The implementation of the recommendations of the 10th United Nations Special Session, including a comprehensive programme for disarmament; the Government abstained. The denuclearisation of Africa; the Government abstained. The nuclear capability of the South African Government; the Government voted against. A nuclear-free zone in South Asia; the Government abstained. The prevention of an arms race in outer space; the Government abstained. The implementation of the world disarmament campaign; the Government abstained.
On only two occasions in the month of December, when 25 resolutions were considered, did the Government vote in favour of the resolution. I welcome those votes. One was on the monitoring of disarmament agreements and the establishment of a satellite monitoring agency. The other was a declaration on the relationship between disarmament and development. I say to the Government that they must change their policy fundamentally if they are going to win the recognition of the people of this country, as we approach a general election, that they sincerely believe in world disarmament.
Just a few words in conclusion about the other fundamental view which was put by the noble Lord. He stated that a solution to our problems will only be reached if we have trust between governments. How right he was. Whenever a proposal is made on either side, both America, supported by us, and the Soviet Union, they fasten on the issue about which they differ. They never seek in the proposal something upon which they agree. That was the Soviet Union attitude to the zero proposal of President Reagan. It is the American and British attitude towards the very

253
expansive proposals for disarmament made by the Soviet Union recently. If trust is to come, I urge that governments must seek, when others make an offer, the area of agreement rather than emphasising the area of difference.
However, my Lords, trust does not depend only upon governments; trust depends upon peoples. As one goes about the world one sees people everywhere having the same desires. The significance of what is termed the Peace Movement in the world, so strong in Britain, stronger in Western Europe, amazingly strong in the United States of America, where the Democratic Party has endorsed the nuclear freeze; the beginning even of agreement between the peoples of the Soviet Union and the West on a common peace programme; the support which the unaligned nations are now giving, led by the Prime Minister of India, for common action; show that now there is developing a world movement East and West, North and South. The real significance of that movement is not only that it has a common programme about disarmament. The real significance of that movement is that it expresses unity between the peoples across the frontiers, and between nations whose governments are so antagonistic. I am confident that within the next 10 years that movement will have become so strong in the world that we shall have abolished nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction, and will have begun on the course of world disarmament.
5.16 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, I am very glad to support the Motion in the name of my greatly respected former boss, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. However, my support is subject to certain qualifications. A wholly uncritical pledge of support of "NATO's policy of deterrence" could be taken as implying that I believed that its declared policy of "flexible response" had been essential to "preserving the peace in Europe"; that the whole of its large and varied nuclear armoury was essential; and that Britain's ownership of its own nuclear warheads and means of delivery was necessary to the success of NATO's policy; and also, in respect of the second half of the Motion, that all measures of one-sided or unilateral disarmament would have "disastrous effects … not only on our security, but on the prospects for multilateral disarmament". My Lords, I believe none of these things.
I have no doubt that the existence of NATO has been the main factor in keeping the peace in Europe over the last 35 years. There are three aspects of the alliance which have been essential in deterring the Soviet Union from attempting to expand its power in Europe by military action. First and foremost is the commitment to the alliance of the United States, with all its power in all its forms, including its possession of nuclear weapons that can strike targets in the Soviet Union. The second is the clear demonstration of that commitment by the presence of substantial United States conventional forces, land and air, on the continent of Europe, and the commitment of the US navy to support them there. The third is the cohesion of the alliance. Those are the essential factors, not this or that nuclear weapon system or some concept, flexible or inflexible, about how they should be used.
254
British nuclear weapons and their delivery systems, whether they are described as independent or not, have very little to do with it. Indeed, the more they are regarded as independent, the more they must be seen as implying a distrust of the efficacy of the alliance, and in particular of the resolution of the United States to defend Europe, so recently re-emphasised by Vice-President Bush. No matter what polite reasons are given in official documents, when one gets down to fundamental argument about why we should maintain independent nuclear weapon systems, supporters of it invariably fall back on the need to insure against the failure of NATO and of the United States.
The trouble about NATO's nuclear deterrent policy is that it has never adjusted itself to the reality that, if NATO were to be the first to use a nuclear weapon of whatever kind, in however limited a fashion, the odds are that the other side would answer back in kind; and possibly—indeed probably—in not so limited a fashion. Given the comparative balance of conventional forces and the facts of geography, whatever the level of the exchange NATO would finish up comparatively worse off. That is why it is a fallacy to think that the possession of nuclear weapons compensates for inadequacy of conventional forces. As studies long ago proved, if you intend to embark on a nuclear war you need larger, not smaller, conventional forces if you want to have anything left at the end.
Now it is just conceivable that the other side might not answer back with nuclear weapons, or might do so on a more limited scale. But it is exceedingly unlikely, and to start off a nuclear war oneself—on the assumption that that was going to be the case—would be criminally irresponsible. So a policy of flexible response based on being prepared to, and training one's forces to expect to, be the first to use nuclear weapons could be disastrous.
My critics will, of course, say, "We do not intend to try to fight a nuclear war. We only wish to threaten to do so to prevent a war taking place at all". But is it wise—is it indeed credible—to threaten to do something which it would, in the event, be disastrous to do? If your bluff is called, you have either to back down or do what you know it would he worse than folly to do. So let NATO give up the idea of being the side to start nuclear war.
Once you accept that you would not start a nuclear war, you can take a searching look at NATO's nuclear weapon systems, and there are two categories which are basically designed for first use and are the principal cause of the fact that there are some 50,000 of these dreadful weapons. The first group are those short-range battlefield weapons launched by artillery, by ballistic missiles like Lance and Pluton and by tactical aircraft.
The second group are all those, of both intercontinental and intermediate range, which are intended for a counterforce role; that is, to try to knock out the other side's nuclear delivery systems. Most land-based ballistic missiles on both sides, including the Russian SS20, fall into this category. They do not make sense unless they fire first; there is no point in firing at the enemy's delivery system after it has already fired. If all you are interested in is threatening an unacceptable degree of damage in retaliation to the

255
other side's first use, you do not need either of those categories. How many you need, and of what sort, is a difficult matter to determine, but it seems to me that there is little doubt that the ballistic missile submarine is the best system for that retaliatory purpose.
I suggest, therefore, as I have often done before in this House, that NATO should make a radical examination of its nuclear armoury, based on the principle that it would be suicidal for the alliance to be the first to use nuclear weapons. I believe that without any prejudice to deterrence or to its security, it could abolish nuclear artillery now; that is, nuclear warheads fired out of guns. I know of no sensible soldier who really believes that one would be able to use them in a way which could have the decisive effect their originators claimed, or who thinks he would ever get permission to fire before it was too late—and that, without taking into account what the enemy would fire back in retaliation.
I see no reason why the decision to abolish nuclear artillery should not be a unilateral one by NATO as a whole. It would eliminate at one stroke 2,000 warheads, all American, and automatically eliminate the enhanced radiation warhead, sometimes called the neutron bomb. And so long as the United States maintains longer-range systems, the threat of retaliation by them should deter the Soviet Union from using their short-range systems, if they decide to keep them. I suggest that NATO could take that step and withdraw other systems to the 150 kilometres, which, as I understand it, was the recommendation of the Olof Palme Commission, unilaterally, without prejudicing its security. But once you demand that measures must be reciprocal you get involved with verification, and negotiations invariably get bogged down on that.
What nuclear weapon systems must we have in Europe for the primary purpose of deterring Soviet use of nuclear weapons and the secondary one of bolstering the principal deterrent of combat-ready conventional forces? Apart from the short-range tactical systems to which I have referred, the Supreme Allied Commander (Europe) has allotted to him both United States Poseidon and British Polaris ballistic missile submarines, as well as a variety of aircraft, some of them carrier-based. Is it essential for him to have land-based missile systems in addition? I see no objection to them in principle; in many ways both mobile ballistic and cruise missile systems are, I believe, preferable to aircraft which operate from fixed bases. They are less vulnerable, in my opinion, and therefore a less tempting target for pre-emptive attack once they are deployed from their bases.
But one must ask oneself: What are they meant for in military terms? Recent Defence White Papers have admitted that they cannot be used to knock out the enemy's equivalent system, the SS20s, because it is mobile. They will not hit them before they fire, when they are firing or after they have fired. If they are intended as a symbol of American commitment to Europe and as a retaliatory system, why do we need to duplicate the ballistic missile submarines which are assigned to the support of SACEUR? It is, apparently, because of the fear of the Germans that, unless United States nuclear delivery systems are based on land in
256
Europe, the United States is not fully committed to the defence of the Federal Republic, although she has troops and aircraft in their country.
I believe this to be quite a recent concept. In the early days of NATO, American nuclear delivery missiles and bomber aircraft were based in Europe because they could not reach the Soviet Union from America. But when intercontinental systems were intoduced, they were withdrawn. The countries of NATO's southern region have always been happy to rely on carrier-based American nuclear support, and, as we know, the countries of the northern region do the same and will not even allow them to be on their soil. It does not seem to me that Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg are very keen to have them in their countries; and, so far as I know, we in this country have never considered it essential to have a land-based missile system. Thus, the problem seems to be tied, as I said, to the conception of the Germans as to what is needed to reassure them that the whole weight of American power is committed to their defence.
I cannot accept that, just for that purpose, it is necessary to balance exact numbers of equivalent types of delivery systems and warheads as the Soviet Union decide to have. We are told that if we do not do that, we shall be subject to nuclear blackmail. But if the superiority which exists today in land-based intermediate range delivery systems makes us subject to blackmail, why are we not being blackmailed now? And if we are, what are we being blackmailed to do?
My Lords, if we wish to avoid being intimidated by threats, the answer is to have adequate conventional forces backed by a nuclear retaliatory capability. If we have that, neither the fear of nuclear war nor that of conventional war will intimidate us. That is the real deterrent. If it were to fail to prevent the outbreak of hostilities in Europe, only adequate conventional forces could prevent that from developing into a nuclear war, which would be the greatest disaster we could possibly experience. That is the real priority, not wasting effort in increasing the number of nuclear warheads and delivery systems, which are already far in excess of what is needed for their essential deterrent purposes.
What, then, should we do with our own nuclear weapons? I am certainly opposed to our immediate renunciation of them and to the suggestion that we should get rid of Unitd States nuclear bases in this country. It would contribute nothing to arms control negotiations, and would undermine the cohesion of the NATO Alliance. But I can envisage a situation arising in those negotiations in which our readiness to give up designing and producing our own warheads could assist progress. I see no military objection to it, and it would relieve us not only of the expense but also of the pressure continually to design and produce new ones.
We could and should continue to man whatever delivery systems, with United States warheads, NATO decides that it wishes to retain. Indeed, I see every advantage in our manning systems based in this country. It would be a sign both of our and of Amercan confidence in the alliance, and it could help to defuse the Soviet obsession that those systems are really part of the United States strategic system designed to deliver a first strike on their country,

257
parallel to the American obsession that the Soviet Union is planning to do the same to them. Those are not unreasonable fears when the bulk of the nuclear armouries of both sides are designed as first strike systems, although I do not think for one moment that either side has any intention of carrying out a strategic first strike. The first step for us is to stop calling any of our nuclear weapon systems independent, and to stress that they are—as every successive Defence White Paper has described them, and as was a condition of the Nassau agreement—assigned to the support of Allied Command Europe as in fact intermediate range systems, and therefore should be taken into account in arms control negotiations. The present division of the latter into separate negotiations for separate systems, and the exclusion of the most dispensable of all, the battlefield systems, is illogicial. As the principal American negotiator in the strategic arms reduction talks has said, the whole subject is a seamless web.
My Lords, those are my qualifications, and they are substantial ones. The noble Lord who proposed the Motion hoped that we would deal with this matter not with emotion but with common sense. My qualifications are not based on emotion; they are not at all based on moral arguments; they are, I believe, based on plain common sense.
5.31 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to be able to support the Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Carrington, and I have only one complaint against him; that is, that he moved it so conclusively and overwhelmingly that it makes it rather hard for his supporters to continue with the speeches that they had in mind. I do not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, answered my noble friend's question; and perhaps it was a good thing that he did not answer in detail as to what is the policy of the Labour Party in this area, because its spokesmen, at least in public, have undoubtedly moved to a position which is very close to that of unilateral disarmament.
While recognising the danger of free societies giving away any negotiating room that we have, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, seemed to me to advocate doing just that, by suggesting that we accept in public, outside the negotiations, various of the Russian offers as bases for negotiation. I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Russians have very many submarines and missiles, too.
I am puzzled at what has changed since the days of Governments in the 'seventies and since the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was Chief of the Defence Staff—except what I outlined in the defence debate in this House on 17th January; namely, the continual tilting of the balance more heavily against us.
The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, quoted the excellent International Institute and from part of the summary on conventional forces. The opening paragraph of the summary is as follows:
"The numerical balance over the last 20 years has slowly but steadily moved in favour of the East. At the same time the West has largely lost the technical edge which allowed NATO to believe that quality could substitute for numbers. One cannot necessarily conclude from this that NATO would suffer defeat in war, but one can conclude that there has been sufficient danger in the trend to require remedies".
258
The International Institute is, in a praiseworthy way, cautious and factual to the greatest degree that it knows how to be. In the speech that I made on 17th January I drew noble Lords' attention to the force comparisons agreed by all NATO Governments in the NATO force comparison publication of May 1982. Perhaps that is not quite so cautious, but maybe in terms of the overwhelming balance of which my noble friend Lord Carrington spoke, it is a clearer and even more frightening view than the paragraph that I have just read.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham suggested that my noble friend had not advocated that we should do anything and that perhaps the Government were doing nothing. I feel that my noble friend had in advance adequately dealt with that point. There is no doubt whatever that, since the problem of Afghanistan produced the natural embargo on discussions and negotiations, and since the Americans have now shown unmistakably, with NATO support, that they are not going to have the balance tilted further against them, it is clear that mutual self-interest bargains on arms reductions are again possible, and I am sure that these negotiations, if we fully support them, will produce the reductions.
I intend to concentrate my contribution to the debate on some of the views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver: that the British independent deterrent is no longer necessary; and that first use of a nuclear weapon is a right that we could afford in all circumstances to give away and to declare solemnly that we would never do. I refer to the noble and gallant Lord's views with some reluctance. He was my much respected brigadier at the tender age of 29, when I was perhaps the youngest subaltern in his brigade. I do not disagree with him on a basis that his views are almost unique among past Chiefs of Defence Staff or past Chiefs of Staff in this country; indeed uniqueness has attractions to a Trenchard. I shall not go into the areas of the detail of battlefield weapons, at which he is undoubtedly my master. I do not disagree with him on the grounds that he has not made a more exhaustive study than I have, because he has; and I have twice read his hook. He is lucidly clear, and that in fact leads me to disagree with him on his own evidence. I feel sometimes that he is a little too logical.
Before I come to those views in detail, let me just make clear that I have no doubt that deterrence, in particular deterrence based on the awesome power of nuclear weapons, has kept the peace in Europe since the Second World War. I acknowledge that the subject is fraught with apparent contradictions or paradoxes, which is why in our free speech society there are bound to be those who openly challenge if not deterrence itself, then certain aspects of it, and who—as did the right reverend Prelate—also challenge how long it can go on keeping the peace. In my view the most important thing is that it must be robustly supported, and not weakened, to ensure that it can continue to keep the peace. Until such time as Russian leadership comes both to allow its population to be informed and starts to reflect their real wishes for peace, deterrence is the only way that we can continue to preserve the peace.
I believe that British intellectural liberalism, which is deep in the systems of men of good will of all parties

259
in this country, is leading some not just to be fair, but to lean over backwards to an absurd degree in order to do two things: first to make sure that we are fair to the Russian side of the argument; and, secondly, to question the credibility of aspects of nuclear deterrence. I believe they overdo both.
Let me first deal with fairness to the Russians. The noble and gallant Lord in an interview which I read, which I hope is correct, which he gave to the CND magazine Sanity, talked of the fear of many Russians of a conventional attack by the West. No Russian leader in possession of the facts of the huge and increasing preponderance of Russian arms in Europe, particularly of those which threaten Europe rather than America, could possibly for one moment feel such a fear.
More widespread and in at least a different and milder category of, to my mind, implausibility is the suggestion that if the Russians were to attack the West it would be because of some non-military interference by the West, east of the Iron Curtain. This would be no excuse for military aggression. As my noble friend has said, there is no point in speculating too far as to the exact possible reasons for Soviet aggression.
My noble friend has suggested, as I understand it, that it would be wiser just to take note, but an economically hard-pressed Russia has continued to build up a huge preponderance of arms to a degree which the only logic would be for a military offensive in Europe. What the reasons for or the objectives of such a military aggression might be is, in a sense, immaterial. A military aggression could only result in an expansion of the sphere of dominance of the Soviets and so it must be deterred.
The balance of conventional arms is such that it requires a large element of nuclear back up to deterrence at the present time. We are also on common ground in the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we must protect ourselves from nuclear blackmail at all unforeseeable times in the future of an alliance which cannot always be foreseen with accuracy.
This area of deterrence is the second area where, in my view, we lean over backwards to question the morality and the credibility of such deterrence. Admittedly we run straight into the paradox that as long as a potential aggressor does not doubt the will of a defender, the awesomeness of these weapons is such that the aggressor would never attack. But, and here is the paradox, would we, asks the noble and gallant Lord and others, ever in any circumstances dare to use one of our nuclear weapons first and would we be justified morally?
The moment one says, "Yes" to both these questions, that there are circumstances in which one might consider doing so, one is immediately accused of planning to start a nuclear war, initiating a nuclear exchange. And the noble and gallant Lord used the words today which he uses on page 103 of his book, that to suggest that would be an action of criminal irresponsibility. All one is doing is logically testing the credibility of deterrence by hypothesising about what would happen if deterrence calamitously and unnecessarily broke down.
260
Let me on a purely personal basis do that rash and unpleasant thing. Let us suppose the Soviets, in a year in the 1990s or it could be later, noted that the USA was—as happens from time to time in free democracies—obsessed with some domestic crisis (I will not mention Watergate and other things that have gone before) and temporarily was at a degree of odds with its allies, which can happen however much we all work for the unity of NATO—and I certainly support that to the full. But it can happen in a free and voluntary alliance of free nations that there are moments when they are less in unity than at other times. Suppose at this time the noble and gallant Lord made another speech about no first use and the Synod of the Church of England had passed another resolution. Perhaps in the perception of a potential aggressor, whatever his reasons for a military aggression, it became almost certain in his mind that neither we nor the United States was prepared to use a nuclear weapon. All this is preventable and is hypothesis and is merely logic to test whether deterrence is still credible. Suppose the Soviet attacked in Western Europe with a so-called conventional attack at such a favourable moment with the forces that it has. In these days that would be an inevitably fast and utterly horrifying attack, almost certainly backed by chemical weapons—what else have they them for? It would be backed by nuclear blackmail and, of course, by threats of retaliation if ever we used a nuclear weapon. It would be naïve not to expect that.
Would we be justified in first giving clear and unmistakable warning of exactly what we would do if the aggressor did not desist? Would we be justified in a situation, which I am sure need not and will not ever arise, in using part of our very formidable independent deterrent, if he did not desist, perhaps in a way to frustrate his reinforcement?
If we meant the warning, in my view he would then desist and, in my view, if we did in these calamitous circumstances have to use a nuclear weapon he would find that he had miscalculated and he would desist. Why? He thought he would gain the objectives of a military aggressor, whatever the reasons, at a cost acceptable to him. A defence has no objectives except the status quo, keeping the peace and getting the aggressor not to aggress and to desist. Is the aggressor in such a situation going to change his objectives, obliterate Britain, risk the full retaliatory might first of Britain and possibly then of our hypothetically temporarily disorganised USA? There is no logic in that, in calm logic rather than the logic of fear.
The power of modern weaponry, notwithstanding the much greater nuclear weight of the Soviets, gives advantage to the defender whose only objective is to deter or, in extremis, to stop aggression by bringing the aggressor, who is the one with objectives, to the conclusion that he cannot gain them at a cost acceptable to him.
The noble and gallant Lord has harsh words both today and in his book for his many colleagues who, I believe, think as I do, and for me. I will not use such harsh words but I believe that there are real dangers in those of his background making statements which in my view are bound to weaken the credibility of NATO's defence plans as they stand. Is there an alternative to continuing to rely, while making

261
bargains of disarmament, on deterrents with a heavy nuclear element? Can we raise the nuclear threshold, as the right reverend Prelate has suggested, by building up conventional forces and then renounce first use? Apart from whatever one can rely on, in relation to the Soviet word, NATO—not Britain alone, NATO in Europe—would need nearly to double its conventional forces at a cost of certainly some 50 per cent. on all existing European budgets. The estimated cost of Trident—my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has clearly put his finger on the main reason for keeping our weapons up to date—remains at 3 per cent. of a budget which the defence spokesmen of the party opposite are committed to cutting by ten times the cost of Trident. I support the Motion.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, can the noble Viscount explain a little his quite extraordinary statement that a non-first-use strategy would require nearly a doubling of NATO's conventional arms? Will he make clear that this is not an official or a considered calculation?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I have no official position from which I speak. I made very clear on I 7th January some of the main comparisons of tanks, of aircraft, of the SS20s, of all the weapons, particularly of those with application to offensive use in Europe and I mentioned the many 3s to 1s and 2s to 1s. I said this in this House without challenge from the noble Lord. If he will study with me at any time the force comparisons of NATO. I believe he will see that all those figures were fully justified.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, we are at least agreed that we all want peace. We know, too, that there is one way in which we can get it, and that is by making it clear that this country will never in any circumstances use armed force. We then have to stop and consider what is the exact price of that. It means that this country would be in a position where it could not resist any demands that were made of it. The point that I want to stress is this. It is a complete mistake to suppose that if you adopt this pacifist conclusion, what you end up with is anything that you can really call peace; because very likely you will be required by one of the major powers in the world to become part of their military machine. Those nations in eastern Europe which do not, for obvious reasons, try to resist the Soviet Union, are part of its military machine. They have none of the safety which is sometimes pictured by those who talk of neutrality or of unilateral disarmaments.
They have obtained immunity from immediate attack at the price of being in complete subjection to the wishes of the Soviet Government and, as I say, part of their military machine. Anyone, therefore, who advocates that kind of proposal ought to realise for what it is that he is asking: he is not offering us a peaceful existence; he is offering us an existence in bondage and in danger. If one makes that kind of remark one is always liable to be accused of having-a phobia about the Soviet Union and of always seeing dangers when they are not there.
There is a letter in the Guardian today which rebukes people who have too much fear of the Soviet
262
Union and it contains the extraordinary statement that Russia has done nothing in Europe since it defeated the Nazi army. I cannot imagine where the writer of that letter has been in the intervening period: there were Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Afghanistan, the attack on Berlin. The conclusions that I draw from all these events is that we know now by experience that there is very little limit to what the Soviet Government will take if it thinks it can take it with impunity. There is a very sharp and immediate limit to what it will do if it believes it will be resisted. The actual events bear that out.
Some people have argued, well, it is true that we have had NATO and we have had peace, but that there is nothing to show that they are connected. We are asked to believe that it is a coincidence. I think that I have said in this House before, and I make no apology for saying it again: let us look at the position of all of Russia's western neighbours. All of them except two are in some degree of servitude, greater or less. The two exceptions are Norway and Turkey. Norway and Turkey are members of NATO. Are we asked to believe that this is coincidence? Again, there was the attack on Berlin which showed quite clearly that, once the Soviet Government realised the danger involved, it desisted from that attack. I think that the moral of this is plain beyond a shadow of doubt.
Our difficulties in dealing with the Soviet Union and our reason for having some apprehensions are increased by the fact that it is not a free country. No groups of marchers approach the Kremlin with banners reading: "Why not a zero option?—Work for verifiable agreements!"—or other slogans that would be of great educational value to the Soviet Government. There is nothing of that kind. The things that we are told of occasionally as counterweights to the peace agitations in this country bear no resemblance to them at all. The Soviet people do not and cannot know what is involved in the issues that torment us. I draw the conclusion, at its mildest, that we cannot proceed with a policy which works on the assumption that, if we made ourselves helpless in front of the Soviet Government, we should be all right. We might be, but I am not prepared to risk the freedom of this country and the freedom of its people on that very dubious assumption.
That is why we have got to have a defence of some kind and why we have found in past years that the most effective form of defence is through membership of the North Atlantic Alliance. Against the policy of continuing with the North Atlantic Alliance, there is advanced a policy of unilateral disarmament. Let us be clear as to the meaning of terms. I take the phrase, "unilateral disarmament by Great Britain" to mean that we cease to possess or manufacture any nuclear weapons and that we have no nuclear weapons or bases, British or American, in this country. I take it that it is not merely an argument about cruise or Trident; it is a wholesale renounciation of nuclear weapons.
What is not quite clear is whether those who advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament for this country propose that we should remain in NATO or not. If it is proposed to practise unilateral nuclear disarmament and to remain in NATO, then we must at least notice this: at that point it ceases to be a moral

263
argument at all. You cannot say that you are right morally because you do not have nuclear weapons yourself, if your defence depends on an alliance with a country that has. You can defend it on other grounds; you might argue (but it would not convince me) that, strategically and so on, it is the best use of the alliance's resources for us to be in this position. But do not let us pretend that it is a moral argument if you are advocating unilateralism inside NATO.
Let us remember, too, that this country is not one of the smaller countries in the alliance. Our decision for unilateral nuclear disarmament would put out of gear a very large part of NATO's whole arrangements and would desperately weaken the alliance. If, on the other hand, it is proposed to have unilateral nuclear disarmament and to come out of NATO, then let us be quite clear that we are rendering ourselves completely helpless and we should not be in a position, if we were required to do this or that by a powerful Soviet Government untroubled by British arms, to call on any allies to help us. I do not believe that that makes the world safer or more peaceable. It certainly does not make it more attractive for those who care for this country and respect and love its free institutions.
We are left then with, as the real purpose of policy, the search for multilateral disarmament. It is here that we can resolve the moral issue that distresses so many of us. As I have said, if you are prepared to possess, and, in certain circumstances, to use, these fearful weapons, the only way in which you can justify that is by seeing that you are, at the same time, doing your best to get rid of them by multilateral disarmament. You place yourself under a moral obligation to seek out multilateral disarmament by every means by which it may be found.
The noble Lord, Lord Home, mentioned that he had had success in negotiating one treaty with the Russians, the test ban treaty. It was my good fortune to sign the treaty for the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. I must say that I did not do most of the work on it; most of the work was done by Mr. Fred Mulley, who was then Minister for Disarmament in the Labour Government. It was my good fortune to represent this country at the signing of that treaty. It was not a perfect instrument; it has leaked at the seams ever since; but it has been of value in at least postponing the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world, and it was also the platform on which the SALT talks were built. I mention it because it shows that the record of multilateral disarmament efforts has not been a complete failure, and that you must go on and on arguing and persuading in the hope that one day the door will open. Sometimes, as these two examples show, the door does open.
That was why I listened with particular interest to the concluding part of the speech by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos. I think that he is right to assume that at the present time the really critical theatre is the negotiations in Geneva about intermediate nuclear weapons. It looks as if (one dare not put it any higher than that) at any rate there is the possibility of agreement. Both sides have so far rejected what has been proposed by the other; but the differences between the two proposals are quantitative differences capable of being met by
264
negotiation. It is interesting to notice why we have reached that position. It is because NATO made its important two-track decision: that it would open talks and, if the Soviet Government stuck to its use of intermediate weapons in Eastern Europe, NATO would, in reply, deploy its cruise missiles.
It was when it was apparent that there was that degree of determination on the NATO side that the Russian Government put itself in a position to begin to negotiate. We must all hope and pray for the success of those negotiations. It may take longer than we hope; it may end up not quite in the way that we expect. But we ought not to start with the assumption that no agreement at all can be reached here. Personally, I thought that the zero option was a very reasonable proposal. I was particularly gratified when it was supported by the right honourable gentleman who is the Leader of my party and the Leader of the Opposition. But it is no good going on asking for it if, quite plainly, it is not forthcoming. We may have to settle for something less attractive to ourselves than that. The phrase that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos used was, "substantial reductions in intermediate nuclear weapons with verification."
That last point is extremely important. It is often forgotten—this is a point that we must make, and there is no unfairness to the Soviet Union in making it—that is their objection that has held up verification all the time. Recently we have heard—and we have been told from the Front Bench—that they have begun to talk in a rather different language about this matter, and we may be able to get a satisfactory and verifiable agreement. But there will not be the smallest chance of getting such an agreement if the Russians believe that we are going to throw away all our nuclear weapons unilaterally. If the Russians believe that we are going to do that, there is not the least reason why they should negotiate seriously with us at all. A very heavy responsibility lies on anyone who, realising that, continues to press for unilateral renunciation by this country.
6.4 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I want to deal with a small portion of this whole argument—one cannot cover the whole waterfront—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, is not currently in his place because I was going to deal with some of his arguments. He announced that he has set up a new peace organisation, similar to CND but apparently favouring multilateral disarmament. He seemed to dissociate himself from unilateral disarmament. I want to remind those who are sympathetic to the CND view—and there are very large numbers, possibly not in this House but elsewhere—that the main aim of CND is:
"The unilateral abandonment by Britain of nuclear weapons, nuclear bases and nuclear alliances".
I cannot believe that any democratic Labour supporter can go along with that because it inevitably means if you are abandoning nuclear alliances that you abandon NATO. That is currently a nuclear power, and in the foreseeable future there is no sign of it unilaterally abandoning all its nuclear arms. So it seems—and I am following the noble Lord who has just sat down—that if you take that viewpoint you are

265
inevitably leading to a very dangerous situation, because you are inevitably leading to the break-up of NATO.
I want to concentrate on one aspect which I believe my generation, who were in their teens in the 1930s and were therefore in uniform in World War 2, are especially qualified to deal with. That is the farcical case which so many CND sympathisers make—it is in many cases their main aim—that if only we will set an example Russia will follow suit; that we must break out of what they call the arms race. It is a poor race, because on the whole we are not adding to the strength of our nuclear weapons while Russia clearly is. They believe that this can somehow influence Russian thinking.
I believe that no single step could be more disastrous than unilateral disarmament. My generation remember the 1930s: while Hitler was building up his military strength, Britain unilaterally—and I prefer the term "one-sidedly"—refrained from re-arming. We ran down our armed strength year after year. Then, as now, there was a peace movement. It was not a small minority. I remind the House—noble Lords will remember it well—that 11,250,000 people signed the peace pledge union. Largely, they believed that they could rely not on our armed strength or our contribution to an alliance, but on the League of Nations to save us from World War 2. That of course proved to be wholly hollow.
It was not called unilateral disarmament in those days; it was called appeasement. Thank God that Britain snapped out in time so that our Hurricanes, Spitfires, radar chain and, above all, our gallant and well-trained pilots were able to win for Europe the Battle of Britain! Let us see what happened more recently—because I was talking about the 1930s. There is one area of armament where we have unilaterally disarmed. I remember Nye Bevan saying, when I was in another place:
"Why look in the crystal ball when you can read the book?"
In this instance, one can read the book and, therefore, one does not need to look in the crystal ball.
Let us look at what happened when, after 1957, the United Kingdom voluntarily gave up our chemical warfare capability. We stopped all chemical warfare production and we destroyed all our stocks. This is exactly what the CND would have us do in other fields. We were told that if we set this moral example the Soviets would follow. Look what has happened since then—exactly the opposite! The Soviets have steadily increased their stocks. They now have at least 300,000 tonnes of chemical agents. NATO exercises have to be undertaken in protective clothing against the dangers of gas. That obviously reduces the effectiveness and capability of our troops. One of the five disarmament negotiations which are going on mainly in Geneva is concerned with chemical weapons. The negotiations drag on year after year. I can only hope that this is a field in which perhaps more thrust from the Government, as a result of recent initiatives, may bear some fruit. Meanwhile, the USSR not only goes on building up stocks but also is testing its chemical weapons.
The United States Department of State, in its Special Report No. 9 issued on 22nd March last, documented 397 occasions on which chemical
266
weapons have been used. I have got the quotation here:
"In late March, the State Department released a special report, Chemical Warfare in Southeast Asia and Afghanistan, documenting reports of 397 communist chemical attacks which killed over ten thousand people—6,300 in Laos, 980 in Kampuchea (Cambodia) and over 3,000 in Afghanistan. These are minimum figures, based on eye-witness accounts. Other estimates of chemical warfare deaths range as high as 50,000.
My Lords, is it not strange that the eye-witness account descriptions which can be read in that report are really horrifying and yet there are no CND marches to the Soviet Consulate in defence of these poor people who are suffering, and will continue to suffer, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, from chemical attacks? This, I would remind the House, was one field where we were told that if we gave it up other people would follow suit.
In the face of this evidence, how could anyone honestly and sincerely believe that, if we gave up one-sidedly our nuclear weapons, our nuclear bases and our nuclear alliances, the Soviet Union would follow? Mr. Andropov himself, as my noble friend said in opening this debate, quoted exactly the reverse. He said that they would not unilaterally give up their nuclear weapons.
"We are not naïve people",
he added. Both history and Soviet actions have proved that this would be a useless and a desperately dangerous path to take. I therefore hope that the House will strongly support this Motion and I hope that the few who so greatly disagree with it will take it to a vote so that we and the people outside this House can see what measure of support that vociferous and highly-publicised minority have in this country and what solid support there is behind the Government and what they stand for.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am certainly not going to take this Motion to a vote, as suggested very kindly by the noble Lord opposite. I support and indeed welcome it, in so far as it relates to the possession by NATO of a nuclear deterrent, that is to say a deterrent against the first use of nuclear weapons by the adversary. I need hardly add that I am just as opposed to unilateral disarmament as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is, or the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing. There is no doubt about that. But the mere rejection of the CND thesis, essential though this is, will not of itself result in a lessening of the very grave dangers that now confront us. For, as the Synod of the Church of England has now very rightly concluded, for reasons so admirably expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, we should no longer, whether on moral or practical grounds, accept the fearful risks inherent in the strategy of flexible response which, as even its advocates admit, in the present state of our defences involves the almost certain use in war by NATO of nuclear weapons.
This brings me on to what might happen one day if that policy were replaced by a policy of "no first use", which has been referred to in so many speeches this afternoon. I have in my hand—and I strongly recommend its perusal by your Lordships—the report of what is called the Union of Concerned Scientists of America, which is sponsored by Mr. Robert

267
McNamara, Mr. George Kennan and other very distinguished people in America, and in this House by the noble Lords, Lord Carver, Lord Zuckerman, Lord Flowers and myself. I may say that we do not necessarily agree with every word of it but substantially we accept it and have therefore given it our support.
The basic argument of the report turns on the proposition that, as things are now, first use could only result in nuclear escalation which, for the West and in any case for Europe, would be far worse even than defeat. Also, on the evidence of no less a person than the former United States Commander in Chief, Pacific—and I quote:
"There is no sensible first use of nuclear weapons in any area from the Middle East right round to North-East Asia.".
We should consequently bend all our efforts towards achieving "credibility" for our non-nuclear forces so as, in the event of a crisis anywhere in the world, not to be confronted by the fell choice between suicide and surrender. Let me quote one essential passage in the section headed, "If defence should fail":
"It is the argument of this Paper that under a 'no first use' declaration, with the consequently improved conventional concepts and posture, the United States and its allies would maintain a powerful conventional deterrence. And were that deterrence to fail they could defend conventionally with a higher probability of success. High probability is, of course, not certainty. There has never been, nor can there ever be, a way to predict the outcome of such hostilities with complete assurance. There are too many unknowns, too many contingencies, too much blind chance. There is, and always will be, some possibility of the defence failing to hold. Some argue that the Soviet advance must then be stopped by nuclear weapons at any cost, including the common destruction of the nuclear powers and their allies. This is a counsel of despair. National suicide is not a rational solution. The only sane approach in the nuclear age is to fight on conventionally, for as long as it may take and as costly as it may be. When the situation is finally restored there will at least be peoples, cultures, and national structures to carry out the rebuilding and the restoration.".
To avoid any misunderstanding, let me say that, along (I believe) with the Church, the scientists do not suggest that NATO or any member of the alliance should immediately make a "no first use" declaration. What they propose is that the alliance should at once decide to take, in common, certain measures tending to lend credibility to our non-nuclear defences and, having done so and having made some progress in the required direction, then declare their intention of never resorting to nuclear war except in retaliation. This, they feel, would be the only way—this is the essential point—to make it clear to all concerned on our side (and particularly in America, I think) that the Rubicon really had been crossed and that the whole defensive structure of NATO which is now, as we all know, completely geared into nuclear policy was being radically reformed so as to reflect a very different defensive posture. In other words, it is the intention and the decision that will count. If both are evident the declaration will necessarily follow. It will not then be, as the noble Lord, Lord Home, feared, in any way a paper declaration.
How to raise the necessary funds? They suggest that, owing to the gross over-estimates in recent years of the size and efficiency of the Warsaw Pact forces—and here I venture to disagree with what I am told the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said in his speech, which I am afraid I missed because of having to take
268
a telephone message—these funds would be much smaller than have usually been assumed. In any case, they should in the first instance be diverted from the nuclear estimates. Of a total expenditure of about 100 billion dollars over six years, it is thought, for instance, that the mere abandonment, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, of the US MX missile project would by itself more or less account for the whole United States quota. And, of course, it need not be the abandonment of the MX missile project. They could, if they wanted, produce fewer Trident submarines, fewer than the thousands of cruise missiles which they now propose to fabricate or not so many nuclear bombers; and in the United Kingdom, of course, we could do the same with our Trident. In any case, the extra expenditure need not, for reasons given by the scientists, exceed more than 2 per cent. of the sums already voted for defence by the various Governments over the next few years.
On what exactly should it be spent? The scientists suggest new Jaeger brigades operating near the front line in north Germany; "pre-positional" dumps, as they call them, of material for the use of incoming reinforcements; some new reserve divisions; many more precision-guided munitions; tank obstacles and anti-tank weapons; anti-aircraft missiles; shelters for combat aircraft; "deep air interdiction" possibilities and other clearly sensible arrangements. These once installed, many "battlefield nukes" would be withdrawn, as I think the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, said. Indeed, these could quite usefully be withdrawn from both sides without damage to our defences, as I think Mr. Andropov himself has recently suggested.
These are not foolish or impractical suggestions. The scientists have had access to much intelligent military advice. There is no doubt that a programme of this sort is well within the capacity of NATO members, even if it did result in some extra expenditure over and above that covered by diverting funds away from useless and dangerous efforts to arrive at an illusory nuclear preponderance, in accordance with some American "counter-force" policies with their clear overtones of winning a nuclear war. It must indeed have become obvious by now that there is no sense in nuclear preponderance or, for that matter, in nuclear parity. All that is necessary is the assured capacity, if necessary, on a second strike to inflict unacceptable damage on the adversary. You do not want a preponderance. You do not even want parity.
Here let me join with the right reverend Prelate in welcoming the recent letter of Professor Michael Howard who, of all people, should know what he is talking about. We in the West, he says, substantially, have for many years been devoting our resources chiefly to building up,
"a standard of living without parallel in history",
largely at the expense of our "conventional" defences, believing that this could safely be done under cover of a fairly cheap nuclear umbrella. Now that nuclear weapons cancel each other out, which they did not 20 years ago, the consequences of our self-indulgence are becoming apparent. In other words, we cannot continue to prefer butter to guns, when the Russians continue to prefer guns to butter.

269
It is high time that we stopped dreaming about security based on nuclear power. First use, as I think Henry Kissinger hinted some four years ago, simply will not work in a crisis, and compromises such as "no early use"—with all due respect to noble Lords on the Benches on my left—are even more untenable. If not used "early", when will our 6,000 "battlefield nukes" be used?—behind the Weser, behind the Ems or even behind the Rhine? Is the unfortunate Federal Republic to wait until half its narrow territory has been devastated by an incoming Russian army, and then blown up by allied nuclear bombs? Is that the idea?
Nor is it as if the new policy would unfavourably affect the various arms limitation talks which are now proceeding, and which we must all hope will succeed. On the contrary, by increasing confidence and thereby, no doubt, limiting on both sides the influence of what I think President Eisenhower referred to long ago as "the military industrial complex", it might be calculated to assist these negotiations. After all, the Russians cannot want a world war. If it were conventional, they would have no external trade and insufficient food and be obliged to cope with a shattered and rebellious Europe, to say nothing of a restless empire. Whereas, if it were nuclear, the USSR might well be wiped off the map. But if tensions persist, the Russians might be tempted to try their arm before what they doubtless—even if wrongly—suspect to be a direct nuclear threat gathers momentum. Concrete evidence that there is no such intention, coupled with the unlikelihood of their winning a "conventional' war, might well be a genuinely pacifying factor.
I quite realise that, in what may be the run-up to an election, it is difficult for the Government to do or say anything which might alarm the electorate. But I believe that the British people, if they were told the truth about our prospects and the extreme unwisdom of relying chiefly for our safety on the doctrine of "flexible response", would respond to some demand for additional sacrifices in order to strengthen our conventional defences, which are now the only sure guarantee against the outbreak of world war three. Maybe it is impossible in a democracy to do anything of the sort. If so, then, as in 1939, we must all realise what may happen. Suicide or surrender? If we go on as at present, we may well soon have no other choice.
6.27 p.m.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, I want to speak about the military strategy of NATO and not about disarmament, multilateral or unilateral. The most important things that I wanted to say have already been said far more eloquently and with greater authority by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Nevertheless, I have some additional aspects to add. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here. I should have liked to ask him the question: does he think that, if the nuclear bomb had never been invented, we should now all be satellites of Russia, in the same position as Poland or Czechoslovakia? Of course not. He would say that, in that case, we should have defended ourselves and would have prevented the Russians from occupying us.
270
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard—I regret that I was not here for all of his speech—did not deny this, but said that it would be much too expensive. Whether or not that is so, it comes rather strangely from a representative of a Government who are prepared to spend £2 million a head in order to keep 1,800 "kelpers" under the British flag, which means that you are not being very pusillanimous with your defence expenditure. But there can be no question that the NATO Alliance is perfectly well capable of defending itself without the use of nuclear weapons, and I want to mention three reasons for that.
The first, which has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, is that NATO's resources, both human and material, are very much greater than those at the disposal of the Warsaw Pact countries, even if you ignore entirely the additional requirements of Soviet Russia in defending itself against 1,000 million Chinese. The second reason is that in a war the attacking side always needs to have considerable superiority over the defending side. Since NATO's aims are purely defensive—we do not want to conquer Russia—it necessarily follows that the NATO powers have the potential to be greatly superior to the Warsaw Pact countries, and could defeat any attack on them by conventional forces.
The third reason I want to give, which again has not been mentioned, is that this superiority is all the greater when you consider the improvements in non-nuclear military technology since the last war. These improvements largely favour defence, in much the same way as in the first world war the existence of the machine gun, combined with the absence, until a very late stage, of the tank, gave defence a tremendous advantage over the attacking side. In the second world war it was the other way round. The situation now is again more like it was in the first world war. An attacker would need much greater superiority of forces to get anywhere.
Furthermore, large-scale rearmament in terms of conventional weapons of a purely defensive character, such as anti-aircraft missiles and guns and anti-tank missiles and guns, does not create a threat to a potential enemy in the same way as armaments concentrated on tanks and long-range aircraft with a strong offensive capability.
The word "deterrence" is often used as if it were synonymous with "defence". This is dangerously wrong. Deterrence comes from terrere, which means to terrify, whereas defence is defence; it is to defend yourself. As Professor Boserup and Professor Neild have shown, deterrence means keeping your enemy at bay by frightening him with an attack on his own territory with offensive forces, while defence means keeping your enemy at bay by possessing forces which are capable of stopping an attack on your territory and preventing him from imposing his will on your people. One could say that rearmament of both kinds serves the purpose of dissuasion, but they do so by entirely different and incompatible means.
Provided a clear distinction can be made between a defensive and an offensive strategy—a distinction based on the characteristics of the weapons used and the training and mobility of the forces—the strengthening of your defensive forces does not pose a threat to your enemy. You hold out a shield instead of

271
brandishing a sword. There can be stability, not through the achievement of a balance of armaments by the contending powers but on account of their very inequality as between offensive and defensive capabilities. Hence, provided that an adequate distinction can be made between defensive and offensive capabilities, the very notion of a balance of forces, which dominates military thinking on security, collapses.
Stability will arise from the superiority of each side's defensive capacity over the other side's offensive capability. The more the defensive capabilities on both sides suffice to meet any contingency, the stronger the feeling of security and stability. If, contrarywise, both pursue the accumulation of offensive weapons, a so-called balance of forces, they can never attain stability since each side will tend to overstate the present and future size of the enemy's forces relative to their own and will seek to remedy matters by introducing more offensive weapons. Hence, the futile pursuit of a balance in weapons, whether nuclear or conventional, is the enemy of security, the enemy of military stability. It gives rise to a continuous and ever-accelerating arms race. The decisive factor is not overall balance but the ratio of defensive to offensive strengths on both sides.
The general adoption of a defensive approach to security could, on the other hand, bring the arms race to an end. Clearly, nuclear weapons can never be made purely defensive in character, in the sense of the word proposed here. It is for this reason, as well as the absolutely appalling consequences of a nuclear war, particularly on these islands, that it is essential to abandon any thought of using nuclear weapons on any occasion, except in retaliation to a nuclear attack. In other words, military planning should be based on no-first-use of nuclear weapons and on the creation of conventional forces, with an overwhelming preponderance of defensive as against offensive weapons.
We hear every day that it is only the possession of nuclear forces which has prevented war with Russia for the last 35 years. This is asserted as a matter of course, as something directly following from the inherently aggressive nature of any communist régime. That may well be true, but I am sure that much the same view is held with equal conviction by people with a similar psychological make-up on the communist side. They no doubt argue, on the basis of Marx and Lenin and all communist philosophy, that capitalism can only survive if it succeeds in eliminating communism and that the two cannot co-exist side by side. Hence, the nuclear arms race on both sides could be equally explained by the attribution of aggressive motives to the policies of their opponents. If both sides renounced the first use of atomic weapons and concentrated on the development of conventional weapons of a defensive character, the occasion for using nuclear weapons would never arise.
We must welcome the fact that the arguments for strengthening NATO's conventional forces and for renouncing the first use of nuclear weapons are gaining powerful adherents both in Europe and in America. Several names were mentioned in this connection by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I believe that the NATO commander, General Rogers, expressed himself in the same sense. However, we must guard
272
against the risk that the improvement of NATO's conventional forces, which is now being proposed, fails to pay due regard to the distinction between defensive and offensive forces, so that its effect might be to provoke a conventional arms race in addition to the nuclear arms race.
There remains the question of American air bases in Britain. This is a survival from the days when long range and intermediate range ballistic missiles did not exist and long-range aircraft formed the only means of delivering atomic bombs on Soviet territory. Since then, both NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries have developed long and medium range missiles carried by submarines. This is a type of weapon in which the Russians, rightly or wrongly, feel themselves to be distinctly inferior, owing to their long routes of egress, their lack of refuelling bases and the fear, which may well be unjustified, that NATO could succeed in bottling them up in the Baltic or the Murmansk Sea and there destroying them. Hence, it is argued that the development of their mobile land-based intermediate missiles, the latest form of which is the SS20, was intended to offset their supposed inferiority vis-à-vis the submarine-launched, long range or medium range nuclear weapons, whether they be Polaris or some improved version of Polaris, like Trident.
But this is not how NATO looked upon the matter. They did not regard the SS20s as arising out of the concentration of the submarine-based nuclear weapons. They regarded it as an entirely new development which upset the existing nuclear balance and required the introduction of new weapons, in the form of the cruise and Pershing missiles, to restore it. This is a very good illustration of how the search for balance leads to a continuous escalation of weapons.
I fully agree with Mr. Denis Healey that there is no case for having these additional weapons because our existing arsenal of submarine-based missiles with 400 warheads is more than sufficient, according to Mr. Healey, to wipe out Soviet Russia in its entirety. As Mr. Healey was Secretary of State for Defence for six years, one must take his opinions seriously. Enough is enough. If you already have enough to kill everybody, there can be no benefit in killing a dead man a second time or a third time.
Despite this, the Americans insist on having the cruise and Pershing missiles in response to the SS20s. But why should these new missiles be land-based and not submarine-based? Land-based weapons invite not only retaliation in a second strike but also a preemptive strike in circumstances in which the risk of their imminent use justifies such a drastic step by the enemy. But the risk of a pre-emptive strike does not arise when the nuclear warheads are launched from submarines, the locations of which are not known.
Given the extreme vulnerability of this country and the possible annihilation of the people of these islands in a nuclear war, it is essential that whatever we do we must minimise the risk of the Russians making a preemptive nuclear attack on this country on any future occasion. We can do this if we abandon the idea of having American nuclear bases on British soil. Living as I do in Cambridge, I do not feel very comfortable, with Molesworth, the largest centre for cruise missiles, being just 20 miles away. That risk would not exist, or

273
not be nearly so acute, however, if the new missiles operated from submarines. If the Americans or anybody else feel that our existing nuclear capability is not sufficient to destroy Russia entirely and that we need some more missiles, whether they be cruise or Pershing missiles, just to make sure, I do not see why they cannot be based on submarines, which do not pose anything like the same threat to the survival of the people of this country.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, I must apologise that my absence in another place prevented me from hearing some of your Lordships' speeches at an early stage in this debate. This is an important debate and an awesome one in many ways, as all discussions of nuclear weapons must be. It is an awesome problem that will not go away. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York pointed out in his diocesan letter, and as the General Synod—to which such attention has been paid today—also noted, we are always going to be living with the threat of nuclear weapons.
I quite agree with all that my noble friend Lord Carrington has said as to the nuclear deterrent being the main reason for preserving peace since 1945. He did not say that it was the only reason but that it was the main reason. This "umbrella" gave to Western Europe what my noble friend Lady Young pointed out has been an unrivalled period of peace, prosperity and democracy. The main reason why NATO and West European Governments supported the idea of the nuclear deterrent was essentially that they believed that the superior conventional forces—armaments and manpower—of the Soviet Union should be best met by the use of superior technology. This surely was a very rational approach. After all, war had come to an end and why should we have kept millions of men under arms? We had no desire to crush countries near to us; the Soviet Union had just such an intention and used that preponderance to ensure control over Eastern Europe.
In the mid-1970s, something changed—and perhaps more attention should have been paid to this in our debate. The deterrent changed in its character and impact. By that time, the Soviet nuclear build-up was such that it could begin to menace the United States directly. Therefore, as Dr. Kissinger pointed out, the credibility of the United States pledge to defend Western Europe naturally altered somewhat. Hence the present crisis in our attitude to nuclear weapons and hence, no doubt, in my opinion, the Soviet adventurism which has occurred since the mid-1970s. Hence, also, the efforts of the United States to modernise and revive existing systems since the assumption of our present arrangement, taking into account a fact often forgotten and not mentioned this evening, so far as I know—that huge arsenals of weapons, whether conventional or nuclear, can intimidate without their being used. Noble Lords, will, no doubt, remember the phrase of Clausewitz, that the most successful general is the one who captures a city without a shot being fired. If your Lordships do not remember that phrase, Lenin certainly did in 1915, since he had an appetite for military metaphors and used the phrase himself.
274
In many ways, the debate about nuclear weapons which is going on at present is a healthy one. But the fact that protest is concentrated against cruise and Pershing seems to be an unhealthy one, as the very purpose of this modernisation of nuclear weapons and intermediate range nuclear weapons derives from the fact that it was intended, as a result of the insistence by Chancellor Schmidt, to reduce the risk of Soviet nuclear blackmail against Europe alone; secondly, to tie the defence of Europe indissolubly to the United States. Soviet military blackmail against Europe was obviously much more plausible after a time when Soviet parity in nuclear weapons with the United States had been achieved. But with cruise and Pershing in place—particularly Pershing—the Soviet Union would not be able to attack Europe, with conventional weapons alone, since presumably they would have to destroy, in the process of that attack, United States missile bases.
If that were to occur, there would be a clear risk of United States response, therefore the extra danger caused by the positioning of cruise and Pershing missiles does not come to Western Europe but comes to the United States. It is, therefore, surprising that most of the demonstrations are occurring on the other side of the Atlantic and not on this side.
On the main question of strategic nuclear weapons, and although I do not agree with their conclusions, I agree with some of the ideas which have been put forward by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and by my noble kinsman Lord Gladwyn, and by Mr. McGeorge Bundy. I agree that we cannot rely for ever on superior technology to defeat or to withstand the Soviet Union. But it would be quite wrong to suppose that we can in any way rely on the Soviet Union, in the circumstances of the abandonment of our ability to use nuclear weapons first, to withhold a conventional attack. I see no reason why that should be the case. Furthermore, can it be possible that we would wish to say, formally, that we would prefer a conventional defeat to the use of nuclear weapons? I cannot see the circumstances in which that would happen.
The proponents of the idea that we should make a declaration of this nature are quite right to suggest that we should invest much more effort, manpower and money into conventional weapons. But I am very dubious that we can do so effectively in present circumstances without a massive public education campaign which would concentrate on the nature of the Soviet threat, which itself derives from the nature of the Soviet régime. That is one suggestion which I wish to make to the Government. Noble Lords have suggested that there is some kind of symmetry of distrust between the Soviet Union and the United States, between Soviet intentions and United States intentions. They are quite wrong. The Soviet threat derives specifically from the nature of the régime which has been in power since 1917. My noble friend Lord Carrington mentioned this and I wish to devote a moment or two on expanding that particular point.
The Soviet Union derives its legitimacy, as far as I can understand it, from the theory of Marxism and Leninism which claims, as noble Lords will be aware, to be an exact science of society and of politics just as chemistry is an exact science. How this exact science is

275
applied depends entirely on the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, whose members are the heirs of Lenin. Lenin made it clear that in his view the revolution in 1917 was a dividing point in world history comparable—not in his mind but in the minds of those who wanted to hear it—with the birth of Christ or the creation of Islam. The declared belief of Marxism and Leninism is still—and I see no reason to suppose that anyone has changed this point of view—that socialism, of which the Soviet Union is the only true model, is destined to spread throughout the globe. Therefore, unlimited expansion is inherent in the régime.
The Soviet leaders are not necessarily in a great hurry. They are merely permanently vigilant in the unilateral war which they concede they are having with the rest of the world and which the rest of the world does not look upon as a war at all. Naturally, in this conflict the Soviet Union would not like to use force if it could gain its aims without doing so—better by far to gain the fruits of war without the sacrifices of war. The Soviet leaders, as we have seen over the years, will mark time occasionally, will make complete changes of face and will retreat, but nevertheless the long-term intention remains. The difference between them and us is that the bargains which they make with their enemies are always armistices, never compromises, whereas a Western delegation goes to a conference to negotiate with the expectation of making one or two concessions and that the other side will make concessions, too. That is never in the Soviet mind. In the Soviet mind the demarcation between war and peace is extremely thin and usually undefined. Peace for the Soviet Union, as Professor Seton-Watson put it, is a continuation of war by other means. Certainly, as we have seen in the years since 1970, the idea of détente in the Soviet mind envisages the continuation of the international class struggle, without hesitation, at all levels except one—the military one.
It seems to me that these are very difficult concepts for the democratic societies to absorb, precisely because they are tolerant and democratic societies. The question whether this ideological war which is being waged against us really justifies the public belief that we are actually at peace is a very interesting one. Certainly the answer must take into account that it is a very different sort of peace to what it was, say, before 1914 when we had no obvious enemy permanently, arranging institutions to subvert us. I am certain that if democratic societies cannot, without betraying their essential natures, mobilise public opinion to respond to the spread of Soviet policies and the organisations which it has engineered to ensure that spread, we shall be in the serious trouble which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned is threatening us.
I do not want to end on an entirely bleak note. Our aim in dealing with the Soviet Union should surely be to force it into so many retreats, withdrawals and halts on the route by imaginative disarmament proposals, multilateral disarmament conferences and well propagandised proposals that perhaps a new generation of Soviet leaders—not, I suggest, that of Mr. Andropov—will ultimately come into power which will question the first principles which have
276
governed the Soviet Union's operations since 1917.
6.57 p.m.
Lord MacLeod of Fuinary: My Lords, I am a minister of the Church of Scotland, and for the three years 1979, 1980 and 1981 we voted for a multinational solution. But last year, for the first time, we voted not for a multilateral but for a unilateral approach. It is in their name that I speak, and I do so because it was by 255 votes to 105 votes, a margin of 100, that we decided the Church would be unilateral. I believe that in two or three years this will also be the decision of the Church of England in its Synod.
But for us, as we all know, this is not a moral issue. It is a Christian issue, because we can make no legislation in this place unless we have prayers beforehand. Therefore, it is always in the light of Christianity as such that we are legislating. We remember the prayer that was used, for instance, this afternoon and every afternoon:
"Prevent us, O Lord, in all our doings with thy most gracious favour … that in all our works begun, continued, and ended in thee, we may glorify thy holy Name …".
Here I am, therefore, and I am justified to speak in Christian terms in the light of that situation. I believe that our present activity should not be conditional—unilateralism, but immediate unilateralism. Our Lord, as we all know, said:
"Love your enemies, … do good to them that despitefully use you".
When that did not come off in his own experience he prayed for them:
"Forgive them, for they know not what they do".
Again, his disciples were speaking the same word, this completely Christian word in the early Church. Stephen also spoke it, and the Jews stoned him to death. As they stoned him to death he said:
"Lay not this sin to their charge".
Non-violence, then, as a rule simply by itself, becomes the rule of the Church, and for three centuries it was the rule of the Church, It was so until the beginning of the fourth century, when, unbelievably, because there had been this absolute mission and this absolute witness, Emperor Constantine of Rome himself became a Christian. Constantine was at that time surrounded by all the wars you could think of, and so the Church had to come down a peg and it began to speak in terms of a just war—that Christians could take part in a war when the end justified the means used. That was the belief of the Church for 1,600 years.
Perhaps the last demonstration of that belief was the Boer War, between the Dutch and the British. I am just old enough to remember it. It was really the last of that kind of justified war. The Dutch were great churchgoers, and at that time the British troops—soldiers and officers—were great churchgoers as well. The white flag came in from the Dutch suggesting that they should not fight on a Sunday, and it was decided not to fight on a Sunday. The Household Cavalry became so bored doing nothing on a Sunday that they began playing polo. The white flag came in again from the Dutch to a man called Baden-Powell (who we now associate with the Boy Scouts) who was in command of that sector. He sent back a

277
letter—I believe it is still extant, but I have never seen it—in which he apologised to the enemy for playing polo on a Sunday. That was the nature of the control that was alive at the end of that century as regards the doctrine of the just war.
We then come to the 1914–18 war, and at this point perhaps I may be allowed to say a few personal words. Like a million other people I joined up. I was in that force, and I understand the arguments on the other side about waiting until we have a completely Christian view. But the number of deaths were so catastrophic that to my own embarrassment I found myself to be the adjutant of a highland battalion at the age of 22. That was the kind of thing that was going on at that time, and that was the situation at the end of the first world war.
Then came the second world war. No one can dare to say that that was justified as regards the way in which we did things well before the atom bomb was dropped. For instance, we were surely not justified at Dresden, when our airforce went and killed thousands upon thousands of men, women, children and babies in their beds. No one can find that attack justified, as soon we deal in conventional terms. By the same token, in that war 50 million were killed, and not 10 per cent. of them were soldiers—they were mostly women, children and babes. We should remember that at that time Russia was our ally, and that she lost 10 million people because of the attacks that were taking place on her men, women and children. Yet the acceptance of multilateralism in these terms appears to be the idea that is still going around, as if the conventional war is something of which we can still approve—regretting it, of course. If indeed we exist to protest, then the Christian way must be followed against the atheist way. Non-violence is the only way, and it must be followed now.
What are we to do? First, let us face the fact that morals have gone down the wind in every direction, right across every country. For example, as regards the matter of sex, The Times had an article the other day stating that, of the number of young people who ask for a church marriage, for Christian marriage, over half of them admit that they have had sexual intercourse one with the other before ever the marriage takes place. What is the matter in this area? What is the matter in the related area of abortion? The Roman Catholic Church are the greatest people against abortion. There were one million abortions in Italy last year; in this country there were 140,000 abortions; in America there are more abortions than there are live births. What is the matter?
There is also the political/economic situation. The whole business of this everlasting asking for more cash and for more wages to be paid will lead inevitably to inflation unless somebody takes some action about it soon. There was the case of the very large industrial company in London with 3,000 workers. The managing director was so horrified by the situation that he wrote a personal letter to all of them asking them whether they would be patriotic and realise what the general effect was, and not just the individual effect, of covetousness in this regard. They were all rather impressed. But within five days there was recorded in a small passage in the newspaper the fact that the man in charge of them had had his own salary
278
raised by £20,000—not £20,000 from nothing: he was getting £30,000 and he added £20,000 at the time when he was asking them all to be helpful and patriotic. I am saying that this is happening right across the board. It is a moral issue. I shall not waste your Lordships' time by giving instances of the qualities in, "Thou shalt not kill", because we have been getting instances all afternoon. Suffice it to say in that regard that it concerns an area which is quite small.
All nations are at present failing to give money in the right amount to people in distress. In the last record that was prepared it was found that every 15 seconds somebody dies of starvation and every 15 seconds we—that is, all the countries—are spending £75,000 on preparation for war. Another person has worked it out that if we really wanted to give everything to everyone, if we wanted to give water, housing, education, food, bread and butter to everybody in the world, it would cost £17,000 million, if you can envisage that in your mind. It would cost £17,000 million to provide life for everybody, and that is the sum of money which we—all the nations of the world—are at the moment spending every two weeks on preparing for war.
What is the matter? I am not going to give a theologian's idea of what is the matter. This is a scientific world; a scientific age; and a materialistic world. Let us state the words of probably the greatest scientist of our time—Einstein. Einstein pointed out that matter is made up of an infinite number of atoms. He described the atom as light energy. It is rather exciting for a Christian to know that Christ is not just over there looking at what is happening in the world. Christ is in and through the whole situation. He is in and through the whole materialistic situation. He said that he was the light of the world, that he was the life of the world—not just the light of the Church or the light of the individual believer. Right in and through the whole situation there is Christ. This is something that really attacks us, and we have got to come right on it.
What is wrong with the Church? I will tell you what is wrong with the Church. What is wrong with the Church is that nobody wants to persecute it because there is absolutely nothing about it to persecute. The Church is simply the spirital wing actually joining with the whole vast appalling social disestablishment of "smash", which is everywhere. Somehow or another we have got to get down to the real issue, the real debate, of what to do—what to do about the situation when Christ is in and through the whole situation. His disciples, when they put away their nets and became fishers of men, came to him and said, "What are we to do?" Jesus said, "Feed the hungry, clothe the naked and release the people in bondage". Political, political, political—"Feed the hungry, clothe the naked and release the people in bondage". That is right in the middle of the situation, not in the spiritual world looking down on the rest of the world. But this is the area in which we have to do it—light energy—and in that kind of situation there is the great criticism of the Church. What do we do if we are to be true to this business of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, releasing the people in bondage?—bodies, bodies, bodies.

279
It looks as though the Church is being criticised and persecuted again. Let us look at what people have been saying about the CND in the last two or three weeks. This is the way in which it will come about. The CND will become larger and larger by reason of us getting into the real situation. We must love the Russians. Let us face the fact that we must love the Russians.
On another personal note, in the last two years I have been to Russia twice. I have been there at the expense of the Russian Government, not the Russian Church. The Russian Government have paid for my trip from Edinburgh to Moscow so that I may deal in conversation, not with the Russian Church but with members of the hierarchy in the Kremlin. I was there as a member of the Christian Peace Conference, which comprises half Russians and half British people, and which meets at its headquarters in Prague. I know that some will say that that is just the tricky way in which they get us. But are we for ever going to talk in these terms? Every time America does something, are we to applaud, even if it is MX? Every time Russia does something, are we to say that they are just doing it to be cunning? Unless we are fair with Russia, how do we suppose that we shall ever join with Russia to understand what they are doing? Precisely five years ago, in February, we had a whole discussion on this in this House and it ended up with the multi-nuclear approach. We have made no advance in those five years. We shall never come together until we do it in the right sense and do it by total disarmament now.
It is true that the Church has been persecuted by the Russians, but let us open our minds to the fact that things are changing. The Russians are now opening the churches again, both Baptist and Eastern Orthodox, which is a change from what we usually imagine they are doing about the churches. Is it not true that things are not going as well as we expected they would and as they expected they would? Communism is not succeeding. Why, they cannot even grow enough maize after 60 years of agricultural control of the land; they have to buy it from America. They cannot produce enough butter and they have to buy it from the capitalist countries of the West. Industrially, they cannot even make enough steel for the gas pipeline scheme to run from the capitalist countries to Moscow. Both agriculturally and industrially they are not making a success of it. Communism is not rising in countries; it is not rising in this country. Not more than 20,000 people have joined the Communist Party from all those millions who have joined all the other organisations.
It is not three months since there was a by-election in Scotland in a working-class district. The Labour man won and the Communist candidate lost his deposit. Communism is not working; they know that communism is not working. They want nothing more than peace, if only because of China. China is on Russia's other border with a limitless coastline between the two of them. Russia is far more afraid of China than it is of America. Why?—because China has tried communism and communism has failed. Are we really serious that Russia will make conventional war first and then possibly nuclear war, with China waiting to come in behind them? It will never happen in that way and we know that it will never happen.
280
I know about Afghanistan. I also know about Vietnam, where hundreds of young Americans were killed with ammunition which had been provided to the enemy by the armament-makers of America. I know about another place called Diego Garcia, where, in the 1960s, our own Labour Government told 1,800 farming people whose families had lived there for generations to get out because we had given the island to America, who wanted it for war-like purposes in the Indian Ocean. They had to go and they went to Mauritius, where they were not expected. Half of them got jobs, and today half of them are starving. It is our decision to get on with Russia.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but I notice that he has now taken 20 minutes and there are another 20 speakers. I am sure that the House will be grateful if the noble Lord could start to come to the conclusion of his speech.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I shall not follow the noble Lord in the range of his approach to the subject of our debate, except to note with some disappointment that what started in a vein which, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, pointed out, we have come to expect from the noble Lord, Lord Soper—that is to say, a vein of pacifism and non-resistance based on a personal moral commitment—towards the end of the noble Lord's speech seemed to turn to something which is very familiar in debates on this subject, namely, the exciting of prejudice against our allies in the United States of America.
I say this because I agree with the noble Lord who has just sat down that one ought to love and admire the Russians. The Russians are a people who have made major contributions to European civilisation. Europe would not be the same without it. The tragedy of the situation is that because of the régime to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, referred, we arc cut off from the fruitful contact which peace with the Russians would enable us to enjoy. But to love the Russians does not seem to me to mean that you have to hate the Americans.
The other day, in a speech which was widely reported, the Foreign Secretary said that he thought there was a dangerous current of anti-Americanism growing in this country and clearly, if it did, it would weaken NATO's deterrence, which depends as much on the mutual confidence of the nations composing it as on their military or technical strength. He did not say where this anti-American feeling was being generated. On the radio this morning that question was asked of Mr. Denis Healey, who has been referred to more than once this afternoon. Mr. Healey replied that the Foreign Secretary must have been thinking of right-wing members of the Conservative Party who still had a grudge against the United States dating back to the time of Suez.
I quite appreciate the delicacy of Mr. Healey's position clinging on to the deputy leadership of a party which increasingly adopts policies which he hates in his heart. One is always in the position with Mr. Healey, not of asking, as one does with other politicians, do I believe what he is saying, but does he believe what he is saying? Did Mr. Healey really

281
believe—he may believe—that there may indeed be backwoodsmen in my party who cherish animosities dating to Suez? For all I know there are some Peers in the backwoods who have not forgiven the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and still think that those colonies should have been brought to heel. I think what Mr. Pym had in mind was what all of us have discovered in relation to CND: that a large part of the argument of CND and its supporters no longer has much, or anything, to do with the horrors of nuclear warfare but is designed primarily to create difficulties, tensions, and disagreements between ourselves and our American allies.
May I give your Lordships one particular illustration? The noble Lord, Lord Home, referred to a debate in the Oxford Union in which he and I and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, took part last week. The fourth visiting speaker was the spokeswoman, or spokesperson, of the women of Greenham Common. One might have thought that, whatever was thought about the political leadership of the CND, about its central figures, some of them very controversial, there in the Greenham Common women you had the straight voice of humanity protesting on behalf of themselves and their children against the appalling dangers which nuclear weapons admittedly present to all of us. Yet the speech of this lady had almost nothing to do with nuclear weapons. She never talked about the dangers of nuclear weapons; neither the moral dangers, the moral ambiguities of our possession of them, nor the physical dangers of the possession of nuclear weapons by potential enemies. Almost her entire speech was devoted to saying that we were an occupied country under the heel of an American occupying army, and to pointing to various things in the world which, as reported, might well bring discredit on a particular action of some American administration, but which were clearly designed and intended to produce in our hearts hatred and distrust of our own allies. This seems to me a serious turn in the propaganda of CND.
It is related to something which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, has already referred to; namely, that Soviet foreign policy is, and necessarily is, a continuum from 1917 to the present because it is based on certain fundamental assumptions about the permanent irreconcilability of the communist or, as they would prefer to call it, socialist and non-socialist worlds. I do not think you need from this to believe that the Soviet Union is a particularly aggressive power, or is likely to commit aggression for its own sake, or is likely to do more than regard the military option as one of those which, in some circumstances, may be available for its own defence if necessary, or the achievement of external objectives. Because that policy has been continuous it has always embodied two particular strands; one propagandist, and one diplomatic, including of course the building up—the perfectly legitimate building up—of the Soviet Union's own military and industrial strength.
The diplomatic effort of the Soviet Union has always been directed, quite understandably, given the premises from which they start, to dividing up and creating differences between the countries that do not share their ideology. It was the nightmare of the Soviet Union when it was weak that the capitalist world would combine against it. They had some at any rate plausible instances of the civil war period to refer to.
282
Since the last war, when the United States has emerged as the main obstacle all round the world to the furtherance of Soviet designs—sometimes a successful obstacle and sometimes unsuccessful—the main objective of Soviet diplomacy (and propaganda clearly is intended to serve diplomacy) has been to bring about division. If NATO could be diplomatically dissolved the Soviet Union would no doubt breathe a great sigh of relief.
The second thread has been the destruction, through propaganda, of the will of peoples to defend themselves militarily. This goes back long before the age of nuclear weapons, or of missiles. It goes back to the very early period. Throughout the period between 1928 and the Soviet Union's temporary change of front towards the policy of collective security in 1935, the energies of the Communist International were very largely directed towards stimulating resistance to military service and to allegiance to countries' own arms programmes on the part of their citizens.
I therefore find nothing odd or curious in the fact that the commerce between the leaders of CND and Moscow, to which the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, referred, has the effect over here of presenting views which the Soviet Union holds and which it would like us to hold. Therefore, the constant complaints that are made—and made over this weekend about the remarks of the Prime Minister—by the leaders of CND that they are being pictured as mere agents of a foreign power, seem to me to be ones which they could easily dispel if they ceased only to advocate those aspects of disarmament which are favourable to that foreign power, and began to advocate aspects of disarmament the other way round.
If one genuinely, one hundred per cent., took the view that nuclear weapons are—and it is a perfectly tenable view—the most disgusting and horrific things ever invented, surely one would have grasped the zero option with both hands. It is the largest obstacle to the promotion of new weapons. But because of the Soviet Union's own calculation of the balance of strength, the zero option is not thought suitable, and we have silence on the part of CND about the merits of that particular proposal.
We have to take it for granted that it is necessary to persuade our people that, whether or not we believe in this particular level of deterrence, whether we accept that we would rather be defended by conventional means even if it meant conscription in this country—which is not a point which has been mentioned by any of those who have advocated larger conventional forces, although they have not explained how, without compulsory service, it would be possible to reach this target—it still remains the fact that we are an alliance, that we need to trust our allies, and that if that trust disappears then we might as well throw in the game.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, this debate is clearly part of the overture which began last weekend, and I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has just left his place, that perhaps he has been allocated only the role of playing the triangle in this orchestra. Nevertheless, the debate plays a part in what will clearly be a determined campaign by the Conservative Party to discredit the whole cause and philosophy

283
of unilateralism and the CND in particular. I say that at the outset, but I wish to take up the point the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made at the beginning of his speech when he said that this issue is much wider than party politics. I hope he will accept, when he reads my remarks in Hansard, that it is my intention in what I say tonight to make that point. At the same time, it is of tremendous importance that this issue should have been put on the political agenda; the more discussion and argument there is about it in debates of this kind, the better for the understanding and democratic decisions of the people of Britain.
Before I leave the party issue, there are two points I feel I should make. The first is that I should have liked the noble Lord, had he still been in his place, to take the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, along with him to No. 10 Downing Street to teach the Prime Minister a little history. If they did that, I am sure they could teach her that if she projects the hypothetical situation of nuclear weapons appearing in the 1930s and reaches the conclusion that unilateralism would have given Hitler what he wanted—namely, 1,000 years of the Reich—she might then agree that she has forgotten that it was her party which rearmed Germany under Hitler, which sent the signals to Hitler over the reoccupation of the Rhineland, over the invasion of Austria, over the Sudetenland and over Czechoslovakia. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, will agree that those signals make the decisions of a handful of Oxford undergraduates—most of whom were the products of the public schools in 1933—or of the Peace Trade Union, pale into oblivion compared with the signals which the Conservative Government of the 1930s were sending to Hitler. What was the purpose of Conservative policy in the 1930s? Was it not to build up Hitler and Nazism and turn them, if it could, against the East?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I go a little way with the noble Lord up to a point, but there is not the slightest evidence for the remark he just made, and if I were honoured by being asked to give historical advice to the Prime Minister, I certainly would not make that point.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: In that case, my Lords, perhaps I had better go with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, to No. 10 rather than Lord Beloff. I should be prepared on another occasion to debate with him the issue that the objective of the Conservative Party during the 1930s was to use Hitler's Germany as a pivot against the Soviet Union.
Leaving the party issue, I suggest that a great deal of this debate will be looked back on, if human beings survive into the 21st century, as a matter of fantasy. On present evidence, the human race has existed for two to three million years. It is now facing the most profound challenge in that ancient history. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich spoke of moral limits—
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: I do not think he did, my Lords. The Bishop of Norwich is hoping to speak next.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: I apologise, my Lords; I meant to refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who spoke of moral limits and included within those nuclear weapons. I recall hearing a very great man, Nye Bevan, speak in the same sense. But this is not just a question of morality, and I am sure I carry every noble Lord with me when I say it is a matter of practical survival, survival not for Russia, the United States or Britain but for the human race as a species. We have seen many species die out because they could not adapt to their environment. That is the issue we are facing today: can the human race adapt to the new circumstances, the totally new world that has been created by nuclear weapons, in such a way as to survive?
I say that much of this debate appears to have been taking place in a fantasy world because outside this Chamber the kind of thing which characterises the world in which we are living is, as the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod, mentioned, the death of 17 million children a year from starvation; the lives of 800 million people a year in sub-human conditions; the living of 1 billion people in dire poverty; and the crumbling of the industrial life which has developed over the past two centuries in Europe and North America. Those are the real issues. By the end of the century, shall we, all of us, be able to find the wherewithal to sustain life for the 6 billion human beings who will be living on this planet at that time, if they are allowed to do so?
The main preoccupation of the leaders of our world today appears to be the creation of massive fortresses in which community will obliterate community, inviting the extinction of the species. Let us not try to get away from our responsibility. We are killing children now, right at this moment. It may be argued that that is a necessary cost and the only way to preserve what noble Lords have been talking about all afternoon, our way of life. But let us not close our eyes to the fact that it is part of the cost, that it is in the balance sheet, of the foreign and arms policy of our Government and every other Government concerned.
When we talk about a 3 per cent. increase per year in arms expenditure, we are talking about the death of millions of children. I am not saying there cannot be an argument that that cost is considered by some people to be essential. I am simply saying that we should not run away from the responsibility, because it is there and we are doing it. Further, we are making that perspective of the world steadily worse, and noble Lords who have seen the second volume of the report of the Brandt Commission will recall that Willy Brandt himself wrote in the introduction:
"There is no doubt in my mind: only an end to the arms race, which in developing countries also has reached a terrifying pace, will give us the chance of overcoming our common crisis—the grim political and economic confusion engulfing our societies everywhere".
Later it is noted that when the 1980 report was written the commission was referring to arms expenditure of 450 billion dollars, and that when the 1982 report was written the figure was 650 billion dollars.
I want to make a plea for tolerance, and I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said in his opening remarks. The case for disarmament does not need proving. The few words that I have said are, I hope, sufficient to establish that case. But I make a plea for

285
tolerance because there are different ways of achieving disarmament, or there are different approaches; it has not been achieved anywhere yet. I would suggest that we should all, on all sides of the argument, accept the sincerity and the humility of both ourselves and our disputants. People in all parties, and people in no parties, in this country believe in both the multilateral and the unilateral approach to disarmament. It may be said (and it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Belloff) that we—at any rate unilateralists—should be talking to the Russians. I would welcome the chance. If anyone could arrange for me to talk to the Russians, I should jump at the chance.
But, my Lords, we have a responsibility here, and we are debating here the policy of our own Government. This afternoon I was speaking to, and listening to for a few minutes, Monsignor Bruce Kent, who has been talking to the Russians. So CND people do talk to the Russians when they get the chance; and I will talk to the Russians. In fact, I cut my political teeth in fighting Willie Gallagher in the West Fife constituency of Scotland.
There are certain questions which arise when we approach what has been called—and I deliberately say, "called"—the multilateral approach. We have been told that the multilateral approach to disarmament brings peace, that the common deterrence of the nuclear age has brought peace. Peace to where, my Lords? Has it brought peace to Korea, to Vietnam, to Hungary, to Czechoslovakia? Just think back to Suez. No, it has not brought peace. It has perhaps prevented war between the two sections of the European Community—I say "perhaps". But what multilateralism has not done—this is something which the multilateralists have to answer—has been to bring about disarmament. In fact, following the so-called multilateral case for disarmament has meant that the arms race has actually been speeded up, intensifying the insecurity of people.As has been frequently said this afternoon, we know now that there are numbers of nuclear weapons far in excess of what would be needed to obliterate the whole human race and to leave this planet incapable of sustaining life. Why do we want any more? You can die only once. What is the case for more, and more modern, nuclear weapons?
I would ask those of my multilateral friends who are not prepared to look at these questions not to try to create a false antithesis within the country, not to make the false projection that unilateralism and multilateralism are an antithesis. Nobody on the unilateral side has suggested that we suddenly obliterate all nuclear weapons—I wish to God that we could!—or that we suddenly destroy all British nuclear weapons, or that we suddenly remove all American nuclear bases. Every argument that has been made on the unilateral side has been an argument for a phased reduction, over a period, with the aim of ultimate outlawing of nuclear weapons. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who unfortunately cannot be present today owing to sickness, talks about not being able to disinvent nuclear weapons. No, we cannot disinvent them; but what we can do is to aim to destroy them, to finish with them, to exorcise them—and that I would have thought should have been the principal aim of any Christian Church.
286
I know that much of what I have said depends upon the supposition that my opponents are wrong when they persuade so many people in this country and in other countries that there is a threat from the Soviet Union. I think that this has been very well answered many times over the past week, when many people have been asking, why on earth should the Soviet Union want to rule over Western Europe in decline; why should it want to take over the problems of Northern Ireland or the Falklands? But I agree here with the Government, because in paragraph 106 of their defence White Paper for 1981 they wrote:
"We still have no reason to believe that Soviet leaders are specifically planning to attack NATO".
I agree with that. I do not believe that the Soviet Union has any intention of attacking the West. I believe that at Yalta it accepted the division of Europe, and that it has no interest and no reason to make any form of attack on the West. After all, the Russians are realists; and I repeat, a Russian, or an American, or a Briton can die only once. It would be stupid for the Russians to hold a pistol to their heads and say, "We are now blackmailing you. If you don't do as we wish, we shall shoot ourselves", because they know as well as we do that nuclear war means total obliteration.
I believe in the unilateral approach, as all the unilateralists whom I know believe in a phased reduction of nuclear arms, leading to a final, complete obliteration of them. I believe in this because I feel that Britain can play a most important historic role in setting an example and in persuading the many countries in the world which are on the verge of getting nuclear weapons not to do so. You cannot argue for an end to the proliferation of nuclear weapons if at the same time you are keeping your own; nobody will believe you.
I know that there is a difficulty in public opinion and in the fear that has been spread by the media and by Government action. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who initiated this debate, said that emotion is a bad guide to policy; yes it is—and fear is an emotion. It is fear which has led successive Governments—not just the present one—to believe that piling up weapons which are capable of obliterating the human race several times over is a policy that is giving security to Britain. It is not; it is giving increasing insecurity, and that is why there is a growing support for at least a critical attitude towards the assumption that the security of this country depends upon the possession of nuclear weapons. For that reason I welcome this debate and many public debates throughout the country on this issue, in the strong and firm conviction that the more the subject is debated, the more clarity there will be, the more reality there will be, and the better chance we shall have of getting back to the real problem of the world: the survival of the human race.
7.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I recognise the seriousness and the solemnity of what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has been saying. I made a note of his phrase a few minutes ago "the survival of the human race". It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that one of the more unusual contributions in the debate in the General Synod on

287
10th February, last Thursday, was from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, whose early retirement grieves us all, though we know the pressure on his health of seven long years of primacy, and we wish him well in his retirement. We know he will be of use to us in the life of the Church. He made the particular point which exactly follows what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, said that in the early world the non-Christian world feared judgment, Hell, the afterlife, the dangers, and therefore feared as they looked forward to the end of the world. Whereas, said the Archbishop, the early Church looked forward to the end of the world with joy because they had heard the words of the Master saying, when wars and rumours of wars come, "Look up, for your redemption draws near". That left a very deep impression on us and lifted our General Synod debate, again, as Lord Hatch has done, to a different level of thought. I simply share that as I felt it was relevant to his speech.
I notice from reading again the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the first thing that he is asking us to do is that this House should endorse
"the effectiveness of NATO's policy of deterrence in preserving the peace in Europe".
I should like to say a word from these Benches on the continuing effectiveness of deterrence through NATO. I believe that this is in fact above party politics. I believe it concerns hard facts and I see it as part of bipartisan policy for every post-war Government from 15th August 1945 to the 16th February 1983, because the hard fact is this. Despite all other sorrows and horrors which we have been just been reminded about in Europe—which is very much the crunch point, the meeting place, of different ideologies—for 38 years there has been that measure of peace which has been a mighty contribution to world peace. I would posit the fact that this is based on the effectiveness of the deterrent policy seen in NATO.
Therefore, Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility to maintain our guard, to maintain our nuclear deterrent and to maintain a European peace which is not just a peace for us in the West but is a peace for our human brothers in the East. It has a measure of world peace, and with it, as the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, with his vast experience of direct negotiation with the Russians, told us in his speech this afternoon, is the keeping up of our guard and the seeking by patient negotiation at the negotiation table to find methods forward towards peace which have advantages both to the USSR and to the free world.
This goes back to that remarkable speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home, in the debate on foreign affairs on the Queen's speech in November. We can read that speech in Hansard and I will not now quote it because of the time factor. I believe that it is right and proper that the Christian conscience can be grateful for deterrence because it is working, it has worked and it has maintained at least this measure of world peace. As churchmen, who can make free choices as Christians of all denominations in the United Kingdom—thank God—are able to make, we should continue to decide for peace. As I see it, the NATO Alliance is an alliance of defence and not of attack. As far as I see it, there is no desire on the part
288
of our allies, the Americans, ourselves or the European countries, to go on an aggressive attacking war against the USSR to gain more ground, to gain more territory and so on.
At the same time I am sure that the noble Baroness the Leader of the House carried many with her when again at the beginning of this debate she spoke about the importance of the certainty of uncertainty in the heart of deterrence. As I see it—and all of us can only see things from a careful study of the situation—there is a continuing effectiveness of deterrence through NATO, which is the first part of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is asking us to debate.
He goes on to say in his Motion that he wishes this House may stress
"the disastrous effects which one-sided or unilateral disarmament would have".
I should like, therefore, to say a word about this phrase "disastrous results of unilateral or one-sided disarmament". I should like to put it this way. I speak here simply as a Christian bishop. It is important that Christians should be free to take a unilateral or a multilateral stance, according to their consciences, after careful consideration of the situation, and not be led into a moral blackmail situation, it being thought that one side is for peace and multilateralists are warmongers. This is not so. As I see it, those who are concerned about multilateral disarmament are as concerned for world peace as unilateralists.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate. May I put this to him, as it is a point which worries very many sincere Christians who see the possible advantage of our using nuclear weapons first when the Soviet Union could crash through Western Germany? Would we then be good Christians to drop our medium-range missiles and atomic weapons in an endeavour to wipe out the Russians and also wipe out millions of innocent Germans? That is the problem which faces many of them.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, for that interjection and for the most difficult question that all who name the name of Christ ask themselves. Some come, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, and as we may well hear from the noble Lord, Lord Soper, to a straight pacifist view, which is a view I cannot take, but I believe there is an area here of the question of probability and the question of the phrase used by the noble Baroness when she spoke of the importance of the certainty of uncertainty. I think the very probing question of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, may at least tease out one or two of the points that, if your Lordships will allow me to do it, come through from our debate on Thursday.
There has been a reference to it in a number of speeches, but I felt that my most useful contribution to the debate might be to speak a little bit about the long debate of the General Synod from 10 in the morning until four in the afternoon. It was a grave day, a careful day of debating. We were not making clever points off each other. But, having said that, the gravity of the report of the working party, which was the basis of our debate, on page 160, paragraph 18, had at its heart that the United Kingdom should renounce its

289
independent nuclear deterrent. This was the heart of the working party report.
On the whole, the speeches ranged in that area right through until the amendments were taken at about half past three. In addition to that, the Bishop of Salisbury, who chaired this working party—a very able theologian; one of our newer bishops, as your Lordships will know—sought to sharpen up the general approach to the document by moving as an amendment that not only should there be this unilateral disengagement concerning nuclear weaponry but also that Polaris should be scrapped, that Trident should not be replaced and that there should be a discontinuance of nuclear weapons of British manufacture. He put his point carefully and well, and with courtesy and courage. I disagreed with him, but it was a very open debate.
As I see it, this was a clear counsel of capitulation, and the bishop invited the major decision-making body of the Church of England to make an open statement on this. There were tender consciences on both sides. Having said that, I personally thank God that there was a resounding rejection of that position by the General Synod of the Church of England, by 366 votes to 100—a major rejection of that point. I believe that this overwhelming rejection by the Church of England of a one-sided or unilateral disarmament view was not simply a war-mongering stance, and was certainly not something which would give comfort to any militarist position. I think that it will give great relief to Church of England members who had no way of knowing how the central councils of the Church would respond to this greatest and most important issue of our day; but that was the figure.
I believe that it may give comfort to Her Majesty's Government, which are freely and democratically elected; and I am sure that it will give great encouragement and comfort to our allies in NATO. But—and this I think is important—I really do believe that it will help not only to swing back the tide of unilateralism in England but will help the USSR, the Russians, to come more seriously to the negotiating table of nuclear debate; and, if so, that debate itself will prove to be a major peace move for world peace.
If I may just use one illustration, there were three awful weapons hanging over the world: nuclear, biological and chemical. What is the track record? The track record is that there has been a multilateral decision to ban biological weapons; and we all stood to this, East and West. There was a unilateral decision which we took on this side, the western side of the Iron Curtain, to ban chemical weapons, which was not accepted by the Russians; and we know of their stockpile, and we even know of the use of it in Afghanistan. Therefore, if, on record, a multilateral decision held and a unilateral decision failed in the case of two of the most dreadful weapons that could be loosed upon the human race, is it not for peace and for the best care of the world's humanity that we should try hard for a multilateral effort in this particular area?
I know that as a mere Prelate on the Bench of Bishops I am speaking in political terms, but I do it because we had the opportunity in our General Synod of entering into a debate in detail after studying with great care this very important book, which I believe will be a source book for study in the coming days and
290
even years. I believe that the decision of the Synod gives hope and stability for the future of our country, because if Britain remains firm on viable, verifiable and step-by-step multilateral disarmament, then we move forward to the negotiating table in hope, yes—and this is not a pious statement—in prayer, and in concern for the world; because we are concerned with peace and with justice and with freedom. For this reason, I hope that this Motion by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will be accepted by the House.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, only once before have I ventured to speak in a debate on defence in your Lordships' House. This is because I can certainly claim no expert knowledge in this field; but it occurs to me that in all political controversies there sometimes comes a point when an expression of the layman's anxieties and perhaps the layman's questions can be helpful, perhaps even challenging, to those who are experts on the subject—and there are many in your Lordships' House who can make that claim. The small boy who pointed out that the emperor had no clothes was, no doubt, no expert in imperial regalia; but he had a point which the expert courtiers had missed. It is in that spirit that I am venturing to raise some questions this evening about NATO strategy.
I think that most of us can agree that its central purpose is to resist the threat of communism, particularly in the European arena. It is for that central purpose that the whole armoury of nuclear weapons and conventional forces is being assembled: Polaris, Trident, cruise and Pershing—the whole armoury! It is for that purpose that they have been assembled to such an extent that the mind boggles at the statistics of over-kill which we have to reckon with in this subject.
It seems to me that the irony of our situation is that the greater that armoury becomes, year by year and month by month, the less secure we seem to feel. That anxiety, I am sure, is the root cause of the growing peace movement in western Europe. Its adherents may be illogical, they may be naïve; the movement may be erroneous in its purpose and its policy. But it is based upon the fear, I believe, of many ordinary men and women that one day it may all go wrong and the human race may destroy itself. That is not now exaggerated language; that is the possibility.
The other part of the irony of our situation, surely, is that probably ordinary men and women in the Moscow streets are equally insecure and equally apprehensive about the future. So, faced with that situation, my layman's questions refer to two words which are constantly used—and they have been constantly used this afternoon—in this whole defence argument. The first of those words is "strength". We appear to be yearning for that and moving towards it. The second is "balance", which is so often used in the argument. I ask: Are we strong, and do increasing arguments add to our strength and to our capacity to resist communism?
If we look back in recent time, surely one of the great lessons of history relates not to the European scene but to South-East Asia. Let us think for a moment of the vast strength of armaments which the Americans poured into Vietnam. I am not here falling into the trap that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, warned us

291
against, of being anti-American. The facts of the Vietnam struggle are that enormous resources were poured into that area. With what result? The victor was communism, and the victor in that area remains communism. This should warn us that communism by no means depends for its victories on the strength of its armaments, though I am by no means forgetting the events of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, where armed force was used to achieve Soviet ends. But communism depends for its victories on a combination of armed force and ideological warfare. It is prepared to fight battles if it sees its territory under threat, as it was under threat in Budapest and in Prague.
But even more important—and this is my main point this evening—communism is prepared to fight its battles for men's minds. In much of the world men's minds are likely to be influenced by economic circumstances. If a man and his family are hungry and starving, they are likely to call into question the very basis of the society which keeps them hungry. It is for this reason that once again I ask my question: What is strength, and how should our economic resources be used?
My noble friend Lord Hatch has reminded us that only last week the Brandt Commission again warned the world of an impending economic collapse. Again, that phrase is not an exaggeration; that type of language reflects the imminent situation in which the world finds itself. I believe that an impending economic collapse in the world is a greater threat to our way of life, to democracy and to freedom than any threat that is masterminded in the Kremlin. It is for this reason that I believe that our military experts, with some honourable exceptions such as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, are as much at fault in putting so much of their trust in the nuclear deterrent as was a previous generation of military experts which put its trust in the Maginot Line.
Who, a few years ago, would have expected that so much of our military resources would need to be directed to the South Atlantic? That reminds us that some basic assumptions that we make often get disproved by an unlikely turn of events. I believe that we should learn the supreme lesson from recent history—and I think it is being overlooked on all sides—that if as we are doing, we continue to pour our resources into armaments at such a rate rather than into the battle against world poverty, communism may not extend its frontiers as we fear in Europe but it will have its victories. It will extend its influence and its power in Central America, in South America and perhaps in many countries in Africa. That is the threat—for those who are anxious to ward off communism—to which more attention should be given, and not exclusively to the threat in Europe. We are not getting that right, and unless we do we shall have a heavy price to pay.
I referred to two words on which I would wish to hinge my remarks: the first was "strength" and the second "balance". "Balance" is much used in defence controversy. We are told that we have had and do have a balance of terror, and that that preserves peace in Europe. We are told—and I largely agree with this—that we should seek a balanced multilateral
292
disarmament. It is said—and I do not agree with this—that we must balance the Soviet SS20s with the equivalent deployment of cruise and Pershing. We are told that it is this equilibrium which has enabled us to avoid war since 1945.
As I say, I recognise a great deal of their justification, but when these arguments about balance and equilibrium are used my layman's mind goes back to my schoolboy's physics. I was then taught that there are two kinds of equilibrium: stable equilibrium and unstable equilibrium. There can be no doubt what kind of equilibrium it is that we have in Europe today. We have a vast pyramid of armaments in a state of equilibrium, but poised delicately on its apex. It needs but a minor miscalculation of the forces which keep it poised and the whole edifice will come crashing down.
The task of statesmen today is to move the world from that state of unstable equilibrium into a state of stable equilibrium. In the coming weeks all eyes will be on the negotiations in Geneva. Many expressions of hope for successful negotiations have been made in this debate, because we are told that if there is not a successful outcome of those negotiations we are threatened towards the end of this year with a considerable escalation of the nuclear build-up.
However, I remind your Lordships of another conference and another set of negotiations. I hope that all eyes will not only be on Geneva; I hope that eyes will also be (indeed, I hope that all eyes will be) on Williamsburg, where we shall have a summit on economic affairs. Whatever happens at Geneva, if Williamsburg is a failure then Geneva will be counted as a failure. In other words, I am suggesting that what we should be seeking is a better balance between the resources which are poured into armaments, on the one hand, and, on the other, those which are directed to fighting hunger, disease and poverty throughout the world. At the moment the distribution of resources between those two objectives is madly wrong. It is madly out of balance; and I believe it is not too much to say that disaster of one kind or another threatens the world, as the Brandt Commission has warned us, if we do not put that balance in better perspective.
8.20 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this debate, as one would expect, has been conducted at an extremely high level. Like the noble Lord who has just spoken, I would not claim to be an expert. I was not even a subaltern in the brigade of the noble Lord, Lord Carver, and the Church to which I belong would not allow me to be a prelate. But from 1943 until after the end of the war I worked as a junior laboratory assistant with a team of Cambridge scientists, carrying out research for the Nagasaki atom bomb. I remember so clearly on the day the bomb was dropped the horror of those young researchers. They had hoped the bomb would only be used as a threat and that it would never have to be dropped. They knew the implications. They had looked forward so much. I remember them saying, to the splendid results of the research they were doing—how all big ships in the end would be fuelled by nuclear power and how all electricity would be generated that way one day—but the sooner nuclear weapons were banned, they said on that occasion, the better.

293
Four decades have passed, and what the scientists and comparatively few others knew then is widely recognised now. My noble friend Lord Carrington spoke—it seems a long time ago now—simply and extremely clearly. He said that in his view the reason why debate about how to get rid of nuclear weapons has come to the top of the agenda again so strongly has been the lack of talks and the lack of negotiations. Now that talks are going again, that will greatly help.
I am sure that is so, but I should like to suggest that there is just as cogent a reason—perhaps an even more cogent reason—for the heat of the debate in the pubs, in community centres, in schools and college classrooms and even camping out on a certain common. That is that we are getting the two parts of this issue dangerously confused and that far too many people in responsible positions who see this and could point it out are, for their own reasons, allowing the confusion to grow and the issue to remain blurred.
It has been clear in this debate that one part of the issue is the exceptional nature of the nuclear weapons, their horrifying implications and the overwhelming reasons why they must be permanently banned from the face of the earth. The other part of the debate is the practical human problem of how we arrive at that objective; how we get rid of them. The bomb must be defused and it is right that theologians, philosophers, military men and pressure groups of all sorts should continue with passion to say why, and to say why the urgency is so acute.
But the question being debated now is how to defuse the bomb without setting it off in the process. That question is a practical one: a matter of strategy. It calls for the coolest, most mature and best reasoned consideration and judgment that we as a country can muster. The difficulty is that, because the stakes are so high and if things go wrong the penalty may be the end of life on earth, deep anxiety and deep passion are aroused. Furthermore, as the saying goes,
"When passion is high, then reason is low."
The momentousness of the objective is blinding too many people to common-sense thinking about how to get there. So we find the kind of inconsistencies which have been indicated in this debate. We find people who know very well the story of Britain's response to Hitler in the 'thirties and are deeply critical of what they see as the weakness of the disarmers of those days, telling themselves that all that experience is irrelevant when it comes to the bomb. We find it being said that people appreciate that Britain and the United States of America unilaterally disarmed themselves of chemical weapons years ago without effect—but that that experience is irrelevant when it comes to the bomb. We find people who are convinced that if Afghanistan had had nuclear weapons they would not have been invaded—but that that experience is also irrelevant.
We find pacifists, who hitherto have seen their belief as an individual matter, now urging the whole nation to turn the other cheek, in the hope that our example will carry all before it. We find people who are not pacifists at all saying that, because it seems inconceivable that we would ever fire nuclear weapons, it is wrong to have them and that we should use the money to buy Exocets instead. We find others who say that it is all right to have the deterrent
294
provided we make it known that we would wait until we were hit or that the aggressor's weapon was on the way before we fired. These are inconsistencies indeed, or so it seems to me. Ordinary people are so deeply worried about the nature of the bomb that common sense about how to defuse it seems to be getting lost.
My Lords, peace-making, working with our fellow human beings wherever they are, to achieve the end of nuclear weapons must be paramount and the work must be done at every level. Tourists and travellers, theologians and philosophers, teachers and scientists all have their parts to play in reminding us that our fellow human beings are people too, beneath the surface of the often over-simplified media talk.
But we begin where we are and human beings, as my noble friend Lord Home said, are capable of suspicion, of fear, of blackmail and of aggression, nationally as well as individually, when they have nuclear weapons and when they do not. The Holy Fool, the jester with influence, is a role that a man may play with honour; but to cast 50 million people in that role, in the hope that stronger countries will take the point, would be to increase the existing risk to gargantuan proportions.
It seems to me that it is the clear duty of responsible people, of all political parties and of none, to give a lead to the people of Britain now from a position of reasonable strength, to help us to try to arrive at a situation where we discuss pragmatically and calmly how, bit by bit, the level of nuclear arms can be reduced on all sides. As that is done and as progress is monitored, each human group will begin to see the colour of the other's assurances and intentions and so trust will grow and success will become possible.
The Russians have a proverb:
"Straw should make no pact with fire".
They are not confused by emotion. They will not talk themselves into negotiating from a position of weakness, from a position which opens them to blackmail. The people of this country must not talk themselves out of common sense, either. I support the Motion.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I am sensible of the generosity with which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, referred to pacifists, as did, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Home, and I found those expressions of unilateral action and kindness most disarming. I should like to respond by making a very clear statement, before I indulge in some other matters which I hope will be clear, but may well be controversial. But I have no doubt as to the utter sincerity, if that is not impudent so to say, of those who will support this Motion.
I have no doubt as to their desire, as keenly expressed and as deeply found as that which I would claim for myself and others, and I recognise that they, too, may well look upon the situation as apocalyptic in the sense that we have, perhaps, a terminal condition on our hands. In that regard, I hope that what I have to say as a pacifist will be interpreted as a contribution to the solution of a problem, rather than as any attempt merely to score points in a debate as to the appropriate measures to achieve that peace which I believe lies very near to the hearts of us all.

295
I would begin by making some observations about the nature of the unilateral programme, remembering, as I think it is necessary so to do, that multilateral disarmament is an achievement following upon an activity. Unilateralism is an activity looking towards an achievement. There is a real distinction between the two. The nature of unilateralism is that it is undertaken as a method of dealing with a problem, which, otherwise, would prove resistant to solution.
It begins, unfortunately, in the recognition that, if you repudiate unilateral action in terms of the likely results that will follow from it, you are already set within the general framework of suspicion and fear. No unilateral action could possibly be deprecated, if it were set within the framework of a general desire and a mutual trust between the contrasting and contending parties. It is this polarisation of good and evil which I find one of the most disturbing and permanent effects of the whole process of opposition to unilateral action.
Though I have no sympathy with those who would look upon the Russian position as impeccable, I, at least, would want to say that to label the Russian as the inevitable enemy, as has been done time and time again in your Lordships' House this afternoon and this evening, is a very dangerous exercise, for it presumes to think that you can really talk in terms of cowboys and Indians, when you are looking at the problems which face the contemporary world. I do not believe it. I believe that there are as many Russian people as there are people in other parts of the world who are as peace loving as we would wish them to be.
I recognise that they are now under a strict and very definite tutelage, which prevents them from assimilating ideas which come from outside. I do not believe, however, that a unilateral action of disarming, on the part of a country such as this, particularly in nuclear weapons, could possibly be frustrated, even by the most rigid kind of censorship. I believe, as my noble friend Lord Brockway indicated, that there is within the world now a seething tide of desire for peace, and that this would cross all frontiers, even those ideologically framed in Communist communities.
I would further deprecate the idea that, whatever we do unilaterally, Russia will remain the same. I find it very difficult to appreciate the logic of those who apparently think of Russia as monolithic in its adherence to original principles as laid down by Lenin. That is perfect nonsense. They are not the dictatorship of the proletariat. They have not seen the withering away of the state. They have not appreciated the coming together of the workers of the world, breaking all national frontiers. They are a form of state capitalism and in a constant condition of change, not to say perturbation. What I want to see is what might happen if there were introduced into the present situation a unilateral action, which could radically change the whole atmosphere and climate in which these negotiations take place.
That is a faith. I cannot prove it. But neither can Members of this House, or anybody else, peering into the future and assuming the mantle of prophecy. It is a very dangerous occupation, unless you are totally in possession of the facts which govern a situation, and the psychological facts of a unilateral action, on the
296
part of a country which has nuclear weapons and is prepared to get rid of them, cannot be assessed in terms of inevitable results.
I do not share the idea that we have had peace for so many years, because the deterrent so provided it. It is just as reasonable to think that, if you fall off a very high cliff, it will take you longer to get to the bottom than if it is a very low cliff. It is not very sensible, when you are halfway down, to say "I am all right so far. Therefore, the laws of gravity do not seem to be operating". I find it just as reasonable to contend that the situation has become progressively worse, and that that situation will continue so to aggravate, unless a new constituent is introduced into the situation; until a new kind of power is released.
That brings me to the moral issue. I cannot avoid it and I have no desire to do so. To begin with, let me say something which I hope will be taken for what it is intended to mean. I find myself more and more estranged from the attitude of many Christian communities now to the whole process and programme of armed violence. I listened to my noble ecclesiastical friend of Durham, talking about the ethic of principle in contrast to the ethic of consequence. I do not know what he means. I tried to come to terms with situation ethics some 20 years ago, failed miserably and gave it up as a bad job, and here I am endeavouring to discriminate between a principle and the consequence of a particular action.
That has nothing, in my judgment, to do with Christianity. Christianity is not the modification of what Jesus said, in accordance with the current principles that ought to govern the proximity of certain events. And when the Archbishop of Canterbury measures his argument in terms of what he thinks, on the whole, will be more probable, what, again, has that to do with the basic ethic of the Christian faith? Jesus did not say, "You must love your enemies and you must not kill people—at any rate, you must not kill them first. You must not be the first to embark upon killing, but if you are attacked in that way you have every right to respond".
I have said this many times, and I want to be careful not to assume an arrogance which would be totally reprehensible. I recognise the sincerity and the intention of those who regard it as necessary, in certain circumstances, to apply the most terrible of human powers, in order to secure desirable political and indeed moral eventualities. What I have to say to this House is that that is not the Christianity into which I was born. It is not the Christianity to which I can adhere. I would rather take the risks, great as they are, of being loyal to the principles, as I understand them, of the Jesus who said, "Love your enemies and those who take up the sword will perish by it", than to endeavour to trim, however gallantly those sails are to be trimmed, the ethical principles in order to meet circumstances which have an apocalyptic ring about them today.
Therefore, I repeat what I have said before, for which I ask your Lordships' indulgence, that as I see these things (although I do realise—believe me, I do—how difficult it is and how desperately consequential are the actions which we will take) I believe that what is required now is an adherence to moral principles on the proposition that what is

297
morally right will turn out to be politically right and that what is morally wrong can never be an agent of probity and goodness. This is an experiment. It is a faith. I cannot prove it. But I should have thought that, having paid the price over and over again of the ways of violence, it might, according to Pascal's gamble, be better to take the risk today of initiating a process of non-violence, which would, in my judgment, have to be total, in the belief that God could make greater use of that obedience than he can of all the ingenuity which we can command and all the capability which we can engineer. That is my belief. I testify to it and I regard it as, sooner or later, an issue from which there can be no turning back. I hope we shall take that risk before it is too late.
8.42 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is indeed a very rare privilege to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, even if I have to disagree with him. But I have no quarrel with the noble Lord in what he says about the Russian people. It is with their masters that we have to differ.
Until the zero option materialises—that ideological concept to which we all subscribe as an article of hope rather than faith—we support the policy of NATO. The policy of NATO is that we should live in peace with the sanction of security—peace with freedom, as it was put by my noble friend the Leader of the House. The policy of NATO was endorsed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who has just spoken in this debate. He referred also to the disastrous effects of unilateral disarmament. As a Christian it gives me some comfort to know that one of my bishops takes roughly the same sort of theological stance as, without understanding very much about theology, I do.
Since the burning of the vines there has never been any humanitarian tradition of warfare that has not been breached. Why, then, should it now be supposed that some new tradition such as no-first-use (referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew) or peace by example (referred to by my noble friend Lord Carrington and by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing) should not be breached or would not be breached again just because man has invented some new engine of destruction which is capable of annihilation by stealth? I wonder: should we, should not the Synod, perhaps, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, beware of hubris, lest we stand upon some folly of our own presumption and so invite the displeasure of the deities, and even perhaps the type of condign punishment which was so vividly expressed by my noble friend Lord Trenchare?
The case against no-first-use has already been made with compelling clarity by my noble friends the Leader of the House, Lord Carrington, Lord Home and Lord Trenchard, and other noble Lords, This is not the time for repetition but to adopt, and I do so. But may I also adopt, with admiration and the greatest respect, the way in which my noble friend Lord Home spoke for me and my own conscience on the moral and theological aspects of practical Christianity? As my noble friend the Leader of the House has said, even with this Andropov offer there is an extra threat, not only to the
298
means of our survival but to survival itself—the type of military aggression which was stressed by my noble friend Lord Trenchard.
As my noble friend Lord Carrington said in opening our debate, there are four categories of disarmer: first, the pacifist. This was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, as a viable policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, it ends in bondage—such a graphic description. The second category is peace by example: that we alone disarm, which means that one day this extra threat to survival may be removed only by abject surrender. Again, this was rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, on either of the hypotheses so clearly posed by my noble friend. The third category, of total nuclear disarmament but not total conventional disarmament, was again rejected by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—and, indeed, by Mr. Andropov.
So we come to the fourth category of disarmers. I find this to be a true and fair description: continued negotiations towards peace by treaty but retaining a deterrent capacity and the means of inspection and verification of balanced reduction, as emphasised on both sides of the House by my noble friend Lord Home and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. To this category the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, both subscribed.
So as a matter of principle there would appear on the surface to be common ground that NATO's policies must be pursued on the basis of credible deterrence, as nothing can be taken on trust and paper declarations are worthless, as we all know from our experience. But is it common ground on this vital question? Has the question which was asked by my noble friend Lord Carrington really been answered? Where do the Labour Party stand on this crucial question in this run-up period before an election? I do not understand what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, means in this context by "phased reduction". Is it on the assumption that there is no threat by the Soviets?
Only the other day the French Foreign Minister was asked about his reactions to some of the observations, relevant to this debate, made by the right honourable friend of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—that is, Mr. Michael Foot. These views or observations were reflected to some degree in the speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Hatch of Lusby and Lord Oram. The French Foreign Minister said to the inquirer, "What does it mean—that every nuclear weapon should be dismantled? Where would Britain be—somewhere in the moon with no defence?" What is the policy of the Labour Party? For that matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is in his place, what is the policy of the Liberal Party and the SDP Alliance? I have tried to understand this policy, and all that I can understand is that the policy is, "Wait and see how Geneva works out, and then we will tell you what our policy is."
Lord Gladwyn: Our policy has been pointed out by Mr. Steel and other leaders, my Lords. It is perfectly clear. I am sorry if the noble Lord has not read of them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will forgive me, I have done so. I have read what Mr. Steel has said, and I have listened to this debate. I have read what Mr. Michael Foot has said, and I have listened to this debate. My complaint is that it does not square, and I still do not know. Nobody has answered the question of my noble friend Lord Carrington: where do we stand? It is time that we all knew.
Lord Gladwyn; My Lords, we do not stand in the same place as the Labour Party, and the noble Lord must realise that. We are not in favour of unilateral disarmament. The Liberal party does not stand for that. We want multilateral disarmament. I hope that the noble Lord has understood that at last.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have understood that the whole time. I understand that the Liberal Party does not take the same view as the Labour Party. My complaint is that I do not understand what stand either party takes. They say one thing in one place and another thing in your Lordships' House. So far as the Labour Party is concerned, we have heard two views expressed in your Lordships' House. The only reason why I reply on this issue (because I was going to let it go fairly lightly) is that if your Lordships will read Hansard you will find it difficult to discern the policy of any party.
Lord Gladwyn: Nonsense, my Lords!
Lord Campbell of Alloway: The noble Lord says "Nonsense!" It is rather late, and perhaps I ought to pass on to another aspect of my speech. The noble Lord is entitled to his view. With the greatest respect, if I thought that I was addressing your Lordships on a nonsensical basis, I should have sat down long ago, and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me.
This is a sensitive issue, and that is why I raised it. Surely my noble friend Lord Carrington is entitled to an answer. The country is entitled to an answer. The House is entitled to an answer, and we have not had an answer. Furthermore, the impeccable logic of Monsieur Cheysson, the French Foreign Minister, is not only impressive but is unanswerable. The observations that he made were made also in the concept that Europe needs a European dimension, and that France and Britain need it, too, and are part of it.
Any Government of this country which sought to substitute dogma for logic and to hazard deterrence—the only sanction for peace with security—will not only forfeit the respect of our people but will also forfeit their right to govern. My Lords, I support this Motion.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was entitled to make his political speech. One would expect him to attack the Labour Party and, as usual, he filled his speech with a cross-section of nonsense and contrary argument. The noble Lord said that there were so many views in the Labour Party that he wished to know where the party stands. The last thing that he said was that the Labour Party was suffering from following one dogma. If
300
anyone can sort that out, he is a cleverer man than I.
The truth is that there is some degree of reason in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said, because, unlike the Tory Party, the Labour Party is rather a broad church. I suppose that arguments and disputes will always go on in the democratic British socialist movement. What I find more disturbing is that, as in the 1930s, the Tory Party has hardly one dissident voice. The only people who can claim some sort of equality with the Conservative Party are those in the Soviet Union.
When the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, quite rightly said that what is at stake is our security and way of life, it seems that many of the Peers seated behind him do not approve at all of our way of life and of having a party which has rows within itself;. or of having a Liberal Party which is not supported by either of the other two parties. They seem to think that is a bad thing. In a debate not so long ago one Conservative Peer was even astounded and shocked—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Molloy: When I have finished saying this, my Lords. One Conservative Peer thought it was absolutely wrong of her Majesty's Opposition to oppose Her Majesty's Government. There is still that broad feeling in some of the contributions we have heard today. I will give way now.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, accept that I cannot speak for the noble Lords behind me—for at least the one reason that none is seated there? Secondly, will he be good enough to absolve me from the charge that I do not believe in the value of his party and from the charge that I do not value the Liberal Party? The noble Lord misjudges me; I value the contribution of constitutional government and of all parties. Will the noble Lord withdraw his charge?
Lord Molloy: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said, my Lords, but anyone listening to the tail end of his speech would have said at least that he is not particularly enamoured of either the Liberal Party or the Labour Party. That is the impression I had. I do not know what was the contribution of the Peers behind him; as there is none, the noble Lord must be some kind of miraculous ventriloquist.
I was referring to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, about our security and way of life. None of us on this island of ours wants in any way the type of dry, arid, state capitalism of the kind that exists in the Soviet Union. We have a wonderful way of life. It was not given to us; nothing is given. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, would agree that one of the massive contributions to the way of life of this country was made by the protesters of 100 or 150 years ago. If only their like were allowed to make protests, gather together and form trade unions in the Soviet Union, that country would have a much better society than it has now.
The agony of it all is that our security and our way of life will exist no more if we continue to rely on nuclear weapons, because they have been used. We

301
have wiped out tens of thousands of human beings in a few seconds, in Japan. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, talks about the different policies in the Labour Party, there is a degree of truth in what he says—but what appals me is the unanimity of the Tory Party, which I believe will also appal our French allies, our Belgian allies, our Dutch allies and our German allies; that if there should be some massive Russian thrust right the way through, even some of the clerics of this country will agree that to wipe out the Russian advance, we shall have to wipe out a couple of million Christians and allies as well. I do not think that is a policy to be proud of in any language or in any way. If that is to be denied, let it not be denied now. It is not, so I will continue. It is a gruesome problem.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I thought the noble Lord was looking at me and, as he was gracious enough to interrupt my speech, I felt that in the area of balanced deterrence I might be allowed to interrupt him. I think that reading the accounts, as I know the noble Lord will, of the debates in General Synod, he will find that there was a strong moral sense running through it which I think was not in the temper of the suggestion he made about the clerics. I can only suggest that he read the documents.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, but when they were having their debate the Synod should have been aware of that. That was something they should have raised. I think that some of the clerics proposed in the end that in no way would they use nuclear weapons first. If that is so, those of that Synod can in no way support the present Government. That is the fundamental issue. But there are other conferences that have been taking place which are just as important. There have been discussions among Baptists, Methodists, Non-conformists, which are of equal importance. Time does not allow me to go into the details of them.
It is equally true, as my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby said, that there has not been total peace in the world since we stopped using nuclear weapons—not because we never have. If we were to say that we never use nuclear weapons because they preserve peace we would be uttering an untruth. The truth is that since the Western world stopped using nuclear weapons there has been peace, but even that is wrong. As my noble friend behind me said, one can point to Vietnam, to Afghanistan and even worse, one can point to the horrors that the Czechoslovakian people suffered at the hands of Soviet forces. One can point to the horrors suffered by the Hungarian people from the tyrannical behaviour of the Soviet Union. Should we drop a nuclear weapon on the Soviet Union because of its behaviour? Of course, we cannot. That is an impossibility. There are other things that we can do.
I believe that it is vital, even in a debate of this nature, it does not matter how much we disagree with someone, we will honour Voltaire's immaculate statement that we will agree with their right to say it. No Soviet citizen can say that. It will be a bad day for Britain and the free world if we edge, out of fear, towards the Soviet Union's sort of behaviour.
The Soviet Union has been recently challenged, not by the Western world, not by Britain, NATO or America, but put in a very serious situation by a
302
challenge which was organised by a part of society which many Conservatives in the other place, and some here, detest—the Polish trade union movement. That is what challenged the principles of the vile Soviet Union's activities and influence in that country. I say this with great pride. One of the first British trade unions which was not hampered by a Conservative Government was allowed to go to Poland and its members see for themselves and return to our island home. No one was waiting to arrest them. No one was waiting to take their powers from them—unless Mr. Tebbit gets his way and that will be a black day for freedom all over the world. Those are the things we must try to use. Can we achieve them simply by using nuclear weapons? The fact is that we cannot.
I conclude with just one submission which may not be wholly attractive as I say it. I believe that if we can, with our influence throughout our Commonwealth and our NATO allies, we must do two things. We must concentrate on absolute proof and verification of any form of nuclear disarmament. We must not reject that because it will encourage the CND. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, himself and many other speakers today have been supporters of CND. I hope that we are all supporters and will campaign in our various ways for world nuclear disarmament. Many noble Lords on the opposite Benches have said so, and that they are in principle campaigning for nuclear disarmament on a multilateral basis. They are, therefore, just as much supporters of CND as are the unilateralists. That is one small thing that might weld us together. There is one fundamental thing that would help—I have begged this from these Benches on other occasions: if we could get concrete evidence or verification of the abandonment of nuclear arms, that in itself would be remarkable.
I believe we must take very seriously this further point concerning the world's greatest scientists—Einstein, Russell, and many others. The person first responsible for putting the finishing touches to the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki campaigned for the total abolition of all nuclear weapons. I believe that it would be absolute arrogance on our part to disregard those great scientists who put their names to the Pugwash agreement—nearly 200 of them—who were involved in this ghastly business and could see what might happen the moment some form of hostilities, particularly in Europe, broke out.
My other proposition is that, after we have complete verification, perhaps we could move with the Soviet Union and America—because we must acknowledge that without those two nations nothing can really be done, except by the example that our nation can give—to some form of world nuclear police force, so that gradually we can see the complete abandonment of nuclear weapons. I believe that deep in all our hearts we want to say to ourselves that we may disagree with the unilateralists at this moment, but we hope that the time will come, through some of the measures that I have outlined, when in the cause of humanity, and for humanity, they will in the end triumph.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Ritchie of Dundee: My Lords, let me first make my excuses to the House because I am unable to stay until the end of the debate as I have to catch a train

303
home to Sussex. At this point of the debate my chief feeling is one of humility in the face of the magnificent parade of knowledge and experience that we have listened to today. That adds to my diffidence in presuming to speak at all on what is primarily a matter of statecraft and strategy. However, in the last quarter of the 20th century statecraft and strategy directly and terribly affect every being on the planet, both now and in ages to come, and the issues are as wide and as deep as human experience. However, I suppose that every man has the right to speak and this one, I assure your Lordships, will not speak for very long.
First, let me mention the matter of security—a word much used in this context and included in the Motion for debate. Who can say what really gives security? Can the policy of deterrence really be said to afford it when it clearly contributes to the most formidable arms race in history and greatly increases the likelihood of the global proliferation of nuclear weapons? We speak of multilateral disarmament. The trouble is that over the years it has lost credibility with ordinary folk and, as the correspondent to The Times pointed out, it means in practice multilateral armament because each side must negotiate from strength.
A recent press report that the number of Pershing missiles destined for Europe was now 311, as against the 108 agreed in NATO's modernisation plans, seems to be a current illustration of this inexorable pattern, if indeed the report is true. Of course, it also happens on the other side of the Curtain.
And how long is this situation to go on? We read of new generations of weapons which will carry us into the 21st century. Are we to live for ever in this frozen terror between East and West? How and when is the thaw to begin unless somebody begins it? Where is it leading us? It seems to me that many of us have over the years relinquished our sense of individual human responsibility for what goes on in the world: "Leave it to the politicians, leave it to the military men, leave it to the scientists. They will look after us". But will they? Can they? There is a sense in which the nemesis for our unconcern is the bomb.
"For evil to triumph it is only necessary that good men and women should do nothing"—
Burke's thought is sobering.
But we know that there is a very considerable and growing number of men and women in the country whose anxiety and concern is compelling attention. A small percentage of these people have communist sympathies, but the great majority do not. Some are freakish young folk, but the great majority are very ordinary folk of all ages. I must add that, having been a teacher all my life, I have a very great respect for the vision of youth. The absurd libel that the CND are in the pay of the Kremlin has, I am sure, been dismissed by the word of the General Secretary who is a Roman Catholic priest. The majority are not pacifists. They are a cross-section of English men and women who believe that the weapons forming our nuclear arsenal are more dangerous than the threats they purport to counter, and that their very existence is an intolerable burden on our national conscience. They would echo the cry of the women of Greenham Common against
304
the cruise missiles: "We do not want them on this land—we do not want them on this planet".
Some of the actions of the anti-nuclear protesters cannot be described as "uncourageous", to quote the word of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. Perhaps the real achievement of these people has been to arouse awareness throughout the country of our peril and even perhaps to bring about this debate this afternoon.
I believe that what this country can give the world at this time is a noteworthy confidence-building gesture. Surely such a thing could be devised which would not significantly diminish our national security. Of course, it would not be immediately reciprocated in the East. But who can tell what subtle, beneficial defusing effect it might eventually disseminate through the world?
The world of 1983 is not the world of 1939—I dispute the historical analogy. War is distilled from a combination of aggression and fear, in varying proportions. Hitler was initially motivated almost entirely by aggression. Today the presumed foe would be motivated very largely by fear, distrust and insecurity. Then a war was fightable and eventually winnable. Now it seems to me that it is not. Hence the emptiness of war cries and hence the utter necessity that the old modes of thought, of dividing the world into camps—friend and foe; right and wrong—must gradually give way to new, daring and imaginative thinking whereby the nations of the world may together discover a way of survival.
9.15 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, will acquit me of discourtesy if I do not follow him closely. Perhaps my words may contain, by implication, my views on what he said; and he will perhaps join with other noble Lords in preferring that I should be brief. Only now, for the first time since the emergence of homo pseudo sapiens, has an actual sticking point in military evolution been reached. Only with the development of nuclear fission and thermonuclear fusion—I think I have it right—has it become possible to say with reasonable certainty that here at last is a true ultimate: a weapon of such devastating power that, when two enemies possess it, it is impossible for either of them to indulge in full-scale war upon the other, with or without the use of the nuclear weapon.
It is, of course, not a single weapon but a whole family of weapons, all descended from the two bombs that fell upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, things have changed in many respects since then, but in no respect more important than that those two bombs were dropped by the side that had them upon the side that had them not. If the Japanese had had bombs of their own, the Americans would certainly not have dropped bombs on them; and, for the same reason, they would not drop any now should they find themselves facing the possibility of war with the Soviets. A similar reciprocal inhibition also binds the nuclear trigger fingers of the Warsaw Pact.
As long as both sides have these weapons, there is only one circumstance in which either side can conceivably fire one of its missiles against the other—the circumstance in which one of them is totally confident of being able to destroy the whole of

305
the retaliatory power of the other in a single surprise pre-emptive strike.
From time to time I read articles of a singular weirdness—in fact, I read them quite often. These articles calculate that in a Russian first strike against the American homeland so many hundreds of their missiles launched might reach their targets and destroy a percentage of the American missiles, of the survivors of which a certain percentage might be expected to get through the Russian defences in retaliation. But the Russsians would have kept enough in reserve to shoot off a second strike which would still be enough to blow the Statue of Liberty into the middle of Honolulu, or some such nonsense. I am sorry if I sound disrespectful, but this is really nonsense, and dangerous nonsense at that.
The world may be mad—perhaps it is—yet I still do not believe that any nation at peace (and to make a first pre-emptive surprise strike it is necessary, by definition, to be at peace) would deliberately explode the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that these writers postulate (some thousands altogether) in the certain knowledge that the resulting fallout would be enough to destroy the whole of human life, including their own. Can anyone seriously believe in such a proposition as that?
I also say that that kind of talk is dangerous because some people take it seriously, are frightened by it and sometimes react in irrational ways—the most dangerously irrational being, to my way of thinking, the adoption of the kind of one-sided disarmament policy that already in my lifetime has led to two world wars. Other persons, either in this country or elsewhere, hear this kind of talk and try to use it as a means of fanning those fears in the hope of stultifying or even bringing about the dismantling of the nuclear defences of the West.
Speaking in very general terms, these two sorts of people—the frighteners and the frightened—are the proponents of one-sided nuclear disarmament. These one-siders do not (at least as far as my observation goes) use the words "deterrent" or "deterrence". They are apt to speak of "the third world war" or "the nuclear holocaust", using the definite article, as though such things are bound to happen. This may be criticised as a negative, defeatist attitude, calculated to instil fear into one another or into their children. You may say that that is not a very attractive way to treat a child.
More to my point is that it implicitly denies even the possibility of deterrence. At the back of this denial lies, I believe, an oft repeated fallacy which has been stated thus:
"If the deterrent is to work, you have to convince an enemy that you are willing to use it".
Again, more strongly:
"For deterrence to be effective intention to use has … to be repeatedly stated".
Given those two statements, both quotations, it need come as no surprise to read further down the same page:
"to have a nuclear arsenal deployed is to be committed already to using it in certain circumstances".
I believe that these three statements are fallacious. They say that if the deterrent is to work you have to
306
convince an enemy that you are not only willing but actually intend to use it. No, my Lords, with respect to the authors of that statement, you do not. You have to convince him of two things only; namely, that you possess the weapons, and that you are able to deliver them.
For your deterrent to work two other factors are required, both on the enemy side. They are that he must know that he himself cannot be certain of preventing the arrival of your missiles, and he must not know whether, or in what circumstances, you will fire them. This last is crucial. Clearly your enemy must not know whether you will fire, or in what circumstances you will fire, for that knowledge would enable him to make his strategic plans accordingly. That he should not know whether in fact you would ever fire at all is important for a different reason. It allows you not to commit yourself, even to yourself. It is the enemy's uncertainty, his ignorance of your probable actions, that is the real deterrent or, as more pithily put by my noble friend Lady Young, the certainty of this uncertainty is what deters.
He may think you will not fire. He may believe you will not fire. But so long as he thinks there is a chance that you may fire, he will not fire his missiles at you. So the deterrent works, and so it is bound to work. Of course, the same line of argument works from the other side equally, so we have mutual deterrence. Why, therefore, it may be asked, should you not declare that you will never he the first to use a nuclear weapon? There are two answers to that. There would be no point in it because it is quite certain that only a fool would believe you. And if you did, and it were true, and you were believed, the enemy would be free to attack you with non-nuclear weapons, and if he did he would win.
The last of my three quotations says:
"to have a nuclear arsenal deployed is to be committed already to using it in certain circumstances."
No, it is not. You are not so committed. That was true in the so-called "trip wire" days of the 1950s when NATO held the cards and let it be known that an attack upon the central front would be met with a nuclear response; but not now. With the trip wire certainty replaced by the flexible uncertainty, the deterrent will work even if you have no intention of ever using it at all, provided, of course, that the enemy does not know that. And how could he?
Sometimes this condition of mutual deterrence in which we live is called a balance of terror, but it is not really that at all. Governments do not make their high strategic plans out of fear, they make them on the strength of cold calculations of risk. You cannot take a calculated risk if you do not have the data from which to do the calculation. If all you know is that the penalty for getting it wrong is likely to be a megadeath in Kharkov or Kensington, and you do not know the parameters for measuring the risk, that knowledge, or lack of knowledge, must be decisive, and you do not press the button. This crucial fact is not affected by either the number or the throw-weight of the warheads possessed by either side.
The three passages that I have quoted, I may tell your Lordships now, are all to be found on page 153 of The Church and the Bomb, and I have chosen them deliberately and without, I hope, any suggestion of

307
disrespect, in order to show that even in so closely reasoned and scrupulously objective a report there may appear an argument which is fallacious because it is founded upon an unsound premise. It is dangerous to argue from untested axioms. Of course, I have greatly over-simplified it. To me, the conclusion is inescapable: so long as the NATO deterrent is maintained, neither it nor the Russian counterpart can be used, and war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact is impossible.
I believe the deterrent to be so effective that not even we ourselves can undermine it. There is simply nothing that we, the Government, the Prime Minister or anyone else can do that would put into the minds of the other side an absolute conviction that we would never fire. I believe there is only one way out of the dark wood through which, as some see it, we seem to be stumbling now, and that is through all-round disarmament. There must be no failure of patience or resolution on the part of those engaged in working or negotiating towards that end.
The reason why this process must take so long—it may take between 50 and 100 years—is that the great prerequisite is a return, as my noble friend Lord Home said, to mutual trust. In general terms, the chief obstacle in the way of a return to mutual trust is the inflexible Russian determination to export revolution by all available means. They are not going to give it up and we will not talk them out of it. But nothing is for ever. Even empires—perhaps especially empires—are not for ever; who should know that better than we? Sooner or later there will arise a generation in Russia who will begin to turn back to the old values and rebel against the impoverishment of the spirit of man that atheistic authoritarianism brings. Already there are, I believe, signs of a spiritual reawakening among the young; that Holy Russia may be stirring in her sleep. In the meantime, we might think about a well-known remark of the Founder of the Christian faith:
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: but when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoil".
What we need is courage. It is not a commodity we have lacked conspicuously in the past, and I do not suppose we are likely to lose it now.
9.28 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I am always happy to speak following the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, but I must be brief at this hour and I have only two main points to place before the House. First, I entirely agree with the propositions set out by the noble Lord. Lord Carrington, whose record as Foreign Secretary is second to none. Secondly, I submit that that policy—I am not saying that Lord Carrington would himself regard it as a total policy—as was indicated by my revered leader, Lord Cledwyn, and others from this side, is in itself incomplete. Thus, I applaud the statement of Lord Carrington and I agree with my colleagues in suggesting that it is incomplete.
The House will perhaps forgive me if my contribution is historical, almost archaeological, but I hope its relevance will become obvious. I sat beside
308
Mr. Ernest Bevin at the Council of Foreign Ministers in December 1947. The noble Lords, Lord Gladwyn and Lord Mayhew, were close to him at that time and I think he liked both of them better than he liked me, particularly after I became what was called pro-German—that was the label attached to me. However, I think they would both agree that he continued to like me better than he liked Dick Crossman, and that can be said without disrespect to a dear, lamented friend of mine.
That conference of 1947 was destroyed by the intransigence of Molotov, acting on the instructions of Stalin. No one was quite so utterly depressed by the outcome of that conference as Mr. Ernest Bevin, when he greeted me, as I became his assistant in the spring of that year; he asked me to meet him in Berlin and he told me he felt that when the conference took place in December he would reach a settlement. He clung to that idea, and he was utterly depressed by the outcome, but, as he was the first to recognise, there was no alternative.
I remember sitting beside Mr. Bevin when General Marshall, repesenting the United States, said that in view of Mr. Molotov's attitude it was no good going on, and Mr. Bevin, almost for the first time at that conference, asked my advice. He said, "What do you feel should be done in this situation?" I knew him well enough—though I did not know him all that well—to realise that if he joined in the termination of the conference at that point he would be very depressed. So I suggested that he should ask for time to consider it, and then he could think about it next day. But, in fact, M. Bidault the French Minister, supported General Marshall, and so there was no option really; Mr. Bevin agreed that the conference was over. He was very cast down the next day, because in a sense he was still clinging to the idea that the world should be held together, that the world was one, and the policy of building up defences in the West, which he then saw as inevitable, was a second best.
So I am only saying that this policy, which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has unfolded and which has been followed by various Governments in this country since 1945, and which I shared in and entirely applaud, is a policy of the second best. It seems to me that we must never forget that.
In this House we win these battles against rather invisible opponents. The people who feel these things are not here. But even assuming that there were here the most articulate members of the CND movement, I wonder how many of them, unless they were pacifists—and I shall come back to that in a moment—would seriously say that it was a mistake to organise the Atlantic Pact? It has been the policy of the Labour Party throughout. It was carried on in the last Labour Government by Mr. Callaghan and Mr. Michael Foot, the then Deputy Prime Minister, and Mr. Tony Benn played his part. That has been the policy of the Labour Party, and I am glad to think that in a humble way, in early days, at any rate, I played some little part in supporting it.
But who would say today that what was justified, in fact was made essential, in 1947 has somehow or other become otiose? Who would say that Soviet policy in Afghanistan or Poland, or anywhere else, provides a reason for taking a more encouraging view of their

309
intentions and for abandoning the Atlantic Alliance now? It seems to me that no one but a lunatic would make that particular suggestion.
We can all agree that the arms race is an abomination. Everyone of any sensitivity has said so. Certainly all the Christian leaders have said so. I was very sorry indeed not to have heard the speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich. Of course I know of his valour in war and in peace. There always will be the Christian pacifist position. I remember, at the Labour Party conference in 1935, just before I joined the Labour Party, when George Lansbury lifted the roof with the cry, repeating what Christ said in the Garden:
"Those who take the sword will perish by the sword".
The whole place erupted in favour of that point of view. However, they erupted the other way when Mr. Ernest Bevin accused Lansbury of hawking his conscience all round Europe, and the Labour Party, I think rightly, reached the conclusion that collective security was the only answer that complied with the highest moral requirements.
In more recent times there have been these great debates, recently in the Synod. In my own church naturally there have been equally anguished discussions. Various Popes have denounced nuclear weapons, but they have always recognised, as far as I know, the right, indeed the duty, of self-defence. Quite recently, the present Pope pointed out very clearly, which may be obvious but needs pointing out perhaps from on high, that it takes two to make a war but it also takes two to make peace. So I think we can take it that the present Pope has given a clear lead in the direction of multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament.
Those are the religious considerations. There are ethical people outside the Churches. If one were to take the unilateral movement 20 years ago, its president was Lord Russell, the great aetheist, and the director was Canon Collins, whom I was devoted to and who recently died. The fact that they were not on speaking terms did not invalidate the energy of that relationship. Now we have a great intellectual in Mr. Thompson, though I am told that he is accused in communist circles of being a "Trot"—however that may be interpreted. Then we have an old friend of mine, Monsignor Bruce Kent—someone mentioned him earlier. He is a very high-minded Catholic priest, but does not in any way represent the Catholic Church. He has been given leave of absence, so I do not think that the Church can be held responsible for the aberrations of my respected friend Bruce Kent.
There are the moral considerations on various sides and various people reach different conclusions. I agree with what has been said so clearly and effectively by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. I thought he summed it up when he said that we could not leave ourselves helpless. It would be a gross dereliction of duty to leave ourselves helpless in the face of any menace, particularly the Russian menace. I agree it is thought that if we did as the unilateralists propose, we would be betraying not only the people of this country but all those who look to us for succour and support.
For these reasons, I cannot do anything other than support Lord Carrington's Motion. But as it stands, I
310
am not saying that that is the whole of his foreign policy. He has been involved in many complicated foreign policy questions and this is only part of his doctrine; but as it stands it represents a purely defensive or negative posture. Taken alone, like that, it would not have satisfied the great men from whom I have learned what little I know about international affairs. I refer in particular to Mr. Bevin and, still more, the late Lord Attlee. If anyone wants to know what Lord Attlee thought about the Russian menace, I suggest he reads that very fine book by Kenneth Harris, which is no longer available generally but which has just recently appeared in the Library.
In his last years Lord Attlee was with us here. Many of us remember him very well here in this House and travelling throughout the world, though in very shaky health. Lord Attlee became the great champion of the dream of world government. I ran, so to speak, beside his chariot and am proud to have played that humble part. That dream of world government can never be abandoned by anyone who retains any vestige of idealism but so far all progress has been destroyed by the rulers of the Soviet Union.
In the meanwhile, it goes without saying that we must redouble our efforts to bring about multilateral disarmament. That is common ground perhaps with everybody today. I do not underestimate the many inherent difficulties, nor do I underestimate the many legitimate differences of opinion that can be entertained by expert and high-minded persons. When we get to technicalities, we may find that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, offers guidance of a certain kind and the majority of the service chiefs in this country offer different guidance. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has told us that we must never use the nuclear bomb first—
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, what I said is that it was very unwise to adopt the doctrine of flexible response which committed us to making the first use of the nuclear bomb in the event of war. I said that in the policy of my friends, from whose pamphlet I quoted, it was not possible for us to make a declaration immediately to that effect; but that we ought to work towards it.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not think that I misrepresented the noble Lord in the light of what he has just said. I can only point out to him that when he was very closely advising Mr. Bevin, with the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, the policy was based on our having the atom bomb and using it, if necessary, if the Russians invaded Western Europe. In other words, that was the policy, supported, presumably, by the two noble Lords on the Liberal Benches and myself and many others for many years. So there cannot be what is called a moral issue here because, on the moral side, that was the policy of this country for many years, and maybe it can be said to be still so. It becomes a technical question and, in these few minutes, I will not try to deal with technical issue's.
There are tremendous difficulties, obviously, in reaching any degree of multilateral disarmament. My noble friend Lord Cledwyn pointed out that we must pin our hopes on Geneva. Certainly we must never

311
despair. That is the ultimate sin—to despair. We must pin our hopes to that; and as Cardinal Newman said (if I may be allowed to drag in theology for the last time today)."A hundred difficulties do not make a doubt". We must never have any doubt that in the end a way will be found.
But if I have any final thought to contribute, I must refer to the lamentable failure of the great countries of the world, very much including our own, to do anything whatever to give effect to the Brandt Report. I do not know whether the noble Lord who is to wind up will have anything to say about that. I believe that,
312
in an absolutely genuine sense, this Government are patriotic. They lay great stress on patriotism, rightly, I think. Patriotism is a virtue, that cannot be stressed too often. But, as Nurse Cavell once remarked, "Patriotism is not enough". It can be entirely noble and Christian; but it can take the form of nationalism. It can certainly take a wider or narrower form. Personally, I feel that if we really want to commend ourselves in this country to the peoples of the world, it is not enough to say, "We stand where we stood; we resist the Russian menace". We have got to convince them, as we have not convined them so far, to look into our record on the Brandt Report, and that we have the interests of humanity at heart.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, your Lordships may be surprised that a relatively inexperienced Member of this House should choose to speak in a debate of such importance. I am not speaking only as an individual with my own views. I am a member of the medical profession and I feel that a medical view has as much place in the wider aspects of this debate as, for example, a view from the Church. The Church, quite rightly, has a moral view, a moral position, on the nuclear weapon and nuclear deterrence. In this connection, it is of great importance that the General Synod has voted for "no first use". It is also very gratifying to me that, as reported in the Guardian, our Prime Minister said afterwards that it was "a splendid debate and a splendid result". This is rather surprising considering the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and of other noble Lords opposite.
There is also a medical view on the use of the bomb, whether this be first use or any use. This has both ethical and practical professional aspects. The ethical view is because of the enormous destructive power of the bomb and its possible long-term genetic effects, let alone the effects on the environment of the world. The practical view is because of the virtual impossibility of mobilising medical help to deal with the injured survivors of even one nuclear explosion.
There are several reasons for the recent increased public concern about the bomb. One of these is the increasingly facile talk by Governments and military leaders about using military weapons as if they are only different from other weapons in degree and not in nature. There is an increasing assumption in talking about defence policy that nuclear war is a real possibility. The production of the booklet Protect and Survive is perhaps an example of this. There is also the very realistic scenario for the recent NATO exercise "Square Leg" in which this country is subjected to a simulated nuclear attack.
There is a suggestion from some nuclear strategists in the United States that a nuclear war might even be winnable because of the vastly increased accuracy of nuclear weapons; it might be possible to knock out at first strike all the weapons deployed by the Warsaw Pact powers. This public concern has grown considerably since the decision to base cruise missiles in this country was taken.
I submit that the effects of nuclear weapons are in fact so terrible, unpredictable and long-lasting that to base any strategy that embraces their possible use is a form of madness. Here I am not speaking as a pacifist, nor as a friend of the Soviet Union, which I consider to be an unpleasant, repressive travesty of the new just society which many hoped it would become.
Most of us do not like to contemplate in any detail what would happen if a nuclear weapon were to explode. We blot it out from our consciousness. The consequences are indeed difficult to comprehend since they are so horrifying and the scale so overwhelming that the psychological mechanism of defensive avoidance comes into play. The fact that everyone within a one-mile radius could be killed immediately by a one megaton surface burst is a fact almost too difficult to contemplate, let alone the fact that in a further band extending out from three to nearly five
314
miles nearly half the population would be injured, many fatally.
In the whole of this area, and for a considerable area outside this, all possible forms of medical help would be also destroyed. This was brought home to me when I heard that the health centre in which I work in North-West London had been designated as a casualty clearing station in the event of a nuclear attack. This, incidentally, was done without consultation with any of the staff. As the health centre would be in an area of total destruction were there a nuclear blast anywhere near the centre of London, the suggestion that we should be prepared to offer first aid was to us almost laughable. The full, lingering horror of experiencing an attack like this has been described by the survivors of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki attacks and by the people who have studied them.
Recently, an illustrated book called When the Wind Blows, by Raymond Briggs, was published by Hamish Hamilton. Some noble Lords may have read this book and others may have heard the radio play based on it which was broadcast the week before last. This poignantly describes the slow death from radiation of an elderly couple in a rural area who have done all the right things as instructed in the pamphlet Protect and Survive.
Many eminent people—as the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said—have dissociated themselves from any policy in which nuclear weapons play a part at all, including several Members of your Lordships' House. One of these was Lord Mountbatten of Burma—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Rea: —who, in Strasbourg in May 1979, said:
"And when it is all over what will the world be like? Our fine great buildings, our homes will exist no more. The thousands of years it took to develop our civilisation will have been in vain. Our works of art will be lost. Radio, television, newspapers will disappear. There will be no means of transport. There will be no hospitals. No help can be expected for the few mutilated survivors in any town to be sent from a neighbouring town—there will be no neighbouring towns left, no neighbours, there will be no help, there will be no hope".
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It is very important that I should say that the sentence before the one he has quoted reads:
"We are most likely to preserve the peace if there is a military balance of strength between East and West".
That was Lord Mountbatten's main message. I have been into this matter very deeply. I agree that it went on as the noble Lord has said; but the key point was that he wanted to see a balance of power if peace was to be preserved. That is what we are debating this evening.
Lord Rea: My Lords, I think the inclusion of nuclear weapons in that military balance of force was not what he was hoping for.
Several noble Lords: Yes, it was!
Lord Rea: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that it is absolutely essential that this

315
country makes every effort to ensure that the multilateral arms reduction or limitation talks that are now taking place at high level between the Soviet Union and the United States should succeed. Unfortunately, to date the history of the whole series of talks has been dismal. The best that has been achieved, perhaps, is a slight deceleration in the rate of increase of nuclear weapons. At present a conservative estimate is that both sides have vastly more weapons than they could possibly need to destroy the other country: approximately ten times as many. In this context, talk of maintaining a balance must become somewhat academic. Even if the nuclear stockpiles of the two major atomic powers were reduced by 90 per cent., each would still have more than sufficient stocks to act as a deterrent. I feel that as the most vulnerable country in the world we have a particular need to ensure that these talks become genuine disarmament talks instead of a sop to conscience or to electorates, as they have been to date.
If we can be seen to be playing an important and useful role here, the movement for unilateral disarmament will become less important. If we do not take a stand and declare our opposition to the continuing arms build-up, there will be an increasing demand for this country to take the unilateralist option. As a first step, we could, with no loss of deterrent power, stop the escalation of the arms race which the stationing of cruise missiles in this country represents. Preferably, this could be part of the zero option, but I think that they should not be here in any case.
Recently a parallel has been drawn between the present situation and that which preceded the 1939 to 1945 war and the appeasement of Hitler. In my view, the parallel is much more with the era preceding the 1914 to 1918 war, when two power blocs were each matching each other in the build-up of previously unheard-of numbers of weapons. Eventually, with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo—an unexpected event—the fuse was lit and the worst war in history duly began. Who can deny that in the present world climate such an event may not occur, or that a human or technical error may not occur?
The awful historical precedent for this is that there has never been an arms race between two major powers which has not eventually led to a conflict. Let us hope that the human race is now sufficiently mature to be able to ensure that its leaders reverse this historical trend.
Before I sit down, perhaps I might fly a kite—I think they have been flown in this House before—and suggest that the Government should appoint a Minister of Cabinet rank with special responsibility for disarmament. I can think of no more suitable person for this than the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who has shown himself to be a sincere multilateral disarmer and has proved his skill before in bringing protracted negotiations to a successful conclusion.
9.54 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for having introduced this debate, and although the terms of the Motion are very specifically in two parts I believe that
316
the House has gained by the general debate upon the defence situation. The fact that more than 30 speakers have taken part in the debate is indicative not only of the interest of the subject but also of the concern, which has reflected the growing concern outside and from all directions.
We have had some extremely helpful interventions today. That by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, was one which may not have satisfied any of us as regards our views, but he introduced a breath of fresh air into the debate. The conclusion to which I come at the end of this debate is that we all ought to go away and review and revise our ideas, to see whether there is still some hope of initiatives which may change the course of international defence policy.
Underlying the concern which many feel, not only in this House but outside, is the fact that there is some dubiety in the policies of the President of the United States and in the way that he pursues them. Of course, this is bad, because the United States is a vital part of the NATO Alliance. Our countries have much in common as democracies, and I think we all agree that our relationship should be improved. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, talked about one's views on America, and I hope that that is a constructive view. Part of the dubiety rests also with No. 10. The Government—so often, of course, the Prime Minister—seem too often to follow the President's line, when not only are Britain's interests at stake but also the prospects of peace in Europe. It is fair comment to say that the leaders of these two great countries are the ones who can display the initiatives and encourage assurance in the way in which we are going.
The Government must not classify all who disagree with their policies as stooges of the Soviet. But it is also true to say, as several noble Lords have said, that the peace-lovers, on their part, should show a little more tolerance and understanding. So there is a message there for all of us which cuts right across political and other boundaries, as the recent information polls show, not only in this country but abroad.
The Labour Party often suffers by being identified with others who hold somewhat identical views. The CND does not accept that Britain should be a member of NATO; the Labour Party does. The Labour Party believes in collective security. It was a founder of the alliance, and it wants not only a say in NATO but to have some part in influencing the policies of the future in a more realistic way. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has made some suggestions to us which should be followed up by the Government and by others who have authority and power.
Defence cannot be considered in isolation from other policies. We must think not only of our own security and wellbeing but, as several noble Lords have mentioned—and I think of my noble friends Lord Oram and Lord Hatch of Lusby—of the fact that two-thirds of the world's population is in a state of hunger, to which the Brandt Report draws attention. It is a matter of defence and budgets for general purposes.
One of the problems which faces us and which causes concern is that of raising money for defence. We have discussed the Falklands situation, and I do not want to do more than touch on it tonight. But on

317
top of the four roles which are part of our basic defence policy we also have a very heavy and unforeseeable commitment into the future as regards the Falklands. In addition to that, we have new weapons coming along, and Trident is a case in point. I believe there is a real fear that, if these commitments are to be met, the nuclear aspect will be taking money from the conventional forces, which many consider to be absolutely essential for the peace of the world.
On top of that, we have to look at defence not in isolation, as many noble Lords have done tonight, but in relation to the situation in the country. It is part of our defence that we have a strong economy. If there were an emergency now, we would be facing the situation with 4 million unemployed, with many untrained and with industries running down. It is not a case of thriving industry, where people can be transferred from peaceful pursuits to defence projects. So the strength of a country lies not only in the amount of money that it spends on defence but in other factors as well.
Defence has two aspects, the negative and the positive. Negative defence spending tries to quell or defuse trouble which is foreseen. Positive defence policies seek to prevent tensions from arising, which can often cause us to deal with them too late. This is what the Brandt Report, the North-South dialogue, is about. I am very pleased that this aspect has been touched on tonight.
The point is often made that nuclear weapons and nuclear capability can endanger the lives of millions of people. But that of course is happening today. The people in the North are worried about a nuclear disaster which may kill millions in a flash. But the people in the South—the third world, the underdeveloped countries—are dying now because of nuclear weapons. The immense spending by the rich North on such weapons deprives the South of the very means of existence. They die not in a flash. They die a slow, lingering, starving death. Is that not of concern to those countries which say that they are worried about their own future? If the North and the South, particularly the NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries, could only stop arguing about their nuclear future and first deal together with the immediate challenge of the third world and the other deprived areas, the nuclear challenge would come into perspective. It is a pity that the Soviet Union did not take part in the Cancun Conference, which took place not so long ago in Mexico. Pressure should still be brought to bear on other members of the Warsaw Pact to deal with some of the Brandt issues.
The noble Lord's Motion endorses NATO's effectiveness. I do not need to say that the Labour Party backs NATO. For some years I have been pleased to be a member of the North Atlantic Assembly, the consultative body of parliamentarians of all NATO countries who take part in discussions with defence chiefs and who have the benefit of going on defence tours in Europe and in America to investigate the problem and the resources. Your Lordships know that that assembly held its annual meeting in November in Westminster Hall, in the distinguished presence of Mr. Speaker and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. The assembly
318
has been dealing with constructive frankness with some of the problems facing the alliance.
The fact is that NATO is undergoing changes. If it is truly to reflect the changing situation in the world, both as regards foreign relations, the balance of power and the challenge of new situations to meet technical and other changes in defence strategy, it is vital that these considerations should apply. The Government should not think that criticism of defence policy has ulterior motives. The Government should start worrying when people do not seem to care. Indeed, some already despair and ask what can be done to ensure their future and their children's future. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who made an effective contribution to our debate, spoke about the effect of the last 30 years and said that the next 30 years hold out a bleak prospect. He called for new gestures and new initiatives so that we might move in new, constructive directions.
Towards the end of this year, cruise missiles may be deployed on our soil and a decision will have to be taken as to whether or not to go ahead with Trident. Trident will cost us £10 billion. As one former Conservative Minister has said, it will milk the defence budget. There is growing concern in all quarters about the cost of Trident. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has expressed his view. So has the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman. Indeed, Members on all sides in the other place are becoming increasingly concerned about Trident. They are mainly concerned about the enormous cost of Trident, which is going to put an undue burden upon our defence commitments.
The question which has to be asked is: Where are the Government going to find this extra cash and the other cash which will be needed for escalating defence strategies? Are they going to find it from the defence budget? If so, where will the cuts be made? One suspects that there will be cuts from the conventional aspect—or is the money to come from sources outside of defence? One has a right to know how this will affect our economic strength in other directions. The greatest immediate worry is over the need for dual control of cruise and of other nuclear weapons as well. As we know, there will be problems because cruise will not be on one side, but will be dotted around the country, thus spreading the risk of retaliation and misadventure firing, which is another factor that needs to be looked into very closely. There is also a need to be absolutely certain that Britain has her finger on the trigger, if we are going to have these weapons at all.
One hopes that the negotiations in Geneva and in the disarmament talks will lead the Government to the conclusion that they are no longer necessary. The cruise and Trident missiles, and the nuclear involvement of this country generally, will increase the pressure from other countries to have nuclear capabilities. One wonders how we can stop them when we must go ahead according to our own determination.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made a brief reference to the nuclear deterrent and to the Falklands. Perhaps I may turn his comment around and ask, after the Falklands situation—when the United Kingdom as a nuclear country was involved with the Argentine aggressor—what price deterrents? If joining the nuclear club means the right to get our feet under the conference table, why are only the United States and

319
the USSR at the Geneva talks? We want to know how our voices are to be heard there.
We know that, no matter what nuclear power we have, there are many situations—and the Falklands was one—where we dare not be involved, because the world would not accept such a situation. The General Synod has made a notable contribution in the last week to the thinking on this matter. Obviously, many played safe and plumped for the resolution that was passed. The Prime Minister is undoubtedly pleased about the General Synod's vote. But if she is pleased about one resolution that was not carried, she has an equal responsibility to look very carefully at the resolution that was carried. One should not forget the fact that more than 100 members of the General Synod did not vote on the resolution regarding the unilateral aspect. The contribution made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich was listened to just now with great interest. I wonder whether he plumped for the resolution that was passed or not, because he did not indicate his opinions on that aspect.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I did in fact vote very strongly against the Bishop of Salisbury's motion, with 365 other members of the General Synod. One hundred voted for the resolution, making a total of 466. The number of abstentions was not counted and so it is not easy to know how many did abstain—but, in a big house, I would have thought not many. The other motion mentioned was passed by 270 votes to 220 votes.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I appreciate the intervention of the right reverend Prelate, because this is an important point. I wonder to what extent people voted for the resolution that was carried as a kind of compromise; not being sure how they should vote in the other two directions. I make the point because there is growing concern and anxiety, which may have been expressed in that way.
I believe that the time has come for the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to sit down and do some very careful homework following the debate at the General Synod and tonight's debate in your Lordships' House. If they do, it will, I believe, be the most important meeting that she and the Cabinet have had for some time. One point of the General Synod resolution is concerned with having adequate defence to deter aggression. But that means, of course, having enough and no more: and who is to say whether or not the level is sufficient?—because excessive defence proliferation resulting from escalation can actually lead not to peace but to war. So we know that proliferation could possibly lead to obliteration. These are the problems of deciding where the level is to be drawn.
The most important point of the Synod resolution was, I believe, that of no-first-use. I noticed that the Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pym, meeting the Free Church delegates last week, said that the Government and the allies in NATO could not adopt a policy of no-first-use. That was rather a quick retort to something which has followed from the deliberations of a very weighty conference of the Church, and others as well. I would have hoped that we would have had no sudden or instant comment on the Church's resolution at this
320
stage, but that the matter would be carefully considered by the Government and, indeed, by everyone else concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, with the danger of wearying the House, will the noble Lord give way for a moment? He made specific reference to the resolution passed. The phrase in paragraph 4 is:
"believes that there is a moral obligation on all countries"—
and that means, of course, West and East—
"(including the members of NATO)",
showing that it referred to ourselves,
"publicly to forswear the first use of nuclear weapons in any form; bearing in mind …to further the principles embodied in this motion so as to reduce progressively NATO's dependence on nuclear weapons and to decrease nuclear arsenals".
But the key phrase was,
"believes that there is a moral obligation on all countries (including the members of NATO) publicly to forswear the first use",
which I think puts a slight gloss on the noble Lord's words. But I must not weary the House further.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I was only reading the resolution; but it shows how much careful consideration this important Motion justifies. I hope that the Government are considering all these matters with very great care.
The fact is that we have the immediate concern of cruise and of Trident. Trident will cost 10 per cent. of all the defence equipment in its peak years, and 80 per cent. of the cost, I understand, will come from the naval budget. The fact is that £10 billion, which is to be spent on this project and is questioned by so many, would buy 24 "Invincibles" or 60 Type-22 frigates or 350 Tornado aircraft or, indeed, 1,250 Harrier aircraft. The other aspect, of course, is the concern about who is to control the project.
I believe that the issues which face the country at the moment deserve the closest scrutiny of the House, as, indeed, does the Synod decision of last week. I believe that the other points in the Synod resolution include the recognition of the extreme seriousness of the threat of nuclear weapons; and it affirms the duty of the Government and of our allies to maintain adequate forces against nuclear blackmail, as it is put, and to deter a nuclear and non-nuclear aggressor.
The Labour Party has always believed in a strong Britain acting within the NATO Alliance, for we believe in collective security, with Britain taking the initiative in a fast-changing situation. But one problem of relying on nuclear capabilities is, as I said earlier, that of escalation. We all know that weapons grow more and more formidable. Frightening weapons are replaced by even more terrifying weapons at a greater cost, and conventional capability is reduced with the threat of an early resort to the nuclear capability. These are aspects which cause concern in the country.
My noble friend Lord Brockway rather queried some of the views of the Government as expressed at the United Nations conference. I shall touch upon them only briefly. The conference, it was said,
"Calls upon all nuclear weapon states to agree to a freeze on nuclear weapons".
That was opposed by the United Kingdom. There was the Mexico proposition—a resolution reaffirming the

321
United Nations conviction that a ban on nuclear tests was a vital element. That was carried by 124 for, with the United Kingdom and the United States against. There was the resolution on no-first-use of nuclear weapons. Again, the United Kingdom was against. There was also the Australian resolution about a comprehensive test ban. I believe that the Minister, if not tonight then at some time, should make clear to the House why the Government have been saying, on the one hand, that they believe in all these aspects leading to disarmament, and yet, on the other hand, they take action which rather puts the whole country into doubt about their motives.
I believe that the debate which we have had tonight has been valuable in allowing Members in all parts of the House to express their concern. I hope that the debate will continue throughout the country with all the aspects being discussed and all points of view expressed. Most important is that the Government must consider the views expressed with all sincerity. I do not think it will do for the Prime Minister to see how she can counter the views. She must recognise the growing concern. She cannot stop it. But by thinking about it and by providing some of the answers she may give some reassurance. I believe, finally, that reassurance will only come from a review of Government policy.
This is an important debate. It will have repercussions for a long time to come. Today is a very appropriate day to have this debate, upon one of the most serious and menacing topics of our time. Today is the first day of Lent leading to Good Friday, commemorating the one person who died to save countless millions down through the centuries. What a commentary it is that, 2,000 years later, millions live in fear of perishing by their own folly in a world of God's creation with such potential. With the prospect of nuclear obliteration staring us all in the face, it may well be that Ash Wednesday has more than usual significance.
10.17 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that this debate, this long debate, has been of great interest and is timely. Many of your Lordships have thanked my noble friend Lord Carrington and I do so too, and not least for one specific reason, which is that my noble friend shows clearly in his Motion for this debate that our freedom depends on the existence of the North Atlantic Alliance. After all, NATO was born from our determination to preserve the liberties which were almost extinguished in two world wars.
The North Atlantic Treaty, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, reminded us, speaks of the signatories' determination to safeguard the freedom of their peoples founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law. Because through history it is by the formation of alliances that we have sought to preserve our freedom, Britain has played its part in NATO, and Europe has been at peace for nearly 40 years. Our part in the alliance has involved a special responsibility and that is to maintain over 50,000 troops in West Germany. Our army, together with troops from the United States and also from
322
France, are stationed in Germany because upon the borders of Eastern Europe stands a huge concentration of Soviet forces.
Those are the hard facts and we have to continue to ask the hard questions. Why does the Warsaw Pact need to keep an army of 4 million men in Eastern Europe? Why do they need 42,000 main battle tanks? What is the purpose of the massive build-up of SS20 forces in the late 1970s' which doubled the number of nuclear missile warheads aimed at the people of Western Europe?
MY noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton spoke about the ideological intentions of the Soviet Union and of the need for Western public opinion to comprehend this and to recognise in many cases Russian methods. Last week in answer to a Parliamentary Question from my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, the Government gave one of their periodical reports on the working of the Helsinki Final Act; and it makes grim reading. For the Answer given reflects the denial of fundamental freedoms by the Soviet Union literally to millions and millions of people. It is for these reasons that we have to maintain NATO as the cornerstone of democracy in Europe. As my noble friend Lord Home said, it means that we have to keep up our guard. It means that we must ensure that the resolution and the capabilities of NATO are clearly understood. It means that no aggressor should miscalculate the strength of the Atlantic Alliance.
Yet, if there is to be hope for the future, we must search for reconciliation. My noble friend the Leader of the House gave an account in her speech of the three sets of disarmament negotiations which are going on at the present time. Last July in the Vienna talks on conventional forces the West proposed substantial force reductions, giving a commitment that from the outset all participants in the negotiations would agree, from the word go, to reductions in armaments which were put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, spoke as though agreement in those MBFR talks only required a high level word between the two negotiating sides. I very much regret that that is not the case. Seven months after we put forward our proposals, we still await any substantial response from the Warsaw Pact.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked about the current state of the other two disarmament negotiations—the INF and the START talks. I have to report that, since the beginning of the fourth round of the INF negotiations on 27th January, the Russians have been dragging their feet. They are refusing to discuss crucial issues which will have to be settled whatever agreement is reached in these negotiations, and it is very disappointing. The Russians are, in fact, still seeking to negotiate—so we believe—with public opinion in Western Europe rather than with their negotiators across the table in Geneva.
Incidentally, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I think I must just contradict the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who said that the United States is no longer going for the zero option. I assure the House that this remains the objective and the solution which, we believe, would bring the greatest security to Europe. But in aiming for the objective of zero, we realise that we must have a balanced agreement and balanced reductions.

323
As regards the START talks, the United States is, with our full backing, still pursuing its proposals for substantial cuts in current forces and would expect that General Rowny, the leader of the United States delegation, will be briefing the alliance about progress later in the round. These negotiations call for enormous care and patience, but they are not without hope. Five days ago the Soviet Union announced that it would begin discussions with the International Atomic Energy Agency on arrangements for inspection of its civil nuclear facilities. Many of your Lordships may have seen that reported in the press. For years the Soviet Union has refused to have anything to do with these safeguards which are administered by the IAEA under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, which was signed when the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, was our Foreign Minister.
I fully agree with the contention of my noble friend Lord Home that, given their record, it is encumbent upon the Soviet leaders to prove their good faith in the search for any agreement. But it may just be that this is further evidence, following the move which the Soviet Union seemed to be making on chemical weapons last July, of an increased Russian awareness of the need for verification which lies at the heart of all disarmament negotiations. And so the long search for a more certain peace through negotiations for balanced reductions in forces continues. What is certain is that any recourse to throwing away our arms on our side alone would simply undermine the disarmament negotiations.
Both my noble friends Lord Carrington and Lord Home pointed out that when negotiations reach a conclusion they invariably do so only when there is a balance of advantage for both sides in reaching an agreement. If we simply disarmed, what earthly balance of advantage would there be for Russia to reduce its military threat? I believe that the people of this country understand that clearly. I found it interesting in today's debate that the three of your Lordships who are former Foreign Secretaries who spoke, and not all from the same side of the House, each said that it is a delusion to believe that this country would be in any sense safer from attack by the Soviet Union if we indulged in disarmament on one side alone. There is not one solitary shred of evidence which would lead us to suppose that the Russians would follow our example.
I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, for instance, holds strong unilateralist views which go back to the 1930s and which the noble Lord remains consistent in continuing to hold. But I must say that I had hoped that it would be possible today for the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, to give some repudiation of the call at the Labour Party Conference for the closing down of all nuclear bases on British soil. But I realise that the two noble Lords were not able to do this, and we have to await Labour policy on this matter.
Several of your Lordships have spoken in support of a no-first-use declaration by the Western Allies. It was interesting to hear the clarification given by both the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, of the thinking behind the Synod's resolution on this subject.
324
My noble friend the Leader of the House spoke of the risks and difficulties of adding such an undertaking to the declaration, which of course has already been given for many years by NATO, that we will never be the first to resort to force. But I would just underline two points. First, many different figures have been given this afternoon, and indeed my noble friend Lord Trenchard added most interestingly to this part of the debate, but what is absolutely certain is that the build-up in NATO's conventional forces to gain conventional parity would entail very substantial force increases and would be enormously costly.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It is not a question of obtaining parity all the time. You need not have parity to have a perfectly good defensive system. You do not have to have the same number of tanks as the Russians; you have to have enough anti-tank weapons to counter the tanks. Parity is an illusion in conventional matters.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is that if it is the noble Lord's case, which it is, that there ought to be a no-first-use declaration—
Lord Gladwyn: In time.
Lord Belstead:—yes, in time, and if in addition to that the noble Lord is carefully underlining the fact that there is no need to build up the conventional forces of the West to more or less the same size as the conventional forces of the East, then I become even more suspicious of this particular case which is being put to the Government today. It would be this consequence, I believe, for the democracies who, as soon as the conflict was over in 1945, demobilised, showed that they did not want war, did not wish to build up their conventional forces, and turned rather to the more admirable attitude of facing the problems of peace.
The second point I would make about such a declaration—and I make no apology for repeating my noble friend the Leader of the House on this—is that deterrence relies on making a potential aggressor uncertain, and the declaration of no-first-use which has been called for would remove the certainty of uncertainty. NATO is a defensive alliance and would use any sort of weapon only in response to attack. Our whole purpose is to prevent war, and it goes without saying that our unwillingness to make a no-first-use declaration in no way predetermines decisions on when or in what circumstances the use of nuclear weapons might be contemplated.
I would add, in answer to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, that he is not alone in expressing concern over the size and composition of NATO's battlefield nuclear armoury. I assure him on that. I would remind the House that NATO, with the full support of this country, is currently reviewing its requirements for these weapons with the aim of ensuring that the number and type of them should be no greater than are necessary for deterrence.
One other point before I end. I have heard from different parts of the House today—and one hears it

325
very often outside—a tendency to talk of NATO (by which, I think, people often mean the United States) being prepared to wage a limited nuclear war in Europe. I really do not believe that anyone who heard Vice-President Bush's remarks on this subject on his recent visit to London can still entertain any doubts about this subject. If the Americans wished to limit any future war to Europe, without themselves being involved, the last thing they, would do would be to station 300,000 of their servicemen here, and nuclear weapons in Europe also. The decision to deploy Pershing and cruise—which, of course, can both reach the Soviet Union from Western Europe, and would be taken as an attack by the United States on Russia—is a further demonstration that the defence of Europe and the defence of the United States are inextricably linked together.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: If that is the case, my Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is saying that the United States has changed its mind since the clear declaration of Mr. Haigh, when he was Secretary of State, that a nuclear war might be confined to Europe—a quotation from 1981?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am saying that the inextricable linking—the indissoluble link—of the Atlantic Alliance shows that a war which NATO would wage, wherever it may be, would be a war which would involve all the member countries of NATO, and that includes the United States.
Having said that, I return to what I believe all your Lordships would count as being a first principle: 1983 could be the year in which the world becomes a safer place in which to live, which is what we all hope for. But success will depend on achieving reductions in arms which people see to be fair and in which they have faith because those reductions are balanced and verifiable. That is why we must take the advice of my noble friend Lord Carrington and continue along the path of serious negotiations. And we must stand firm by NATO, with both our conventional and nuclear forces, for in the Atlantic Alliance we threaten no-one but we stand ready to defend our freedom, which is the prime responsibility of the Government of this country.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I put a point to him? As he seems to have given instant comment which seems to have brushed aside most of the points of the Synod resolution, may I ask whether he will say that the Government will give very serious consideration to all those points including the one about parity which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, mentioned? Will he say that the Government are going to give this great consideration in the future, or will he be honest and say the alternative: that the Church has been wasting its time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that those words are ill-judged. The Synod never wastes its time in discussing such a serious matter, and indeed the debate last week in the Synod was unique, as I am sure was felt
326
by all members of the Synod and all those who read about it in the newspapers. What I say—and I am simply repeating what my noble friend the Leader of the House and I have already said on behalf of the Government—is that for a defensive alliance NATO to add a declaration of no-first-use to the declaration which has stood ever since NATO was established—that we will never, ever, be the first to use weapons at all—would not give the right signal to the USSR, and could make war more, and not less, likely.
10.36 p.m.
Lord Carrington: My Lords, we have had an interesting debate. I should be less than truthful if I told your Lordships that, after having listened to two speeches from the Opposition Front Bench, I knew where the Labour Party stood in this matter; but of course if they divide against my Motion it will be quite clear where they stand. However, there is one thing that all of us would agree about, and that is that we have had quite enough oratory for one day. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

County of Lancashire Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee on re-commitment with amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.

  ISLE OF MAN: SHIPPING REGISTER
  ISLE OF MAN: SHIPPING REGISTER
  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE: FIREARMS
  THE METROPOLITAN POLICE: FIREARMS
  EEC GRANTS AND LOANS: PUBLICITY
  EEC GRANTS AND LOANS: PUBLICITY
  POLISH REFUGEES IN AUSTRIA
  POLISH REFUGEES IN AUSTRIA
  SOVIET INTERMEDIATE RANGE MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
  SOVIET INTERMEDIATE RANGE MISSILE DEPLOYMENT
  THE THOR AND CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEMS: COSTS
  THE THOR AND CRUISE MISSILE SYSTEMS: COSTS
  LEAD PIPES IN HOSPITALS
  LEAD PIPES IN HOSPITALS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ALCOHOL AND DRUG-RELATED ADMISSIONS TO HOSPITAL
  NORTHERN IRELAND: ALCOHOL AND DRUG-RELATED ADMISSIONS TO HOSPITAL
  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  CULTURAL PROPERTY: UNESCO CONVENTION
  THE NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: RAYNER SCRUTINY
  THE NATURE CONSERVANCY COUNCIL: RAYNER SCRUTINY
  FARMHOUSE CIDER: REVENUE FROM TAX
  FARMHOUSE CIDER: REVENUE FROM TAX
  CHILDREN: CUSTODY AND ACCESS REPORTS TO THE COURT OF SESSION
  CHILDREN: CUSTODY AND ACCESS REPORTS TO THE COURT OF SESSION
  THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN SCOTLAND
  THE LAW OF EVIDENCE IN SCOTLAND
  THE LAW OF EVIDENCE: SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
  THE LAW OF EVIDENCE: SCOTTISH LAW COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
  NUCLEAR ATTACK: SUICIDE PILLS
  NUCLEAR ATTACK: SUICIDE PILLS