Sitting of 20 July 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Middle East
    Dr. M. S. Millerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any plans to visit Israel or Arab states in the near future.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I have at present no such plans.
    Dr. Miller: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his reply, but does he not think that he should visit the middle east? When he does, will he take with him a copy of an interview published in The Guardian on 4 July between David Hirst, the middle east correspondent of The Guardian and Abu Musa, leader of the rebel Palestinian sect in the armed struggle going on within the Palestine Liberation Organisation, in which the rebel leader reaffirmed his commitment to the Palestine national charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel? Does that not present the Israelis with only two possible courses of action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have shorter supplementary questions, please.
    Dr. Miller: Does that not pose the Israelis with only two courses of action—either they resist or they connive at their own suicide?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have in mind the desirability of visiting the area as soon as that can reasonably be managed. However, as the House will appreciate, a number of matters of considerable practical urgency occupy one's time during the second half of the year, including the United Nations General Assembly and the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, quite apart from the European work programme. The Government are in no doubt that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations on their future, but, on the other hand, we have long argued that the PLO should accept Israel's right to live in peace and renounce terrorism.
    Mr. Lawrence: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take note of the fact that when our noble Friend Lord Carrington decided to visit Israel there followed a warming of relations between our two countries, which had the effect of making Israel far more receptive to the good ideas that come to it from this country than it ever is when there is coolness between us?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall bear my hon. and learned Friend's point in mind.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: If the Foreign Secretary visits the middle east, will he reassure all those who are concerned about peace in the area that the PLO is committed to supporting the present leadership of Yasser Arafat, that those who are seeking to interfere with the independence of the PLO are doing so for their own ends, and that it is the Palestine national council that speaks on behalf of the Palestinians, not the rebels in the Beka'a valley?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I should hesitate to pronounce judgment on the present or future implications of what is happening in the PLO with as much confidence as does the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Marlow: Is not the attempt to extend the Jewish settlement in the Palestinian town of Hebron perhaps one of the most insensitive and callous political acts undertaken by any Government on the face of the earth at the moment? As the Americans seem unable to restrain the Israelis, what initiatives will my right hon. and learned Friend or the European Community be taking to stop the Israelis from colonising Palestine and the west bank?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend draws attention to an important matter, although I do not accept his premise that the Americans are unable or unwilling to attempt to restrain undesirable acts in that part of the world. He can rest assured that, together with our partners in the Ten, we shall continue to bring our influence to bear as far as we can.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Before the Foreign Secretary changes his mind and decides to visit Israel, will he inquire from the Government there what benefits, apart from producing virtual anarchy in the middle east, the unprovoked invasion by Israel of the Lebanor has produced?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because we understand the thinking behind the hon. Gentleman's question that we are doing all that we can to urge all parties to the Israel-Lebanon agreement to agree to an early withdrawal of their forces.
    Mr. George Robertson: May I urge the Foreign Secretary to pay an early visit to the middle east, particularly in the light of the fragile relationships that exist in that area and the great danger to all of us that lies in that strain? Especially in the light of the increasing internal tensions within the PLO, is it not time that the British Government used some of their influence to break the log jam between the United States Government and the Government of the Soviet Union in an effort to ensure that the Soviet Union uses its influence in Syria to see that the Israel-Lebanon agreement is adhered to?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House should not assume from the fact that I have not yet made plans to visit the area that I attach any less importance to the area and its problems than does the hon. Gentleman. He must understand that there are practical limitations that must dictate the timetable. Our potential influence there is of course limited, but, so far as we are able to do so, we shall continue to play the active part that our history and interests dictate in searching for a solution and pressing all the parties concerned to seek one.

    Disarmament
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report recent progress at the disarmament negotiations presently taking place.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Progress in the START and INF negotiations remains disappointingly slow because of Soviet intransigence. In the INF negotiations the Russians are refusing to negotiate about a bilaterally balanced solution. At the mutual and balanced force reductions talks, the East will not agree force levels or effective provisions for verification. In the negotiations in Geneva to ban chemical weapons some progress has been made, but important problems of verification remain.
    Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply, but in connection with the INF talks in Geneva will he confirm that the Russians have made no constructive response whatever to President Reagan's zero option? Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there are millions on both sides of the iron curtain who yearn for the Russians to enter into serious negotiations aimed at dismantling their SS20s, which would lead to the West not having to deploy cruise missiles? Does he agree that that is the safest and most practical way ahead to encourage nuclear disarmament?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says. We have offered the prospect of serious negotiations within the INF talks, and we are still awaiting a positive response of the kind that my hon. Friend would like.
    Mr. Russell Johnston: What view does the Foreign Secretary take of the fact that Herr Genscher has again brought up the question of the informal walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman think that there is a possibility of advance on that basis?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: One should hesitate before building any conclusions on what may or may not be reported about recent exchanges on that previous discussion. It is important to note that the visit to the Soviet Union by Chancellor Kohl, accompanied by Foreign Minister Genscher, has been an impressive opportunity to make plain the firmness of the West in its approach to disarmament and our determination to deploy the weapons as necessary and as agreed, but that that determination is accompanied by an equal determination to embark on disarmament negotiations if the Soviet Union is willing to move.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend say when he expects the INF talks to resume? Are they open-ended, or will they automatically terminate, either with an agreement before Christmas or with the arrival of the first cruise missiles in Western Europe?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Without specific notice, I cannot give the date of the recommencement. The date has recently been changed, and unfortunately I do not have the date in my mind.
    Mr. Canavan: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should do his homework.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The scene is changing rapidly, and the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan)
    362
    must be patient. I would rather give an accurate answer than a speculative one. The answer to the second part of my hon. Friend's question is that there is no reason to suppose that the INF negotiations will be interrupted by deployment on or after 15 November.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does the Foreign Secretary think it significant that it was after the visit to Moscow that Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich Genscher made the reported suggestion of reviving at Geneva the walk in the woods agreement? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman not think that it would be irresponsible if Western Governments went ahead with the immediate deployment of cruise and Pershing missiles when there is a possibility that an agreement might be reached at Geneva on the basis of the tentative agreement that was arrived at last year?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman should not jump to any conclusion of that nature as a result of reports on which he may now be drawing. The best prospect for headway on the INF negotiations will follow from the firm commitment of the West to deployment, as already announced. That will be proceeded with, and it is on that basis that we strongly support the goal which we put forward of the zero option.

    Extra-terrestrial Bodies
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the United Kingdom is party to any international agreements concerning extra-terrestrial bodies.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Ray Whitney): The United Kingdom is a party to the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, often called, for short, the Outer Space Treaty 1967.
    Mr. Foulkes: I hope that the question has not caused the Minister or any of his advisers any sleepless nights. On behalf of terrestrials, as well as extra-terrestrials, could the Minister, his right hon. and learned Friend, and the Government make representations to President Reagan against the extension of weapons to outer space, which threatens to destroy the whole of our civilisation, if not civilisations beyond?
    Mr. Whitney: I assure the hon. Gentleman that his question has caused no sleepless nights. I further assure him that the propositions in President Reagan's speech of 23 March, to which he refers, on defensive technologies are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Outer Space Treaty 1967.

    Helsinki Review
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in the area of human rights at the Helsinki review discussions in Madrid.
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the review conference on the Helsinki final act in Madrid.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is provisional agreement among 34 of the 35 participants on the text of the concluding document. We hope that consensus may soon be reached so that the meeting may be brought to a conclusion.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, despite the tremendous efforts of Ambassadors Wilberforce and Williams on behalf of the United Kingdom over the years in Madrid, the worst forms of offence against human rights have continued to be perpetrated by the Russians, who are now persecuting Yosef Begun, whose trial is next week, who have carried on their persecution of Shcharansky and others, and who have closed the door to the emigration of Jews to the state of Israel, which is a fundamental human right? To repeat a question that was asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) yesterday, is this not just agreement for agreement's sake?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's description of the outcome of the Madrid talks. However, I agree with him that the progress being made in that direction is certainly disappointing and much less than we should like. I agree, too, that actions of which we would all complain, and about which we feel as strongly as he does, are still taking place. However, continued pressure in this direction and the exposure of the misdeeds of the Soviet Union and other countries, as a result of the Helsinki process, have been facilitated. The negotiations at Madrid have enabled us to press forward with criticisms and advance the representations which my hon. and learned Friend wishes us to make on behalf of these people. In this process, which must proceed step by step, the Madrid agreement will be of some value.
    Mr. Atkinson: Has not the gravest disappointment of Madrid been for those, who like Dr. Yuri Orlov, have been imprisoned for establishing Helsinki monitoring groups? Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that no agreement will be signed until ar amnesty has been granted to members of monitoring groups?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I cannot give such an undertaking, but I can say that my hon. Friend has raised legitimate points on behalf of monitoring groups, Mr. Shcharansky and others. They are points that we have continually pressed on the Soviet Union, both inside and outside the context of these negotiations, and we shall continue to do so.
    Mr. MacLennan: What arrangements have been agreed at Madrid for monitoring both at Helsinki and the agreement itself?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: It proved impossible to obtain consensus on a Western proposal to ensure that all individuals could express their views on the respect shown by the Governments for the final act. However, there is a commitment in the concluding document to encourage genuine efforts to implement that act, which will afford at least some protection to the Helsinki monitoring groups.
    Mr. Maples: While considering the question of human rights, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider whether he should advise the Government to sign protocol 6 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which seeks to write into the convention the abolition of the death penalty? In view of the overwhelming majorities by which
    364
    certain motions were rejected in the House last week, that would seem to be an appropriate course of action for the Government to take.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is certainly a matter that I am prepared to discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

    Chile
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about the relations of the United Kingdom with Chile.
    Mr. Whitney: We maintain normal diplomatic relations with Chile.
    Mr. Lofthouse: What was the purpose of the recent visit to London of General Matthei and other representatives of the Chilean Government? Did any talks take place between Ministers or Government officials and the Chilean party?
    Mr. Whitney: General Matthei visited London in March 1983. He met the chief of air staff, other Royal Air Force officers and Ministry of Defence officials to discuss professional air force matters and potential defence sales. He paid a courtesy call on my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement.
    Mr. Parry: Will the Foreign Secretary make it clear to the Chilean junta that the Government are completely opposed to the repression of democracy and human rights? Will he support the demand for the release of more than 30 trade union leaders who are now in prison?
    Mr. Whitney: The Government have never left the Chilean Government in any doubt about our concern at their poor human rights performance, of which the recent detention of Senor Valdes and his colleagues is a lamentable example. When my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Onslow) visited Chile in April as the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, he made the Government's concern clear to the Chilean Government and called on Cardinal Silva and the acting chairman of the Chilean commission on human rights.
    Mr. Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the 10-year-old Pinochet regime is now in its last throes, as shown by recent events? Therefore, will the Government reassess their policies, military and otherwise?
    Why did not the Government, as opposed, for example, to the German Government, make a direct protest to the Chilean Government about the arrest of the leader of a sister party to that Government, instead of leaving it solely to the French ambassador at Santiago, speaking on behalf of the EC? What precisely were the terms of that protest?
    Mr. Whitney: Not being the possessor of a crystal ball, I cannot forecast the future of the present Chilean Government, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's ambassador in Santiago, in company with the other Community ambassadors, protested vigorously on 11 July to the Chilean Foreign Minister at the detention of Senor Valdes and the other Christian Democrat leaders. The Greek Government, in their present capacity as president of the Community, also expressed to the Chilean ambassador in Athens the concern of all 10 Community

    365
    members at the detentions and the repression of political freedom in Chile. As the hon. Gentleman will know, Senor Valdes was released from detention on 13 July.

    Central America
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the United States Government the situation in Central America.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Central America was one of the topics I discussed when I met Secretary of State Shultz in Washington on 14 July.
    Mr. Lamond: Is there anyone in the Foreign Office who is aware that there is a deepening crisis in Central America which is being made worse by American naval manoeuvres in the area, increased involvement with regressive Governments there and now the suggestion that Dr. Henry Kissinger is to become involved? Will the Foreign Secretary take his courage in both hands and issue a word of caution to the President of the United States about that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to draw attention to the serious features arising from events and conditions in that area, and the fact that the United States Government have appointed a commission which includes Dr. Kissinger is just one measure of their concern for the seriousness of the situation. It must be remembered that, as they have said, they are seeking to secure, as are many other people, including the Contadora group, peace in that area, the restoration of stable social conditions, and, as much as anyone else, to diminish the flow of arms to that part of the world.
    Mr. Blaker: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is on the Order Paper an early-day motion signed by 25 Labour Members criticising the Government on the ground that they invited to Britain this week ex-President Duarte of E1 Salvador, because he is said to be involved in violence and to be undemocratic? Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that, to the contrary, ex-President Duarte has suffered exile and torture because of his belief in democracy and that during his visit to Europe he was received by the Socialist Prime Minister of Spain and the leaders of three other EC countries?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to those facts. Senor Duarte has indeed been received by several European leaders and criticism of him here comes ill from those who signed that early-day motion.

    Israel-Lebanon Agreement
    Mr. Neil Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has had any discussions with a view to achieving early implementation of the Israel-Lebanon agreement; and, if so, what assurances he has received that Syrian forces and Palestine Liberation Organisation terrorist groups will withdraw from the Lebanon at the same time as Israeli forces.
    Mr. Hoyleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has had discussions with the Saudi Arabian authorities to ask them to use their influence with the Syrians to withdraw their troops from sovereign Lebanese territory.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The Israel-Lebanon agreement was a welcome step forward, and we are doing what we can in all our contacts to create the conditions in which it can be implemented. The Syrians and the PLO are well aware of our view that they should take this opportunity to withdraw their forces from Lebanon.
    Mr. Thorne: As my right hon. and learned Friend rightly acknowledges the fact that responsibility for that sad state of affairs largely rests in the hands of the PLO and Syrian terrorists, will he use his endeavours to ensure that the United Nations Security Council introduces sanctions against Syria until such time as she makes it possible for the Israeli forces to withdraw?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We certainly intend to make plain to the Syrian Government, as we have already done, that the best way to bring about the withdrawal of Israeli forces is for them to agree to withdraw their forces from Lebanon. I should like to think rather longer about my hon. Friend's first point.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way to a free and independent Lebanon is the complete withdrawal of all foreign troops, and that the way to achieve that is surely to use all the means at our disposal where we have influence, particularly with the Saudi Arabians? Will he try to do that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly the way to the peaceful resolution of the problems in the Lebanon is the withdrawal of all forces from that country. It is right that we should use every means and influence at our disposal. That is what we are trying to do, but we should not overestimate our influence.
    Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind the appalling massacres of Palestinians last year in Beirut, with Israeli connivance, will the Government, with our European allies, do everything in their power to ensure that the Palestinians in south Lebanon are given adequate protection in the next critical months?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall certainly bear in mind my hon. Friend's important point.
    Mr. Mikardo: Does not the present civil war within the PLO make it impossible to draw that organisation into negotiations or even discussions about withdrawal, as we could not be sure that any member of the organisation to whom one talked was empowered to speak for the whole of the organisation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: When dealing with any organisation it is important to have an understanding of the authority, or lack of authority, of all those who seek to speak for it. The key feature is that the Palestinian people must play a full part in the negotiations affecting their future.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to meet representatives of the Falkland Islands Company to discuss Government policy on the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Whitney: Ministers and officials already discuss regularly a wide range of matters with those who have a significant interest in the Falkland Islands, including the Falkland Islands Company.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Government order an inquiry into reports that the Falkland Islands Company collaborated with occupying Argentine forces last year, to the extent that the company received £93,000 for supplying the Argentine forces and then had the brass neck to claim £2 million war damages from the British Government? Why should a capitalist outfit such as Coalite, with pre-tax profits of over £27 million, be allowed to make a killing out of an unnecessary war in which over 1,000 people lost their lives?
    Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman confuses at least three different issues. No one would argue with him about the horror of 1,000 lives being lost.
    In point of legal fact, no legislative action had been taken to prevent the trading activities to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Therefore, the Falkland Islands Company was not acting illegally in supplying goods to the Argentine military authorities.
    The hon. Gentleman referred to Coalite. The profits of the Falkland Islands Company amounted to less than 1 per cent. of the group's profits. The company's compensation claim is being discussed and we are not yet ready to reveal details.
    Mr. Canavan: The Government are giving it a big handout.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Tom Coxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to visit Cyprus.
    Mr. Whitney: My right hon. and learned Friend has no immediate plans to do so.
    Mr. Cox: Is the Minister aware that today is the ninth anniversary of the brutal invasion of Cyprus by the Turkish army? Is he further aware that successive Governments have shown little involvement in trying to resolve the tragedy of that invasion?
    In view of the lack of progress in the inter-communal talks, will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend to change his attitude and try to bring the two sides together in meaningful discussion, working for the reunification of Cyprus?
    Mr. Whitney: Of course we regret the slow progress in the inter-communal talks. However, any separate initiative now might cut across the efforts of the United Nations. The Government are ready to give any help to the United Nations, and to the two communities involved, that they would all consider helpful.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: Because of the oppression of the Turkish Cypriot minority since 1961, is i: any wonder that they have decided to go it alone and declare an independent state? Is there nothing that we can do to bring the two communities together on equal terms, rather than continue to treat the Turkish-Cypriots as a minority?
    Mr. Whitney: The declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state would ruin the prospects of the inter-communal talks. We hope that that can be avoided and that progress with the talks can be made under United Nations negotiations.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister urge his right hon. and learned Friend, on this ninth anniversary, to give high
    368
    priority to fulfilling the Government's obligation, as a guarantor power, to the sovereign and territorial integrity of Cyprus? Will he seek the immediate withdrawal of the invading Turkish forces?
    Mr. Whitney: The Government recognise their obligation in this difficult issue, but believe that the best way forward is through the inter-communal talks. We shall continue to support them while being alive to any other possible initiatives that may contribute to a settlement.
    Mr. Rossi: Is my hon. Friend aware that the United Kingdom still enjoys considerable goodwill among both communities in Cyprus? Should we not be using that goodwill to help bring about a final and just solution in the interests of all the people of that unhappy island?
    Mr. Whitney: I recognise the force of my hon. Friend's point. We shall use our position in any area that might be profitable and productive. Currently, the intercommunal talks offer the best hope, although the whole House recognises that they are disappointingly slow.
    Mr. George Robertson: Does not Britain have a major responsibility for Cyprus? We cannot continue to pass the buck to the stalemated inter-communal talks. Is it not time for a major initiative by the Government, possibly by arranging an early visit to Britain by President Kyprianou? Should we not urge that progress be made in the talks so that we are not left in the same stalemated position for another nine years?
    Mr. Whitney: President Kyprianou is due to visit London on 26 July. No doubt this important issue will feature on the agenda of our talks with him. I can only repeat that there is a limit to the influence of any power, including the British Government with their strong historical links with Cyprus. We shall continue to exert all our efforts to get the inter-communal talks moving.

    Argentina
    Mr. Warrenasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the United Nations Organisation to request that they should exert further influence on Argentina to acknowledge the formal cessation of hostilities in the south Atlantic.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: We shall continue to take suitable opportunities to remind members of the United Nations, including Argentina, that the threat or use of force to settle international disputes is forbidden under the United Nations charter.
    Mr. Warren: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many people in this country are fed up with the way in which the Italians and the French are so eager to re-arm Argentina to the threshold of our defence capabilities in the Falklands? Is it not time for the United Nations, which is too eager to impose its sanctions on all who try to move towards war, to move with equal alacrity to help those who want peace? Should not the United Nations place some restraint on Israel, which is also seeking to re-arm Argentina?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate to over-estimate the capacity of the United Nations to act in such a fashion in any of the cases referred to by my hon. Friend. It is certainly regrettable that those armaments are being delivered to Argentina.
    Mr. Deakins: Why are the Government refusing to submit the dispute on sovereignty of the Falkland Islands to the International Court of Justice, in accordance with our international obligations?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because there has been a long and abortive history for many years past.
    Mr. Farr: As Argentina is almost financially bankrupt, will my right hon. and learned Friend ensure that any future negotiations with or through the IMF on funds for Argentina are not proceeded with until that country recognises a ceasefire in the south Atlantic?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Under the articles of the IMF, it is not possible to attach political conditions to the relationship between the founder and member countries. It is possible to attach certain financial conditions related to the fulfilment of obligations to and by the fund. We cannot attach the conditions suggested by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Anderson: Why cannot such conditions be imposed in international debt negotiations? Why did not the Government seek to do that on the last occasion? Why did they not impose conditions that any loans could not be used for future military purposes?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have already said, it is not possible within the rules of the fund—it is designed as an organisation dealing with member states — for conditions such as the hon. Gentleman mentioned to be attached. If we sought to write into a financial organisation political and other conditions, or the power to make such conditions, that would not be fulfilling the nature of the organisation, which is a membership organisation with obligations to and from its members.

    Arab States (Local Regulations and Restrictions)
    Mr. Ernie Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the advice given by his Department to British business men and tourists visiting each of the Arab states concerning local regulations and religious restrictions.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Richard Luce): The Department of Trade and Industry publishes advice in its booklets "Hints to Businessmen". The consular department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and British consulates in Arab countries give advice in response to specific inquiries from tourists and other visitors from Britain.
    Mr. Roberts: What representations has the Foreign Secretary made to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states about their refusal last year to allow British subjects to celebrate Christmas? What representations is he making about the rights of British citizens to celebrate Christmas this year?
    Mr. Luce: We have no evidence that any Arab Government prevented anyone from celebrating Christmas last year. However, a specific case arose in Saudi Arabia last Christmas, which led to British expatriates being asked to leave Saudi Arabia a few months later. The Government have made strong representations to Saudi Arabia about that case.
    Mr. Latham: Is it not incongruous that Arab states attach such great importance, and rightly so, to access to Islamic holy places in Jerusalem while being so reluctant to allow religious freedom to Christmas and Jews in their own countries?
    Mr. Luce: The question is related to the advice that we give to British subjects about the conditions, traditions and customs of particular countries. When individuals go to particular countries it is important for them to take account of certain facts and it is those that we make available to the public.

    Soviet Union
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards improving relations between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We have consistently made it clear to the Soviet leadership that a more constructive relationship is possible if the Soviet Union is prepared to show restraint and discontinue policies that increase international tension.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Minister and the Foreign Secretary agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), the previous Foreign Secretary, who said that dialogue with the Russians had become rather thin and urged, during the debate on the Queen's Speech, that there should be closer contacts between the two countries? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that whatever disagreements we may have—often they are strong—with the Russian method of government, it is necessary and useful to have good Anglo-Soviet relations?
    Mr. Rifkind: We agree that there is a need for constructive dialogue and it is for that reason that I was in Moscow several weeks ago.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Enlargement
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards further enlargement of the European Community after the accession of Spain and Portugal.
    Mr. Rifkind: This is a hypothetical question. If there were further applications for European Community membership, the Community would need to consider them on their merits in accordance with article 237 of the Treaty of Rome.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Is it the non-hypothetical policy of Her Majesty's Government actively to encourage the enlargement of the Community, especially by the accession of other Scandinavian countries?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is for any European state that shares our democratic and parliamentary traditions to apply, if it so wishes, for membership of the Community. Any application would then be considered in accordance with the terms of the treaty.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the exact nature of the Government's policy on the accession of Spain? Yesterday his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) that

    371
    "Spain cannot enter the EC until the restrictions on the border between Spain and Gibraltar are lifted."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 178.]
    The Foreign Office has issued a statement today stating that the issue between Gibraltar and Britain is something quite separate from Spain's entry into tie EC. What is the Government's policy? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us who is speaking for the Government. Is it the Foreign Office or the Prime Minister?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is the British Government's desire that Spain should become a member of the Community. If it wishes to do so, it must recognise that Gibraltar is part of the Community and that it would be inconceivable if Spain, as a member of the Community, did not allow movement across its frontiers with Gibraltar similar to that which it would provide for other member countries.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Before coming to any agreement on the accession of Spain and Portugal, will the Government ensure that British horticulture will not be ruined and that the transitional period will be sufficiently long to prevent such damage?
    Mr. Rifkind: It is likely that Spain will require a long transitional period before becoming a full member of the Community. I can assure my hon. Friend that the considerations that she has raised will be taken into account during the negotiations.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will attend a meeting of the Council of Ministers of the European Community.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when next he will be attending a meeting of the Council of Ministers; what subjects will be discussed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Rifkind: The next regular Foreign Affairs Council is due to take place on 19 and 20 September. We will not know what items will definitely be discussed until nearer the time, but it is possible that the agenda will include European Community-United States steel, Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community and the regional development fund regulation.
    My right hon. and learned Friend will probably also attend the special Council due to take place on 30 August to continue the discussion of the future financing arrangements of the Community.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the Minister seek to retrieve the unseemly situation that has led our Industry Ministers recently to stress that there will be no further contraction of Britain's steel industry until our European partners fulfil their obligations to contract? Is he aware that substantial redundancies and contractions were being arranged in Britain at the very time when the Ministers' supposedly robust comments were made? Is this position not completely preposterous, and does it not demonstrate that our partners must regard Britain as an extremely soft touch?
    Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom has made substantial reductions in the capacity of its steel industry. That has happened primarily because of our own
    372
    assessment of the industry's needs. Those reductions must be taken into account by other Community countries in the light of the Commission's further proposals.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend express concern and disgust at the present hold-up of investment in the British steel industry by the Common Market? Will he draw its attention to the fact that not so long ago it was turning a blind eye to expansion of the Italian steel industry while our industry, under its direction, was being cut to ribbons?
    Mr. Rifkind: The bulk of the cuts that have been made in the steel industry in the Community have been made by the United Kingdom industry. Italy has increased its capacity over the past few years.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How can the British Government support a further contraction of the British steel industry when the Government, out of their own mouth, have admitted that the British steel industry has cut its capacity more than any of its competitors in Europe? How can the Government accept that there will be a reduction in the duty on wines, which come from countries outside the United Kingdom in the main, and an increase in the duty on beer, which is a great and traditional product of this country? I ask my hon. Friend for an assurance that the Government will stand up for British traditions and British interests.
    Mr. James Lamond: Drink British.
    Mr. Rifkind: We are considering the implications of the recent judgment of the European Court and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend's comments will be taker into account. The Commission has submitted proposals for small additional cuts in the steel industry to the British Government. We are considering our response to the proposals and we shall take into account the considerations raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: Will the Minister give the House an assurance that when he next attends a meeting of the Council of Ministers he will not agree to any increase in our VAT contributions to the EC budget?
    Mr. Rifkind: During the Stuttgart summit my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that any consideration of an increase in the own resources of the Community could be considered only if the Community were able to accept a firm guideline on expenditure and to consider a proposal for redistributing the burden of the expenditure of the Community among the member states. We have said that if these conditions are met we shall be prepared to hear the reasons why other Community countries feel that an increase in own resources would be desirable. We would then proceed to consider the matter on its merits.

    Budget
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress he has made towards finding a solution to the European Community budget problem.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to prevent any increase in the size of the European Community budget until satisfactory reforni of the common agricultural policy is agreed.
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made towards reaching a long-term solution to the European Community budget problem.
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress towards a resolution of budgetary problems was made at the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 July.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: As the Prime Minister told the House on 23 June, the European Council at Stuttgart on 17 to 19 of June agreed that urgent negotiations would be started on the future financing of the Community and that the result of the negotiations would be submitted to the next European Council in Athens on 6 December. The first meeting of the special Council, which is to prepare the ground for decisions at Athens, took place in Brussels on 8 July. Agreement was reached at this meeting on the timetable for future meetings of the special Council and on procedural questions.
    I attended the second of these Councils yesterday and will be saying a word about its outcome during the statement that I shall be making to the House on the Foreign Affairs Council on 18 July, immediately following this Question Time.
    Mr. Arnold: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the House an assurance that there will be no further increase in Britain's contribution to the EC budget until such time as our EC partners are prepared to accept the admirable principles that he outlined in his statement yesterday?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about my statement. The purpose of making it was to impress the Government's propositions upon our colleagues.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recall that when the Prime Minister returned from Stuttgart she boasted that she was getting a rebate of £450 million? When will that sum be repaid and will it be conditional?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The effect of the agreement that was arrived at in Stuttgart was that provisons for the rebate would be written into the budget that is now under preparation. The money will be repayable—
    Mr. Hamilton: When?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: —to this country on the same timetable as in previous years, but in Britain's financial year. There are no conditions attached to that. It has emerged clearly from what my right hon. Friend has said about Stuttgart that agreement on the refund to the United Kingdom was not conditional or dependent upon other agreements that were arrived at in Stuttgart.
    Mr. Knox: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the extension of regional development and energy policies in the Community, from which Britain would benefit disproportionately, could play a part in the long-term solution of the budget problem?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I would agree with my hon. Friend in following that approach. If we were to try to solve our budgetary problem by an expansion of the regional fund in order to secure the equivalent of the 750 million ecu that we are getting under
    374
    the Stuttgart agreement, we should have to enlarge the size of the regional fund until it was twice as large as the entire Community budget. That would not seem to be the most fruitful way of doing it. One of the objects of the arrangement that I was urging yesterday was to put the financing of the budget on a more rational basis, so that member States need not be so preoccupied with whether we do or do not get something out of a particular policy. We can address ourselves to the financing of the budget and then consider the policies on their merits.
    Mr. Dykes: As there is an urgent need to create enthusiasm for the EC in this country, and as the budget rebate has been a spectacular success for Her Majesty's Government, is it not now possible to indulge in the best principles of compromise and give and take with the European Parliament and create a truly constructive dialogue for the non-inflationary expansion and modernisation of the budget?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I hesitate in my present capacity to try to analyse all the implications of a non-inflationary expansionary modernisation of the budget, but I certainly agree that it would be useful to endeavour to secure the most fruitful partnership that we can between the Commission, the Council, member states and the Parliament.
    Mr. Rogers: Is the Secretary of State aware that an increase in taxation from 1 per cent. to 1·5 per cent. is likely to cost the British taxpayer about £3 million? What steps will he now take to ensure that we get a reasonable return, in view of the fact that the other countries are not likely to change their views on the common agricultural policy? How much is the right hon. and learned Gentleman going to sell us down the river for?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not sure that I accept the arithmetic underlying the hon. Gentleman's question, but he is right to draw attention to the fact that an enlargement of own resources would involve an additional burden to the budgetary burden on the people of this country.
    Mr. Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman increase VAT?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The reason why I believe that it is right to say that the argument against accepting the case for enlarging own resources is likely to be considered seriously is that an agreement to enlarge own resources involves the concurrence of the Council and of each Parliament of the member states. In place of that balance of relationships, the proposition that one cannot automatically accept the case for enlarging own resources must be taken seriously.
    Mr. Body: Will my right hon. and learned Friend undertake to make it plain to his colleagues on the continent that VAT places a heavy burden on the consumer, the poor as well as the rich? Will it be his intention to oppose any increase in VAT?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: One can certainly understand the case that if VAT or any other tax increases beyond a certain point, it becomes more of a burden. The argument that we are considering in the European Community is not, in fact, whether that tax should be increased, but whether the tax revenue to be handed over as own resources should be calculated by reference to a notional increase in the tax.
    Mr. Skinner: It is going up.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The real question is whether we allow an increase in own resources. We have placed the burden of proof firmly on those who seek to make that case.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that the resources of the Community are drying up and that by October there will be a financial crisis if own resources are not increased? As the British net contribution this year is £1,140 million, which is about equal to the entire British aid programme to the Commonwealth and the countries of the underdeveloped world, when will the right hon. and learned Gentleman come to the House to say what action he will take to ensure that Britain gets a fair deal in the Market?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is straightforward. The present arrangement for financing; the Community is leading to the position that the hon. Gentleman described. The resources available to the Community are running out. Any increase in those so-called own resources has to be made by shifting resources from somewhere else—from the taxpayer or the consumer. We are saying that that case must be proved. We also say that whatever arrangements are made for financing the Community in future, Britain should not bear an unduly large share of the cost. In pursuit of that case we have been successful, over the past four years, in securing a refund of two thirds of our potential maximum contribution. Over the past four years we have been successful in securing refunds of £2,500 million. That is an indication of the energy with which we conduct the case.

    Community Development
    Mr. Hicksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals he intends submitting to the next meeting of the Council of Ministers with the objective of furthering community development; and if he will make a statement.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall be amplifying the ideas that I introduced at the meeting of the special Council yesterday on a safety net arrangement that will ensure that no member state will have to bear an excessive budgetary burden, and for a financial framework governing the growth of agricultural expenditure.
    We shall continue to argue for our ideas for the development of the Community in a number of areas, including the internal market for goods and services, energy strategy, regional and social policy, and for the acceleration of the negotiations for Spanish and Portuguese accession.
    Mr. Hicks: As a significant proportion of the expenditure on the common agricultural fund is essentially social, so that it is in effect, a rural support fund, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider advocating the formal introduction of a rural fund to ensure the continued viability of rural areas through enhanced infrastructure and other forms of investment?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the importance of a sensible agricultural policy to the rural areas in this country. I am interested in his alternative proposal. The central feature is that there is a limit to the resources that can be found to finance programmes of any type, whether rural or urban.
    Mr. Maclennan: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge and recognise that if the Government persist in a system of unfair voting for the European Parliament they will not only deprive the people of this country of fair representation in the European Parliament, but will distort the political composition of that Parliament? When does he propose to end the anomaly of Britain being the only country in the European Parliament without a fair system of representation?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question does not arise out of question 68. That is a different question. I have no proposals to put before the House on that matter.
    Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to develop the Community as a political force rather than just consider our budget problems and the problems of economic and industrial development in the Community? In his new portfolio as Foreign Secretary, will he bear in mind that one of the most important contributions that he could make would be to ensure that the Community began to take a further initiative in foreign affairs, particularly on the middle east?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree with my hon. Friend about the potential and importance of the Community's role in political co-operation in the middle east as elsewhere. One of the most important political questions for the Community at the moment is the resolution of the longstanding budgetary problem. For too many years now Foreign Ministers as well as Finance Ministers have had to devote too much time to the resolution of recurrent rows in that area. I make no apology for treating that, among other things, as an important political question for the Community.
    Mr. Heffer: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain in a little more detail than he has hitherto precisely what proposals the Government have for furthering community development? The Government are saying that the proposals for the future of the Community must, more or less, be along the lines of the Government's policies in this country over the past four years. Is he suggesting that we should export Thatcherism to the whole of Europe? We have high unemployment because of Tory policies. Do the Government want even higher unemployment throughout the entire Community?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that is an absurd proposition. The point I am making is that, whether in the Community or in this country, wealth must be created before it can be redistributed or redirected. Whether in the Community or in this country, commonsense principles apply, of which the most important is that finance should determine expenditure and not expenditure determine finance.

    European Parliament
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has received any invitation to address the European Parliament.
    Mr. Rifkind: No.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that there will be an opportunity, when such an invitation

    377
    manifests itself, as it no doubt will, to capture the imagination of European politicians and the European public with the real desire of hon. Members in all parts of the House to achieve progress in spheres such as support of European technology, closer co-operation in political, energy and social matters as well as in the promotion of policies for combating unemployment? Is he aware that these policies constantly run into difficulties when they are considered piecemeal? Does he agree therefore that there is an opportunity for an imaginative—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that is quite long enough for a supplementary.
    Mr. Rifkind: It is normal practice for a Foreign Minister to address the European Parliament only when his country holds the presidency of the Council of Ministers. I agree, however, that my hon. Friend's objectives are highly desirable.
    Mr. Ernie Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For the sake of the record I feel that I should point out a serious and misleading statement that was made by the Minister when he replied to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller)—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Points of order must be addressed to me, but I cannot rule on misleading statements said to have been made by the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to protect the House in relation to the formulation of Foreign and Commonwealth Question Time? Today we had no fewer than 63 non-EC questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which had to be answered in 35 minutes, whereas we had only 10 EC questions, for which 20 minutes was allotted: nine of the 10 EC questions were answered and only 14 of the non-EC ones were answered.
    This has happened frequently. It means that the 50 or so hon. Members who tabled questions to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary relating to non-EC matters did
    378
    not have their questions reached. I was among them. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you might consider recommending either that EC Question Time is cut by half or that the full 20 minutes is allowed, but perhaps on each alternative day when the Minister answers.
    Mr. Skinner: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to the fact that question No. 75 is down in my name to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I know when that right hon. and learned Gentleman answers in the House and I usually manage to table a question to him. The reason why it appears on the Order Paper in its present form is not because I wrote it in that fashion, but because of what occurred when it went to the Table Office.
    I was hoping to be able to discuss the fact that France, Germany and Italy were sending arms to Argentina and that Britain was providing the money. That is called European co-operation. That was the basis of it. When I got to the Table Office the question was accepted. It appeared on the Order Paper, but then, because the Government are embarrassed because they are providing the money to enable Exocets to be purchased from France in the name—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Skinner: I am talking about the transfer—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has managed to put his supplementary question.
    I have sympathy with what the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said. The supplementary questions and answers to the first series of questions on the Order Paper today were, in my judgment, rather too long, and therefore we did not do as well as we should have done. The allocation of time for Foreign and Commonwealth Questions is not a matter for me but for the Government, and that is where the hon. Gentleman should make his representations.

Foreign Affairs Council
3.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the foreign affairs council held in Brussels on 18 July at which I represented the United Kingdom and at which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development was also present. I will also take this opportunity to comment on the special council which met on 19 July to discuss the future financing of the Community.
I shall deal first with the discussion about the decision of the United States Administration to impose import curbs on certain special steel products. Coming so soon after the Williamsburg commitment against protectionism, this decision has caused great dissatisfaction in the Community. I made that quite clear both to President Reagan and to Secretary of State Shultz during my visit to the United States last week.
The European Commission has already taken this up with the United States Administration on behalf of the Community, but there has been no sign of American willingness to reconsider or amend the decision. The Commission therefore proposed to seek consultation in the GATT and to raise the issue in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
The council strongly supported the Commission's proposals and agreed to issue a statement of conclusions setting out the Community's position. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.
The council made satisfactory progress towards agreeing its position on negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on a successor to the Lome convention, which are due to open in October. There will be further discussions on the, outstanding points of the Commission's negotiating mandate at the September meeting of the council.
The annual report of the Committee of Permanent Representatives on relations between the Community and the countries of EFTA was accepted by Ministers, who expressed their support for the strengthening of the relationship.
The council reviewed progress on Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community. Ministers agreed the need to make progress in the negotiations and in particular the desirability of an agreement which satisfactorily balanced the development of Greenland's fisheries with the proper needs of the Community.
In informal discussion of United Kingdom refunds in respect of 1982 and 1983, decisions on which are for the Budget Council which is meeting today and tomorrow, I underlined the need for full and correct implementation of what was agreed in October 1982 and at Stuttgart.
In the context of political co-operation, Ministers of the Ten also briefly discussed progress at the Madrid meeting of the conference on security and co-operation in Europe and the situation in central America and in Poland.
Finally, the Ministerial meeting with the Portuguese reviewed progress in Portugal's accession negotiations.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I took part in a meeting of the Special Council to discuss the future financing of the Community and other issues covered in the Stuttgart declaration. I
380
explained our views on a number of issues, particularly on a safety net scheme for limiting net contributions to the Community budget and on strict financial guidelines for controlling agricultural expenditure.
Mr. Eric S. Heifer: Will tare right hon. and learned Gentleman explain why copies of his statement were not in our hands until 3.15? That did not give us time properly to examine it. But on the other hand, having read through it quickly, I can see that there is not much in it anyway, so there was not much to examine.
Was there any discussion about trying to create policies for the whole of the Community to get the EC working and unemployment down? One omission from the Secretary of State's statement—as has been the case in the past—is any indication from the Government that any effort is being made by the European countries to reflate the economy and get our people, in Britain and throughout Europe, back to work as quickly as possible. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will explain precisely what the intentions of Her Majesty's Government are on that.
As for the United States—EC steel conflict, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that that is part of a wider trade conflict and that the protectionism of the common agricultural policy has fuelled it? Does he agree that the United Kingdom steel industry has been squeezed between the steel policies of the EC and the agricultural protectionism of the United States? When he discusses this with the GATT, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman draw attention to agricultural matters as well as to the problems of steel?
We have heard statement after statement from various Ministers about VAT and refunds to the United Kingdom. No doubt the right hon. and learned Gentleman will say, as many other Conservative Ministers have said, that there is no intention to raise VAT in this country. That cannot be guaranteed, but will he guarantee that there will he no further increase in the VAT contributions to the Community budget or own resources, which is the only way in which it can be done at the moment?
If, as is quite likely, the European Assembly decides to block the budgetary proposals, what do the Government intend to do? The Assembly is flexing its muscles and it is clear that after the Athens summit it intends to say, "We want extra powers, we intend to get them and we will get rid of the Commission if we do not like what is being proposed." How would the Government respond to that?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that the Government will tell the House in detail what is happening in the Community as early as possible, so that we can have a real discussion about the proposals and the House can make its views clear?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I shall certainly see that the House is kept informed in this fashion and other customary ways of what is taking place between the Government and the other countries of the Community.
On the procedural point, I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman did not have the document, which he was certainly entitled to. I believe that it left my office at 2 o'clock. I shall try to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the intentions of the Parliament. The Parliament adopted similar positions at

381
different stages of the procedure last year. In answer to a question in the House on 17 December, I said that we should take action to protect our position if it became necessary in the light of what the Parliament was then threatening to do. In the event, the Parliament did not do what it had threatened to do. I think that I ought to wait before answering a hypothetical question.
The creation of sanctions in the United States against European speciality steels is one manifestation of a tendency towards protectionism which ought to be deplored on both sides of the Atlantic. It does not arise out of the agricultural policy but is a separate and distinct point. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that one of the reasons for wanting to reform the common agricultural policy and to curb agricultural subsidisation everywhere is that it gives rise to undue protectionist tendencies.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the VAT own resources measurement. If the Community can satisfy the conditions outlined by the Prime Minister, we are prepared to see whether a case can be made out for an enlargement of own resources. As I have already said today, a case that we can accept has not yet been made. That point is linked with the hon. Gentleman's first question. He asked whether we had taken action to get the Community back to work and reduce unemployment. He asked why we had not achieved any reflation. The answer is that all the member states of the Community recognise that reflation is the wrong method of combating unemployment. That question therefore does not arise in the Community.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Was there any discussion about the enlargement of the Community? Is it still the view of the Council of Ministers that enlargement cannot take place until the common agricultural policy has been reorganised?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Enlargement was one of the propositions agreed upon at Stuttgart. It was in that context that we met the Portuguese Ministers at the Council meeting yesterday to review progress on their accession negotiations. The Stuttgart agenda includes getting on with the process of enlargement, the reform of the common agricultural policy and the improvement of the budgetary procedure. Those matters are all going ahead at the same time.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that even if a reform of the common agricultural policy and an equitable budgetary solution are achieved, there will still be an urgent need to increase the own resources element in the Community budget if we are ever to achieve anything in the regional or social field? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assure us that he will not oppose such an increase, given that he achieves agreement on the CAP and the budget?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even if agreement is reached on reform of the agricultural policy and a fairer budgetary procedure, it does not follow that own resources should be increased. The burden of showing that the Community needs and should have an increase in own resources would still rest upon those who seek it. It would be a transfer of resources through Community institutions, for which the
382
case has not, on the face of it, been made. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his views. We are prepared to listen to those who argue the case and to consider it on its merits.
Mr. David Howell: There will be a warm welcome for the bold and imaginative-sounding speech made by my right hon. and learned Friend yesterday, in which he opened up new possibilities for the reform of the common agricultural policy. Does he envisage that that reform will involve new legislation in national Parliaments, or amendment to the treaty of Rome? Beyond the idea of a ceiling on the CAP, does he foresee the development of new support systems for agriculture in the separate countries?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There are national agricultural programmes, which differ in various respects, but my right hon. Friend should hesitate be believe that it is necessarily right to move from one form of subsidisation to another, or indeed to place one on top of another. We have to keep a balanced view.
It is still a matter of consideration whether my objective of giving the force of law to the guidelines which would limit the rate of growth of agricultural expenditure should be achieved by treaty, regulation or other Community legislation.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I was present this week at a meeting attended by Viscount Davignon? Viscount Davignon produced figures showing that the British steel industry had made twice the sacrifice in terms of tonnage that the German steel industry had made, despite the fact that the Germans produce more. He also issued a press statement saying that further sacrifices would have to be made. Who is to be sacrificed?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Like other steel industries, the British steel industry has been required to make formidable sacrifices in the face of pressures in the world steel market in recent years. It is true that a larger proportion of those who work in the British steel industry have lost their jobs in the past four years than in most other steel industries. Sadly, that is because our industry remained uncompetitive for much longer than the industry of any other country. It is also due to the fact that in the early years of the previous Labour Government, for example, our steel industry lost a large share even of our domestic market, because of industrial action in our own steel industry. All those things have contributed to the fact that, sadly, there has been a greater loss of jobs in our steel industry than there need have been. Our industry is now more competitive than that of any other country in Europe, and should be better placed to face the future.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As the cost of the CAP in the Community, as presently sized, is the principal budgetary problem—my right hon. and learned Friend has made proposals for its reform—and as it is the Government's policy to agree to the accession of Portugal and Spain, which has a three-year agricultural development policy, have Ministers considered the economic effect on the CAP of the admission of Spain, and to a lesser extent Portugal, and what will the cost be of buying off their products to stop them ruining British agriculture?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is because of the possible implications of accession by those Iwo countries that negotiations are still not completed. A transitional period will certainly be necessary. Account mast also be taken of the political advantage to the prospects for democracy in Europe of Spain and Portugal's accession to the Community. It is worth recording that, if the CAP were done away with and replaced by a deficiency payments system in this country, the cost would be formidable—probably about £2 billion.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day before us and an imporant debate. I propose to call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places, but I would ask them to keep their supplementary questions brief.
Mr. Donald Anderson: Ministers must have had evidence before them oi' increasing covert assistance being given by the American authorities to the rebels fighting against the Sandinista Government in Nicaragua, and the United States of America is now making a show of strength that could lead to a naval blockade. At what point will European Ministers distance themselves from the United States' policy in central America, take the Americans aside, and tell them what only best friends can say—that a continuation of their current policies can lead only to a situation such as that which existed in Vietnam, which is not in the interests of the Western Alliance?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If Ministers consider the question of central America further, they will certainly bear in mind the arguments advanced by the hon. Gentleman, but they will also remember that the number of military advisers deployed by Cuba in the three key countries of central America is now estimated to exceed by tenfold those from the United States of America. They will also recognise that there is clear evidence of a Soviet-Cuban-Nicaraguan link, bringing arms and disruption to that area. Although we want to promote policies that will lead to pacification of the area, we take a balanced view of that responsibility.
Mr. Nigel Forman: If my right hon. and learned Friend's idea for a new budgetary safety net were introduced into Community finances, which member states would pay more, and which less?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend can analyse and answer the question for himself—[Laughter.] I do my hon. Friend the credit of believing that he understands the question as he poses it. Those states that are below the Community average — the poorest states — would not expect to be net contributors at all. On the other hand, those that are significantly above the Community average —of the six richest states in the Community, five are net beneficiaries under the system—could expect their budget contributions to increase. In other words, the system would be designed to place the burden more fairly, having regard to the relative prosperity of the member states.
Mr. James Lamond: Every time an Opposition Member asks for a little protection for any of our industries he is given a stern lecture about retaliation from the Minister responsible, so can we take it that America's steps to protect its steel
384
industry have made that country quake in its shoes, because we and other EC countries will strike back if the Americans do not take heed of what we have told them?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no doubt that one of the factors that is likely to persuade a country, including the United States of America, to reconsider the wisdom of introducing such measures is the prospect of our claiming our entitlement under GATT, first in the form of compensation and then, if that is not met, or is unsatisfactory, by way of retaliation. Sadly, when trade protectionism breaks out, that is the way that it is brought to an end. Those factors will be important to American considerations.
Mr. Tony Marlow: In the event of an increase in own resources, how would ratification be put through the House? Would it be primary legislation or something else? Will my right hon. and learned Friend his European colleagues that a majority in the House believe that we should, and can, secure a fair budget contributions without having to go for an increase in own resources, and that there is also a majority in the House against an increase in own resources for the EC, because it would mean, first, more European expenditure and more public expenditure; secondly, more expenditure which would he controlled by Europe, and it has yet to prove that it can control it efficiently; and thirdly, more policies which would be controlled by Europe, which—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot ask three supplementary questions.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall answer one or two of my hon. Friend's questions. Legislation would be necessary for own resources to be increased, in every Parliament of every member state. It is a fact—as I well understand from what my hon. Friend has said—that many hon. Members would regard an increase in own resources as unwelcome. That gives me no doubt that we should place the burden of proving the case for an increase upon those who seek to make it.
Mr. Derek Foster: The Foreign Secretary is rightly concerned about the growth of protectionism, but is it not largely the result of pursuing the sort of economic policies that he advocated throughout Europe? Is not the only sure way of removing the threat of protectionism to have a co-ordinated expansion through Europe'? Why is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman pursuing such policies with our European partners?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That would be inconsistent with the convictions of this Government and with the convictions and aspirations of all our European partners.
Mr. David Crouch: May I remind my right hon. and learned Friend that, as members of a member state Parliament, we have no influence on the agendas drawn up for the Council of Ministers in the EC, but I hope that we still have some influence on the Government. Will he bear in mind the fact that, although we recognise the value of the EC looking outwards towards the central American problem and the Madrid conference, there is an urgent need for him to use his initiative as quickly as possible to bring the middle east question to the fore in the Council of Ministers, before it is too late?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was of course the subject of discussion and conclusions at the Stuttgart conference. We

385
shall regularly turn our attention to that matter. I certainly share my hon. Friend's anxiety about the middle east, and, within the limits of our capacity and power, we shall continue to focus attention on it.
Mr. Robert Parry: Was the question of the continued detention of leaders of the Turkish Peace Association and DISK discussed? Will the Government support them and call for their early release?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That was not discussed.
Hon. Members: Why not?
Mr. Richard Body: When the interests of the ACP countries were discussed, did my right hon. and learned Friend raise with his colleagues the subject of the great hardship caused to ACP sugar countries? They have to gain the foreign exchange that they need by exporting half their sugar on to the world market, at the same time as the EC is dumping between one quarter and one fifth of its supply on the world market, causing the price to fall below the cost of production in every country in the world.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that result of the way in which agricultural policies interact on each other.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman guarantee that in no circumstances will there be an increase in VAT or an increase in the amount of VAT money paid to the Common Market? Is not the truth of the matter that, after 10 years and £3,800 million of British taxpayers' money in net contributions, this autumn this much-vaunted Common Market, with its talk about partners and colleagues, will reach the point of bankruptcy and will have to be bailed out with some of the others that are swilling around the world?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I can say nothing to add enchantment to the hon. Gentleman's jaundiced view of almost everything he looks on.
Mr. Heffer: I return to the question raised by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) about the future of financing the so-called safety net. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us a little more about how much support he is receiving from other EC countries? Is he receiving any support, especially, from the French in view of the statement by the French Foreign Minister which was reported in the press?
If the situation in central America worsens, will there be further discussions? What sort of representation is likely to be made to America by the EC Governments, especially Britain? Does the Foreign Secretary not recognise that any argument about Nicaragua's link with Cuba and so on is irrelevant, because if war develops in central America we could be faced with a dangerous global problem? Are the Government just coming forward with the bland statement that we have heard or will they be making some representation to the Americans to hold off and begin to act reasonably and intelligently in central America?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The European Ministers are concerned with the prospects in central America, but it would not be wise to take so narrow a view as the hon. Gentleman takes of the sources of the problems of that area.
There is increasing understanding of and support for the case that Britain is making for a safety net. If the Community is to manage its resources sensibly, it needs a different way of handling its budget. It needs a fairer budgetary mechanism. A budget along the lines that we have been describing is called for. A number of other member states are beginning to look with interest on our proposal.

Mentally Handicapped Persons
4.3 pm
Mr. Jack Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"conditions in hospitals for the mentally handicapped."
The revelation today of the reports by the development team for the mentally handicapped shows that thousands of mentally handicapped people in Britain are suffering from appalling conditions. This matter is specific. This morning The Guardian revealed extracts from 18 reports, 17 of which have been kept secret by the Government. The reports deal with no fewer than 50 hospitals and 30 hostels. People in many of these institutions are suffering because of an incredible shortage of care and bad conditions.
This matter is important because we are dealing with people who cannot look after themselves. They are in public institutions and, therefore, are the responsibility of the public, Parliament and the Government. If anything is wrong, we should deal with it.
According to the reports, a great deal is wrong. Many mentally handicapped are in grossly overcrowded hospitals and institutions. Some are nor given the dignity of reasonable toilet accommodation. Some of the hospitals and institutions are grossly understaffed, though great tributes have been paid to the nurses. Some institutions are colossal fire risks. Some mentally handicapped people are in grim, stinking institutions too ancient to accomodate anyone throughout his life.
This matter is urgent, and if the House of Commons does not regard that kind of national scandal as a matter of urgency, no one will. Unless we take action today, the matter will simply drift and be repeated ad nauseum. It is urgent also because the Government continue to make false promises, give bromides and utter smooth words, but we receive no action or cash from the Government.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will see your way clear to granting this application. If you do it will show the House and the public that you regard the incarceration of these thousands of mentally handicapped people as an abomination. If you do not — and I recognise your difficulties—the Government must be warned that the scandal must be tackled, because we shall not tolerate thousands of mentally handicapped people being treated in this shocking, atrocious and uncivilised manner.
Mr. Speaker: The right 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 revelations in The Guardian today regarding conditions in some hospitals for the mentally handicapped."
As the right hon. Member knows, I have considerable sympathy with what he has said, because I have an interest in the matter. Nevertheless, I have to decide whether what he has said should have precedence over the business for today.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 10 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 given careful thought to the right hon. Member's representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

BILLS PRESENTED
  VIDEO RECORDINGS
  Mr. Graham Bright, supported by Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. David Atkinson, Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. Gareth Wardell, Mrs. Jill Knight, Mr. John Carlisle, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mr. Christopher Murphy, Mr. Donald Anderson, and Mr. David Madell, presented a Bill to make provision for regulating the distributior, of video recordings; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 14.]
  CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing, supported by Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. Jack Ashley, Mr. A. J. Beith, Mr. Dafydd Wigley, Mr. Alfred Morris, Mr. Richard Body, Mr. John Hume, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Albert McQuarrie, Mr. Lewis Carter-Jones, and Mr. David Penhaligon, presented a Bill to make further provision for, and to amend the law relating to disabled persons; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 15.]
  SOCIAL SECURITY (AGE OF RETIREMENT)
  Sir David Price, supported by Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mrs. Renee Short, Mr. Andrew Bowden, Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Ron Lewis, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. Richard Wainwright, Mr. Michael Colvin, Mr. Robert McCrindle, and Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson, presented a Bill to make provision for flexible and equal ages of retirement; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 16.]
  PRESCRIPTION AND LIMITATION (SCOTLAND)
  Mr. Alexander Eadie, supported by Mr. Harry Ewing, Mr. Tam Dalyell, Dr. Gavin Strang, Mr. John Smith, Dr. M. S. Miller, Mr. Gordon Brown, Mr. Norman Hogg, Mr. Alexander Pollock, Lord James Douglas-Hamilton, Mr. Donald Stewart, and Mr. Russell Johnston, presented a Bill to make new provision for Scotland with respect to the extinction of obligations to make contributions between wrongdoers; to amend the law relating to the time-limits for bringing actions which consist of or include a claim of damages in respect of personal injuries or a person's death; to make provision relating to the application of rules of law of a country other than Scotland in respect of the extinction of obligations or the limitation of time within which proceedings may be brought to enforce obligations; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 17.]
  SEX EQUALITY
  Ms. Jo Richardson, supported by Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Ms. Harriet Harman, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Dame Judith Hart, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mrs. M. Beckett, Mr. Frank Dobson, Ms. Clare Short, Mrs. Renee Short, Mr. Doug Hoyle and Miss Joan Maynard presented a Bill to make further provision with respect to sex discrimination, equal pay and the age of retirement; and to consolidate with amendments the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 18.]
  HOUSE BUYERS
  Mr. Austin Mitchell presented a Bill to extend competition and to protect consumers in relation to the provision of services in connection with the transfer of ownership of real property in England and Wales by amending section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974, by making provision for the licensing of conveyancers, by making fresh provision for and in connection with the keeping of local land charges and the registration of matters therein, for amending and clarifying the law concerning the liability of surveyors who provide services in connection with the transfer of real property; and for purposes connected therewith; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 19.]
  NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1982 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ken Maginnis, supported by Mr. James Molyneaux, Mr. J. Enoch Powell, Mr. William Ross, Mr. Harold McCusker, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mr. Roy Beggs, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, Mr. James Nicholson, Mr. John David Taylor, and Mr. A. Cecil Walker presented a Bill to facilitate the resumption of legislative and executive functions by the Northern Ireland Assembly and by persons responsible to it, by amending the Northern Ireland Act 1982; and for connected purposes; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 20.]
  JURIES (DISQUALIFICATION)
  Mr. John Watson, supported by Mr. Neil Thorne, Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. John Wheeler, and Mr. Stephen Dorrell presented a Bill to make further provision for disqualification for jury service on criminal grounds; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 21.]
  TRADE MARKS ACT 1938 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Stephen Dorrell, supported by Sir Anthony Grant, Mr. Gregor MacKenzie, Mr. Nicholas Lyell, Mr. Barry Sheerman and Mr. John Watson presented a Bill to amend the Trade Marks Act 1938 to afford registration for service marks; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 22.]
  CARAVAN AND TENT SITES
  Mr. Peter Hubbard-Miles presented a Bill to make provision as to the licensing and control of caravan and tent sites; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 18 November and to be printed. [Bill 23.]
  LNIMIGRATION OFFENCES (AMENDMENT)
  Dr. John G. Blackburn presented a Bill to amend section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 in respect of offences under subsection (1)(b)(i) of that section; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 24.]
  PARTNERSHIP IN YOUTH SERVICE
  Sir Patrick Wall presented a Bill to give a statutory basis for youth work and consultation between local education authorities and voluntary youth organisations; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 25.]
  CHILD ABDUCTION
  Mr. Timothy Wood, supported by Mr. Gary Waller, Mr. Ivan Lawrence, Mr. Bowen Wells, and Mr. Peter Lloyd, presented a Bill to amend the criminal law relating to the abduction of children; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 26.]
  AGRICULTURE (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Edward Leigh presented a Bill to amend section 2(3) of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1944 so far as it relates to provisions for limiting the number of directors of the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation who may be appointed in addition to those officially nominated and provisions for restricting the dividends on the Corporation's share capital; and to enable grants under section 64 of the Agriculture Act 1967 towards fulfilling guarantees of bank loans to be made in relation to a wider range of co-operative marketing businesses; and to extend the powers of obtaining information conferred by subsection (1) of section 1 of the Agricultural Statistics Act 1979 and to repeal subsection (5) of that section: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 27.]
  BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT)
  Sir Ian Gilmour presented a Bill to amend the provisions of the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963 in relation to the conduct and advertisement of licensed betting offices and to make provision for the alteration of the fees payable under paragraph 20 of Schedule 1 to that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 28.]
  CYCLE TRACKS
  Mr. Cecil Franks presented a Bill to amend the definition of "cycle track" in the Highways Act 1980 and to make further provision in relation to cycle tracks within the meaning of that Act: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Secor d time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bit 29.]
  ABUSE OF Toxic SUBSTANCES
  Mr. Neville Trotter, supported by Mr. Harry Greenway and Mr. Tony Durant, presented a Bill to provide for the temporary detention of persons found in public places under the influence of toxic substances and for the welfare of juveniles there found inhaling such substances: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 16 December and to be printed. [Bill 30.]
  ANATOMY
  Mr. John McWilliam presented a Bill to make provision about the use of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, for anatomical examination and about the custody and disposal of bodies of deceased persons, and parts of such bodies, authorised to be used for anatomical examination; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 31.]
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE (ELECTORS ON HOLIDAY)
  Mr. Tony Durant, supported by Mr, John Heddle, Mr. Toby Jessel, Mr. Michael Shersby, Mr. David Knox, Sir David Price, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Mr. Neville Trotter and Mr. Harry Greenway presented a Bill to enable electors who are away on holiday at the time of a Parliamentary election to vote by post or by proxy: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 11 November and to be printed. [Bill 32.]
  ROAD TRAFFIC (DRIVING INSTRUCTION)
  Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, supported by Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Michael Knowles, Mr. Robert N. Wareing, Mr. Gerald Bermingham and Mr. Bryan Gould presented a Bill to amend Part V of the Road Traffic Act 1972: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 December and to be printed. [Bill 33.]

Orders of the Day
Mr. Speaker: I draw the attention of the House to the fact that many right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I ask, therefore, for brief contributions today.
4.11 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Geoffrey Pattie): In opening the second day of the debate, I should like to describe the purpose of our defence procurement effort, some of the equipment programmes currently under way and those planned for the future, and our relations with industry.
This year we shall spend over £7 billion on defence equipment. The proportion of our defence budget that that represents has steadily been increasing and now stands at 46 per cent. That vast sum takes a substantial proportion of the total output of several sectors of British industry, for over 90 per cent. of it is spent with British suppliers. The primary purpose of expenditure on defence equipment is, of course, to satisfy the needs of our armed forces. However, a secondary aim is to ensure the continuing existence of a national defence industrial base that is capable of satisfying those needs both now and in the future. The necessity of sustaining Britain's defence industries was vividly demonstrated last year by the testing requirements of the Falklands campaign and the dedication and versatility shown by our defence contractors in meeting those requirements during that period of crisis. Their contribution to our victory should not be underestimated.
In his speech closing the debate yesterday my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement spoke about some aspects of conventional equipment for the Royal Navy. I trust that there will be other occasions later in the year when my hon. Friend and I can give the House a more detailed report on all the major equipment programmes for our forces. However, I shall now describe some of the high technology equipment programmes currently under way for the Army and Air Force.

393
I should first emphasise that our high technology equipment developments are almost invariably a result of collaboration between the defence research establishments, where the fundamental work on a particular defence application will have been carried out, and industry where the high technology elements are incorporated into a particular weapon system. Much defence research is in high technology, and Ministry of Defence establishments have a well-deserved reputation for excellent innovative work. For example, the royal signals and radar establishment at Malvern this year won two Queen's awards for technological achievement—for infra-red detectors and for high resolution X-ray detector crystals—taking its total tally to five awards since 1979.
Whilst research and development in the Ministry of Defence programme is, of course, directed towards defence objectives, the value of defence-inspired technology to industry at large is fully recognised. The Department attaches great importance to securing civil spin-off from defence research whenever possible. In the past, defence research has made major contributions to manufacturing industry in aerospace, consumer electronics — for examply, liquid crystal displays in calculators and digital watches—and engineering. We are always on the lookout for ways in which we can improve and facilitate the process of spin-off. Recently, we invited a wide range of industrialists, financiers, and management consultants to a seminar on spin-off, and we are about to commission a major management consultancy study into how greater benefits can be secured.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What my hon. Friend has said sounds very good, and I do not mean to decry it. However, is he aware that there has been criticism about the large proportion of our defence effort, in comparison with other countries, that goes on research and development? How convinced is my hon. Friend that some of that money might be better spent in the civilian area?
Mr. Pattie: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point. It is important for him and the House to appreciate that in the total research and development budget in the last full year of £1·8 billion, about £300 million was devoted to what we would understand as pure research and the other £1·5 billion was project-related. I take my hon. Friend's point, but we are meeting that criticism, which has been justified in the past, by ensuring that industry gets more contracts and is progressively more involved in our research programme.
Returning to the military application of defence research, a good example of the collaboration between research establishments and industry—in this case the royal ordnance factories—is the Challenger tank, fitted with Chobham armour developed at the military vehicles and engineering establishment. Over the next few years four regiments will be equipped with Challenger. I am sure that the House will recall that the first tank was rolled out by ROF Leeds in March this year. To keep pace with the ever-increasing size and quality of Warsaw pact armoured forces, we also have a programme of improvements that will keep both Challenger and Chieftain in the forefront of armoured warfare technology. Thermal imaging is another area where our research establishments—this time RSRE Malvern—have given us a world lead. To
394
improve our night fighting capability—the importance of which was so well demonstrated in the Falklands last year—thermal imaging sights are being developed to fit both Chieftain and Challenger. In addition, thermal imaging night sights are being fitted to our Swingfire and Milan anti-tank guided missiles. That will enable them to be used more effectively at night and in conditions of poor visibility.
The RSRE also played a major role in the development of the Rapier missile system which, together with Blowpipe, provides the Army's integral air defence, the operational effectiveness of which was amply demonstrated in the Falklands campaign. Major improvement programmes are under way to maintain their operational effectiveness in the sophisticated electronic warfare environment to be expected during any conflict in Europe. By the end of next year, all towed Rapier units will have increased immunity to electronic countermeasures, enhanced surveillance radar and improved reliability and maintainability. Within the next year or two years, improvements to the Blowpipe missile and aiming unit should also be in service.
For the Army, I should like to mention some of our plans for new command, control and communications equipment, without which the Army could not function. The battlefield artillery target engagement system —BATES—is expected to enter service in the late 1980s. It is a computer-based system that will enable the artillery to make more effective and efficient use of existing resources by concentrating fire on the highest priority targets.
A prototype system of WAVELL — an automated command and control system that permits rapid handling of tactical intelligence and other data—has undergone successful trials with 1(BR) Corps. The first production contract is expected to be placed shortly. Although the equipment will not be fully into service until later in the decade, the first production deliveries of PTARMIGAN —the new trunk communications network—are expected this year.
For its role on the central front, the Royal Air Force will need an advanced agile fighter aircraft to meet the expected air threat in the central region in the mid-1990s and beyond. To give a sounder base for future decisions on an aircraft for that role, we are participating in the experimental aircraft programme, a joint venture involving both royal aeronautical establishment Farnborough and industry.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Is my hon. Friend saying that the air staff has at long last officially stated a requirement for such an aeroplane? Surely that is the implication of his remarks when he says that the RAF will need such an aircraft.
Mr. Pattie: With respect, that is not the implication of my remarks. It is one thing to say that a need is recognised. That is clearly accepted by the Royal Air Force and by my ministerial colleagues. As my hon. Friend knows, an air staff target and requirement need precise delineation. That has not yet been achieved, but it is currently being worked for.
The experimental aircraft programme will bring together and demonstrate in one aircraft a number of advanced technologies which will be applicable to a variety of future aircraft designs. We are examining

395
carefully with our European partners the potential for the collaborative development and production of a combat aircraft, and discussions so far have been encouraging.
Mr. Churchill: Is my hon. Friend aware that this country pioneered carbon fibre technology? I recognise that the Government do not have complete control over contractors, but is it not unacceptable that the prototypes of the agile combat aircraft are being built with Japanese carbon fibre when equivalent fibre is available in this country, which would provide British jobs?
Mr. Pattie: There must be an extremely good reason for that detailed development, and I shall be happy to look into it. I agree that we pioneered carbcn fibre, as we have pioneered so many other things but have not always recouped the benefits. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing that to my attention.
Dr. John Gilbert: The urgency of this matter sometimes baffles me. The predecessor to this requirement—the AST403—existed when I arrived at the Ministry of Defence in 1976. Not much has been done in the past seven years. I am glad to have the Minister's assent to that. Is there now agreement within and between the Ministry of Defence and our allies on whether this aircraft should be optimised in the ground attack or air superiority role?
Mr. Pattie: The right hon. Gentleman, having previously done a job closely approximating to mine, will appreciate that there is an element of what one might call moving target about this kind of situation. The latest thinking is that an air-to-air superiority aircraft is envisaged, although such an aeroplane would obviously need to have a satisfactory ground attack capability.
There has been much interest by hon. Members in the choice of defence suppression weapons especially for the Tornado GR1, on which we hope to make an announcement shortly. For the present, there is nothing that I can add to earlier statements; and the subject was, of course, debated only last Wednesday. An anti-radiation missile is only a part, albeit important, of the comprehensive range of enhancements to our offensive support and strike attack aircraft as;ociated with the introduction into service of Tornado GR1, and subsequently, in the late 1980s, the Harrier GR5. We have placed the production order for the JP 233 airfield attack weapon to be carried on Tornado GR1 In addition, we are acquiring an improved version of the BL 755 anti-armour weapon as an interim measure until an advanced "smart" anti-armour weapon, for which studies are under way, is available in the 1990s. Tornado GR1 will carry the Sky Shadow electronic countermeasures pod, and the RAF's remaining Jaguar, Harrier GR3 and Harrier GR5 will be equipped with a radar warning receiver and active ECM equipment.
I should add a word about our experience of Tornado GRI now that it is in service. The RAF is delighted with the aeroplane, which is meeting reliability and performance standards. Nos. 9 and 617 squadrons are already operating with Tornados in the United Kingdom and the first RAF Germany squadron will redeploy to RAF Laarbruch this year. A total of seven Tornado GRI strike attack squadrons and a further Tornado GR1 reconnaissance squadron will eventually 13:, based in RAF
396
Germany. One reconnaissance and two strike-attack squadrons of GR1s, plus aircraft of the Tornado weapons conversion unit will be based in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Robert Atkins:: I appreciate that my hon. Friend cannot give details, but will he confirm that the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office support the proposal to sell Tornado to Oman and to Greece, which is crucial to the development of the export potential of this aeroplane?
Mr. Pattie: I shall deal later with matters of substance relating to sales of defence equipment, but I can give my hon. Friend a simple one-word assurance—yes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) asked several questions yesterday about the planned level of defence expenditure. In particular, he asked whether 3 per cent. growth and supplementary funding of Falklands expenditure would be extended beyond 1985–86 and whether growth higher than 3 per cent. would be planned to raise the nuclear threshold. He will not be surprised when I say that he must wait and see. The level of defence expenditure to 1986–87 will be considered in this year's public expenditure review. The issues that he mentioned will be addressed in that review, but clearly I cannot prejudge the outcome.
Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, referred to the possible inclusion of the British independent deterrent in the Geneva negotiations on strategic nuclear forces—START. The priority is to achieve a reduction in the large arsenals of the super powers. The United States, with the full support of its allies, has put forward proposals for substantial reductions in missiles and warheads. The Soviet Union, while rejecting the specific proposals, has apparently accepted the concept of reductions.
Although the independent British deterrent represents only a few per cent. of the massive Soviet strategic force, we have not ruled it out of the strategic arms control negotiations. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said yesterday, we have made it clear that if circumstances change and the Soviet threat to the United Kingdom is substantially reduced, we are prepared to review our position. Furthermore, we have made it clear that the British force would be of the minimum size compatible with ensuring a cost-effective deterrent at all times.
Our decision to procure the Trident D5 does not necessarily imply that we intend to deploy the maximum theoretical capability of that force. My right hon. Friend made it clear yesterday that if START led to a substantial breakthrough in the scale of world deployment, the Government would take that into account in deciding our irreducible level of deterrent. At present, however, the priority must be to achieve parity between the two superpowers at substantially reduced levels of strategic forces.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot asked whether the policy of no early first use of nuclear weapons was the best that could be hoped for in Europe. The Government and our NATO allies are constantly seeking to strengthen our conventional forces in Europe as a means of raising the nuclear threshold. We believe that the successful combination of new technology and new tactical concepts holds out considerable potential for progress towards that goal. Although we wish to push back as far as possible the point at which we might have to

397
consider the use of nuclear weapons, we do not think that it would be sensible to adopt a policy of no first use of nuclear weapons.
In deterring war of any kind, NATO must ensure that the Russians do not believe that they could embark on a war in Europe without the risk of an escalation to nuclear war. Their uncertainty makes for effective deterrence. This does not mean that NATO is committed to any decision in principle to use nuclear weapons first at any given stage in a conflict. It simply means that, in the interests of preventing war, it would be wrong to volunteer to renounce the option.
I mentioned earlier that more than 90 per cent. of expenditure on defence equipment is spent with British industry. That does not mean that we operate a "buy British regardless" policy. We buy British when this gives us the best value for money. I should explain what is meant by "value for money" in this context, as this dictates the nature of our relationship with industry. It is not necessarily the same as choosing the cheapest tender. When deciding on the purchase of an item of defence equipment, we take into account not only the initial cost but, as far as we are able to calculate these things, the running costs and spares costs—the so-called through life costs—of the equipment and compare them with those of other options available to meet our requirement. Those calculations are not straightforward. They create problems for items of equipment that might be at the frontiers of technology but we do our best to make as complete and reliable an assessment as possible.
Another deciding factor can be the importance of retaining a British industrial capability in key areas of defence technology. However, our defence firms must maintain and improve competitiveness if we are to keep a strong defence industrial base. The Ministry of Defence has other reasons for being tireless in its search for value for money. Above all, we must counteract what my predecessor, Lord Trenchard, liked to call "the road to absurdity" —the apparently inexorable real increase in cost between one generation of equipment and the next. If nothing were done to mitigate that trend, in about 80 years the entire defence budget would be sufficient to purchase just one tactical aircraft.
The measures that we are adopting to tackle the problem were set out in chapter IV of last year's Defence White Paper. They include the closer involvement of industry in our forward planning; encouraging industry to participate in joint ventures with the Ministry of Defence in the development of new equipment; the move away from "cost plus" contracts to fixed price and other incentive arrangements—that involves the inclusion of enforceable contract conditions to maintain discipline on defence contractors and ensure value for money; the enhancement of the sales potential of equipments designed for the United Kingdom services; the eradication of over-sophistication in weapons requirement; the intramural drive to reduce overheads and improve efficiency in our procurement process; and the pursuit of collaboration where appropriate.
Mr. Wilkinson: Why could not the United Kingdom go in for public tendering for major defence equipment
398
contracts as is done in the United States? Surely that would be the best guarantee of value for money and the competitiveness of British industry.
Mr. Pattie: My hon. Friend and I will have to discuss what he means by "public tendering". We invite companies that we have reason to believe have the capability in the relevant area. I do not know of any major example when we have omitted anyone. Where there are competitive possibilities, we get a full range of options, examine them, and invite people to tender.
The programme that I described before my hon. Friend's intervention involves long-term detailed work. Perhaps one example will illustrate the effect that it is having. I shall give that of the EH 101 helicopter, which is intended in due course to replace the Sea Kings currently in service. This aircraft is not now being developed as a purely United Kingdom defence requirement, which would be expensive, but as a joint venture collaborative project between the British and Italian Governments, the Departments of Industry in each country and the two companies involved, Westlands and Agusta. It will primarily be a civil helicopter, with military variants. It is a substantial programme and an interesting example of a new form of collaboration. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) is not here today, as he was less than kind yesterday about the efforts that the Government had made in their dealings with the Italian Government to bring the programme forward. It is exactly on track and there are no problems with it.
We have made great progress with such efforts to achieve better value and enhance the competitiveness of United Kingdom defence industries, but we must continue to search for means to obtain as much of the benefits of competition in defence procurement as we can. We are therefore exploring the further scope that might exist for increasing competition at the concept, feasibility and early development phases of contracts and for increasing competition at the production phase of contracts, including dual sourcing when that would make sound economic sense.
I must emphasise that we are at the early stages of considering such options. The possible benefits to be had from throwing competition open at the production stage to a range of firms which have not all been involved in the development programme have still to be assessed in depth. However, this subject repays detailed examination, and we shall be continuing with the analysis in coming months.
Ministry of Defence civilian staff make an extremely important contribution to our defence effort in research and development and in other roles. Their efforts during the Falklands campaign bear that out. However, just as we are striving for better value for money in our purchases from industry, so we are utterly committed to controlling the running costs of the Ministry of Defence and especially to reducing staff costs. Since the Government took office in 1979 United Kingdom-based Ministry of Defence civilian staff have been reduced by nearly 39,000 to 209,000, and we are well placed to achieve the target of a reduction to 200,000 staff by April 1984.
As part of those economies, and in line with our aim to concentrate resources on our front line and its direct support, we have examined the possibility of contracting out cleaning tasks in nearly all Ministry of Defence establishments. In almost every case it has emerged that contract cleaning would save money. The exceptions are

399
isolated units where the cleaning task does not amount to a full-time job. So far we have approved contracts at 625 establishments, at a saving of more than 5,500 complemented posts and an estimated £11 million per year. The case for contract catering s not so conclusive and we are therefore letting out catering contracts only in a very few cases.
I mentioned earlier the need to enhance the sales potential of British equipment. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the home market, represented by the needs of our own forces, is not sufficient to sustain an adequate defence industrial base. Our ability to orovide the Services with the weapons systems they require and the survival of our defence industries in their present form depend more than ever on a vigorous but responsible defence sales policy. Acknowledging that, the Government and their predecessors have steadfastly supported the sale of defence equipment overseas whenever that is consistent with our wider political, strategic and security interests.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is the Minister aware that, when answering questions this afternoon about General Matthei's visit here in March, the Foreign Secretary said that General Matthei had met the chief of air staff and discussed the sale of weapons?
Mr. Pattie: I do not think that that has been denied. I have not denied it.
Mr. Tam Dalyell rose—
Mr. Pattie: May I make it clear before I give way to the hon. Gentleman that I have been generous in giving way and that this will be the last time?
Mr. Dalyell: Were arms sales discussed with General Matthei? The hon. Gentleman's answer at Question Time was no.
Mr. Pattie: In conjunction with his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher), the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has since written to me and I have given him the answer. I gave a straightforward answer, which is hat we were not discussing arms sales. I am happy to put that on the record.
Mr. Fisher: That is not what the Foreign Secretary said.
Mr. Pattie: I am not aware of what the Foreign Secretary said today, as I was not in the Chamber at the time.
Arms sales arouse strong emotions tut the political and economic arguments speak for themselves. In political terms, we believe that the supply of de fence equipment to friendly nations, often backed by military advice, training and support, underlines our concern for their security, strengthens their ability to resist aggression and helps to protect Western interests. We must also accept, unpalatable as it may be, that a refusal to supply arms often opens the door to another supplier who is hostile to Western interests and hence undermines our influence.
I must emphasise however, that defence sales are made within a policy framework laid down by the Government which takes special account of our security interests, regional balance, human rights considerations and our obligations to the United Nations. Each application for an export licence is considered individually and contentious cases are referred to Ministers before decisions are taken. No equipment is sold to regimes when it is likely to be used for internal repression.
400
In economic terms, overseas sales play a major role in maintaining the profitability of our defence industries. I am delighted to announce that, yesterday, Western Helicopters, Rolls-Royce and British Aerospace signed contracts for the supply of Sea King helicopters, Gnome engines and Sea Eagle missiles to the Government of India. The equipment we sell overseas consists predominantly of high technology products with a high added value. Hawk and Jaguar aircraft and Rapier missiles have all sold well recently.
It is essential for Britain to maintain an innovative capability in such areas by keeping skilled design and production teams together as a springboard for future industrial development. That can be done only if the production runs are long enough to recoup the substantial investment involved and earn a reasonable level of profits. Since our requirements do not provide the long production runs now needed to secure an adequate return on high technology investment, overseas sales are vital.
Under this Government and their predecessors defence sales have grown steadily. Total receipts are expected to reach £2,400 million in the current financial year compared with £1,500 million in 1981–82. That is a healthy contribution to our balance of payments in a period of recession, accounting for about 3 per cent. of total exports. Opposition Members should also remember that defence sales sustain approximately 154,000 direct and indirect job opportunities in the defence equipment industry and account for 25 per cent. of its total output. Although many of our sales are made to the developing countries, notably in the middle east, it is especially gratifying that we are steadily improving our sales to our major NATO ally, the United States. In this market we measure success by the ratio of defence purchases which each country makes from the other. In 1977 the ratio was 4:1 in favour of the United States, whereas we now assess it to be only 2:1. By any standards that is a significant achievement, which demonstrates that we can succeed in the world's most demanding market place.
In addition to our recent success with the Hawk aircraft, our prospects of selling to the United States the EMI Searchwater radar, nuclear, biological and chemical suits, the 81 mm mortar, more combat support boats and the Marconi ICS3 high frequency communication system are encouraging.
As with the rest of the defence industries, the royal ordnance factories must improve their ability to meet the requirements of overseas customers and compete effectively on the international market. The royal ordnance factories are a unique part of the British defence industries, as they have been in Government hands since their foundation. They have a fine record, but we believe that they will do even better if freed from some of the constraints of operating within the Civil Service and given the means to develop their products and respond to market opportunities.
To that end we intend to introduce legislation this Session to change the status of the royal ordnance factories to enable them to operate in a more commercial environment under the Companies Acts 1948 and 1981. We intend to involve private capital directly either through sale to the private sector, joint venture or flotation of shares. Since last May we have been preparing the royal ordnance factories for this new role as a free-standing commercial undertaking, and we have already set up their own sales arm. A new chairman with wide experience of

401
industry has been appointed and we plan next to transfer the staff and facilities necessary to give them a capability in design, development and applied research.
The royal ordnance factories face a challenging future, but the opportunities are great. I have no doubt that the plans represent by far the best way for them to improve their competitiveness and to succeed in their markets. I am confident that they will thrive in their new environment.
We are very conscious of the contribution that smaller firms in the defence industry can make to a competitive and innovatory defence industry. When we invite firms to tender for defence contracts we take care to include smaller firms for such work as they are qualified to accomplish. Aside from contracts placed at local purchase level by defence establishments, most defence work these days is done through industrial prime contractors rather than direct with smaller subcontractors. Therefore, we actively encourage the major prime contractors to recognise the long-term value of sustaining a thriving and vibrant small firm sector within the British defence industries, and we make it clear to defence subcontractors that it is their responsibility to persuade the prime contractors that they can meet their requirements competitively.
However, I freely recognise that to many firms, not just the small ones, the Ministry of Defence is a daunting labyrinth which the uninitiated enter at their peril. Therefore, I am planning shortly to issue a booklet of guidance to firms — especially small firms, but not limited to them—on how to become defence contractors and whom to contact to find out more about possible defence requirements for their products. In this latter respect we plan to include about 60 useful telephone numbers in the booklet so that firms which wish to know what part of the Ministry's purchasing organisation deals with their products can go straight to the right place.
As I said earlier, the first duty of the defence procurement organisation is to meet the equipment requirements of the armed forces. The constantly escalating threat from the Soviet Union and its allies means that we can never be complacent in that task, but our success in the Falklands campaign demonstrated that our equipment works in practice.
We shall continue to play our role as the centre point of a vibrant defence industrial complex that is an enormously vital part of the national economy, contributing excellent research and development with a commitment to spin-off to civil companies sustaining more than 700,000 jobs and making a significant contribution to our export performance. Hon. Members with contacts in the defence industries will confirm that the Ministry's relations with industry have become better, more harmonious and mutually constructive, which must be good for our forces and for the nation.
However, there is no doubt that, with the increasing complexity of defence equipment and the consequent cost escalations, the task of providing the Services with the kit that they want, when they want it and at a price we can afford, will become ever more difficult. We recognise that, and I have every confidence in assuring the House that we can face the challenge.
4.45 pm
Mr. Kevin McNamara: The House will look forward to considering in more detail the procurement policies for the services when we return after the recess. We look forward to examining in more detail the Minister's comments this afternoon and some of the facts and figures in the White Paper. However, some of the matters that he mentioned this afternoon are worthy of our attention now.
Unlike Conservative Members, I was not glad to hear about the savings that the Minister said could be made by contracting out cleaning services in military establishments to private firms. In the spring of this year the House annulled the fair wages resolution, which had been introduced to ensure that those who worked in such a service had a proper wage and were not exploited. We all know about the exploitation of unmarried mothers, single parents, and pensioners in the contract cleaning industry. It is no consolation to the House to know that the Government have made a substantial saving at the expense of some of the most underprivileged and vulnerable people in society. Perhaps the Government will tell us whether those savings were made as a result of wage cuts. In the present climate of opinion in the Government, that request will fall largely on deaf ears. However, I must put it clearly on the record that the Opposition deplore the exploitation in the contract cleaning industry and the fact that the Ministry of Defence is profiting from that exploitation.
The Minister mentioned the royal ordnance factories — the House will know that there are famous tank factories in Leeds—and said that private capital would be introduced. How much foreign capital will be allowed in? Will the Government draw up specifications to ensure that they maintain their majority shareholding and that there is no possibility of foreign capital influencing the policies of the royal ordnance factories? Will the proposals mean a change in many of the advantages enjoyed by the present employees within the Civil Service, such as pensions and guaranteed jobs? Those matters will probably be explored in more detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) on another occasion, but they are of immediate concern to the Opposition. When we are returned to government, the royal ordnance factories will be taken back into public ownership.
The Minister paid tribute to the work carried out by defence contractors during the Falklands campaign. I join him in paying that tribute, and I pay special tribute to the shipbuilders and boilermakers in Hull, who worked so hard to get the Norland ready for sea but whose firm has now gone bankrupt. I also pay special tribute to the workmen on Tyneside and in the dockyards of the southeast of England, who have lost their jobs. The Government are not concerned with their future, now that they have served their purpose, nor are they concerned about British merchant seamen.
We had enormous difficulties taking ships from trade to form the armada that went to the south Atlantic. The Government should be examining their conscience, not only about the future of the individuals concerned, but about the whole of our defence profile and the enormous cut that has taken place in the Merchant Navy. We have

403
taken ships away from trade and picked up men from unemployment, and once we have used them we cast them aside.
We listened to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement with more interest than we did to the Under-Secretary yesterday—I am sorry that the latter is not in his place. Yesterday, we had a fascinating account of the work of the Controller in a former third sea lord's office. I am sure that we are much the wiser for knowing what is going on there, but the Under-Secretary did not answer any of the points raised in the debate. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) has three questions still to be answered, of which the key one is whether the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are to go to Moscow.
The Minister skated quickly over HARM and ALARM and said that he had nothing to add to what was said in a debate last week. That is disappointing, as a fortnight or three weeks ago we were expecting a decision that would resolve this matter. Are we likely to have a decision before the House goes into recess? It is important that people should know this decision. I understand that the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister are locked in mortal combat with the Chancellor and the Foreign Secretary over the future of this systern. If we are to have the system — I believe we need it — it should be manufactured in this country by British Aerospace, which would ensure jobs and ensure that the frontiers of technology are in our control, that is of the utmost importance.
Yesterday the Under-Secretary made an amazing statement when he replied to a question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) concerning a primary jet trainer to replace the Jet Provost. He said:
"Among the likely contenders could be the Pilatus PC7, which is designed in Switzerland, another trainer aircraft from Brazil, a new design by Fairchild of the United States and the Firecracker, which is produced by Desmond Norman in the Isle of Wight. If a foreign design were chosen, it is likely that the aircraft would be produced under licence in the United Kingdom. —[Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 260.]
The Minister failed even to mention among the contenders, never mind giving it pride of place, the P164, the new British Aerospace basic trainer, designed in the constituency of the hon. Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), in which I declare a marginal constituency interest. It is as though the Government have already written it off, but it is only a few weeks since the draft air staff target 412 was issued. The Minister knows that British Aerospace has been working on the project to replace the Jet Provost for a long time, and it has invested a considerable sum of its own private venture capital. That omission last night was a disgrace. I do not wish to rehearse all the arguments about why British Aerospace should have the order, but if a new basic jet trainer, British designed and built, is bought by the RAF, that will be of tremendous importance.
Mr. Pattie: What it was not possible to say, for lack of time last night, was that the required in-service date for the aeroplane would mean that an existing aeroplane would have to be used. The P164, as the hon. Gentleman will accept, is still only a paper design and has not been realised, whereas all the aircraft specified in my hon. Friend's reply are already in flight.
Mr. McNamara: Why then do we have air staff target 412 if it is not relevant to British Aerospace?
Mr. Pattie: British Aerospace may be one of the companies involved in manufacturing under licence, and it knows that.
Mr. McNamara: The Minister is being bounced again. When I raised this matter last year, the implication was that the replacement for Jet Provost was not of immediate urgency for the RAF. Now, 400 potential jobs each in Brough and Prestwick will not be realised if what the Minister has said is correct and the new British Aerospace design will not be considered by the air staff. We shall lose a large potential export market that has been built up by the Hawk trainer and the Harrier. If the RAF staff buys an aircraft that it can have quickly, off the shelf, ready-made from a foreign country, it will eventually have to be adapted by stretching, or shrinking from the inclusion of equipment and facilities. It will be more difficult to service and less capable of generating exports, and there would be considerable job losses. I am surprised at this decision taken and the announcement made by the Minister.
Sir Patrick Wall: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that representations were made to the Defence Committee by British Aerospace only last year, and it was turned away and told that the Jet Provost would go on for many years and there was no need for any replacement? This is a rather sudden change of view by the Government.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is right. This seems a remarkable and very quick change of view, which is contrary to what the industry expected and the impressions given to the House last spring on this matter.
Mr. Dalyell: No one has taken more interest in Northern Ireland than has my hon. Friend. Has he heard the strong rumours and the talk of manufacturing 150 Brazilian-designed trainers by Short Brothers in Belfast?
Mr. McNamara: I am aware of that strong rumour, but the trouble is that we hear repeated rumours. I am surprised that the RAF, knowing what it would need in this, as it must have, did not go to British Aerospace earlier to give its staff specifications.
The White Paper says in chapter 1:
"We cannot afford policies based on emotion rather than logic, nor theatrical gestures which would achieve nothing save to weaken our own security."
We agree with that 100 per cent.—it is the only part of the White Paper with which we agree. The Government's policies are based on a knee-jerk, unthinking emotional reaction to a threat that is neither as great as they anticipate nor as incapable of resolution as their policies seem to suggest. It is an unthinking harking back to past glories and a keeping up with the Reagans and Andropovs—the nuclear Joneses — in pursuit of the great deterrent of Trident. Trident may be a great theatrical prop, but we shall never see it. In the next few years it will become a nuclear mirage that will never materialise.
It is the Labour party's argument that the pursuit of Trident does three things. It distorts our conventional forces, weakens them and over-extends them. Therefore, it weakens our role in NATO and our ability in the Falklands and adds nothing to the sum of Western security. It gives greater accuracy to kill more people with its number of warheads, and adds not to our security but to the ability of the world as a whole to blow itself up 100 times over if it wants to.

405
Ignoring for the sake of the argument whether Polaris or Trident should be in either INF or START, the Secretary of State made a remarkable statement in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) in Defence Questions. The Secretary of State said:
"I thought that I had made it clear that if in the class of weapons systems to which Polaris belongs there was a significant and substantial breakthrough in deployment between the Soviet Union and the United States this country would not stand aside from that decision."—[Official Report, 12 July 1983; Vol. 45, c. 763–4.]
One felt, listening to that statement, despite the Prime Minister's previous statements that Trident was "a weapon of last resort," that there were nevertheless circumstances in which Trident might be negotiated away by this Government. In fact, a flexibility of approach was beginning to appear— not much, but some — and an awareness that, if necessary and if the United States and the Soviets were to reach an agreement of their own accord which meant our giving up Trident, the British Government, while perhaps regretting it, would go along with it.
However, yesterday the situation had changed. Yesterday, the Secretary of State was a little more precise than he was the week before. He said:
"If those negotiations were to lead to a substantial breakthrough, we have made it clear that Britain, in reviewing the future size of its irreducible minimum deterrent, would not stand aside from such a breakthrough. In the intermediate range nuclear weapons talks—".
Then the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) intervened, in an endeavour to understand more clearly, and asked what the words "would not stand aside" meant. He went on:
"is he saying that we would reduce substantially the number of Trident missiles and warheads and that we would be prepared to put the Trident missile system into the negotiations and effectively take it into account in such a substantial reduction of strategic weaponry?"
The Secretary of State replied:
"I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand".
He dodged the question, except that he said it in this way:
"I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would understand that what I am saying is that, if in the strategic arms reduction talks there were to be a substantial breakthrough in the scale of world deployment, that would be taken into account by the British Government in deciding their own irreducible level of deterrent in the new context that would then exist. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome that statement."
It appears therefore that there are two levels of irreducible minimum—one level if there is agreement, and another if there is not agreement.
What was more significant, and what alarmed Labour Members even more, was when the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) asked:
"Will my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is an irreducible minimum and that, however much the Soviets and the Americans reduce, we could not go much lower than what is now proposed?"
The right hon. Gentleman replied:
"My right hon. Friend will have noticed that the word 'irreducible' is clearly enshrined in my speech." — [Official Report, 19 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 187–8.]
Like "Calais", for our late sovereign Queen Mary, it is probably engraved on his heart.
We are in a difficult and sad position, because we do not know what "irreducible" means. Does it express a determination, as now seems likely, to judge from what
406
the Minister of State said today, that no matter what happens in START, and whatever accords are reached by the United States and the Soviets, the British Government will ignore them and will not give up their independent nuclear deterrent, Trident? Is that what it means? That, I believe, is what the right hon. Member for Pavilion understands it to mean, and it is what I understand it to mean. If that is so, it is a bad day for this country, and it is a bad day for the concept of collective security.
Mr. Churchill: Is the hon. Gentleman incapable of understanding that, to the overwhelming majority of the people of this country who rejected outright one-sided disarmament—the proposition that his party put to the electorate in the general election — it would be unacceptable for us to get rid of our nuclear weapons while tens of thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads remained targeted against this country and against our Allies? Does he not understand that it would be reckless and irresponsible for us to go below an irreducible minimum? I understood from what my right hon. Friend said yesterday that we would certainly be prepared to consider the numbers of warheads to be deployed on the new Trident system, but that we cannot go below one submarine guaranteed on station at any given time.
Mr. McNamara: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the words of the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. If he is right, no doubt they will confirm it, but I believe that opinion in this country is dead against our maintaining Trident and against some of the hon. Gentleman's ideas. What we have heard from the hon. Gentleman and what we heard from him during the election campaign is a complete distortion of Labour policies. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I shall certainly tell the House what they are all about. I am about to do so, and my hon. Friends know that what I shall put forward will be the pure juice of Socialist defence policy. They have nothing to worry about when they know that I am at the Dispatch Box.
So no matter what the United States and the Soviet Union decide, we shall ignore their decision. That raises enormous problems and makes us question the Government's real defence policy. If that is true, we are embarking not on a collective defence policy but on an insular defence policy, and NATO will be a mere convenience to this Government—to accept or reject its decisions, as the fancy takes them. This insular policy will not be accepted by our American allies, or by our NATO allies.
Underlying the Conservative party's attitude on maintaining our own independent deterrent is a basic distrust of the Americans, a feeling that when the crunch comes they will leave us in the lurch. That is what it is all about. Otherwise, the Government would know that the proper and most effective way for us to play our role in defending Europe and the free world would be to put our money into conventional forces.
Mr. Nigel Forman rose—
Mr. McNamara: No, I shall not give way. I have given way quite a lot.
That would be a better way to protect the free world than seeking to duplicate what the United States is already

407
doing. There are no circumstances in which this country would want to use this weapon of last resort when the United States also would not want to use it.
Mr. Forman rose—
Mr. McNamara: I have told the hon. Gentleman that I will not give way. I have given way at least three or four times. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Forman) should stop acting like a yo-yo.
Moreover, I do not believe that we have an independent deterrent, for the reasons that we al.. know, which are connected with its manufacture. If the United States left Europe in the lurch, it would not leave in the hands of the United Kingdom Government a weapon so powerful that its use by that Government could drag the United States willy-nilly into a war that was not of its own making. That is what the Government are suggesting.
If, at any time, we were to launch one of these dread missiles—God forbid that that should happen—nobody in the Kremlin or elsewhere would be wetting a finger and putting it to the wind to see whether it had come from a British or an American submarine. All they will know is that there is a Trident missile coming at them, they will retaliate hither and thither and its source will not matter one little hit. The same argument applies to Polaris. I accept that 100 per cent. That is why we should not have Polaris either and that is why it is the Labour party's policy to negotiate out Polaris in the next five years. When we come to power we shall get rid of Polaris.
The Americans would not allow us to use Trident if they were to desert Europe. There are nc circumstances in which we could use this weapon without United States agreement. Therefore, I see no purpose in having it.
One great argument in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament that we advanced during the general election—
Dr. Keith Hampson: Look what happened.
Mr. McNamara: When we advanced it, we did all right. Those people who equivocated cid not do so well.
Dr. Hampson: Not the majority of the British people.
Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is going to start talking about majorities I can tell him that the majority of people in this country voted for parties that did not want Trident.
We argued that by maintaining our existing deterrent we were increasing the possibility of the proliferation of those weapons. Although we did not believe that to give up our deterrent would cause other countries to do so immediately, we felt that it would put a strong moral pressure on other countries not to go ahead with manufacture and production of those weapons that they had the capability to produce. The possession of nuclear weapons by the two super-powers alone is a greater guarantee of safety than if Britain, France or China had them.
Now we have decided that we shall only have an irreducible minimum. We are entitled to ask what will happen if the Ayatollah or President Gaddafi felt that he too must have an irreducible minimum. What if President Bignone's Government in Argentina were to decide that they wanted an irreducible minimum, financed by the IMF and supplied with spare parts by our colleagues in the EC? In such circumstances proliferation becomes worse and
408
worse. That is why we believe it to be in the interests of the world to ensure that those terrible weapons remain within the purview and monopoly of the United States and Russia.
Dr. Hampson: And France?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, the French as well.
The Secretary of State's statement yesterday has soured the atmosphere surrounding START and he has also set back the INF talks. The Government are saying that, whatever the result of any international negotiations, they are unwilling to negotiate away Trident or Polaris. They then expect the Russians to negotiate and completely to ignore the British and French deterrents. That is an unreasonable stand to take. They should be included in the discussions that will take place.
What does "an irreducible minimum" mean in terms of warheads, missiles and submarines? The hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) suggested that, in order to have an irreducible minimum, we wanted one submarine on station, one on standby and one in refit — three submarines in all. How many warheads would we want and how many delivery systems would we require? What is our irreducible minimum? From all the talk about Trident when it was introduced I should have thought that the proposals that were put forward by the Government were already the irreducible minimum. After all, it is "a weapon of last resort", as the Prime Minister says. It is the Doomsday weapon. On the Government's own terms we do not need more than an irreducible minimum. Have we been planning for more than an irreducible minimum? What does all that mean?
The Government, having made polite noises during the election and suggested that if things went well they would put Polaris and Trident into the discussions, in fact meant nothing of the sort, and they have been found out. The Government will stand outside whatever agreements are made in Geneva and will contribute nothing to world disarmament. That will be a sad day for Britain, but that is the Government's present policy—although I do not believe that it will continue.
Economic events in Britain and politics in NATO will force the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister to change their stance. We had our first indication of what is likely to happen last week. No sooner was the Secretary of State recovering from the intoxication caused by the fact that the defence budget will rise from £16 billion to £22 billion by 1987 or 1988 than he was sobered up by a large bucket of cold water from the Chancellor, demanding a cut of £230 million. He had, if we are to believe the press, been bounced by the Chancellor, who I believe is known to his friends as Niglet. What a headline was missed— "Tarzan bounced by Niglet" or "Chancellor mugs Secretary of State". Of course, it has been shrugged off in the Ministry of Defence. It has said that only one job in a hundred will go on a payroll of 500,000. I should have thought that the loss of 5,000 jobs was important, if not to the Minister and his colleagues, at least to the employees involved.
Perhaps the most damning criticism of the Ministry of Defence came the next day, when the various briefings given to the press by the Ministry appeared. A correspondent in The Guardian said:
"Looked at another way, the cuts amount to no more than five days' expenditure by the Defence Department, an adjustment relatively so small that it is almost too fine for the ministry's contractual machinery to handle."

409
It was almost as though the Chancellor had gone along and put his hand in the petty cash box. The figure of £230 million is 'too fine to handle'. For them, it is something to be ignored and lost but in any other Departments it would have been totted up in terms of hospital beds lost, school teachers unemployed or council houses not built.
Where will the £230 million cut come, and what will happen? Even more important is what it forebodes for November. Will the Chancellor go mugging in the spending Departments again? Will he bounce the Secretary of State, as he and his colleagues complained last week, or will the Chancellor put the boot in and then jump on him? This is a serious matter because we are discussing the Estimates and their likely effect on the economy and on the future equipment and standards of our forces.
Analysts have made two main points about the adequacy of existing funding arrangements. First, they wonder whether the assumptions about the general rate of inflation upon which the cash limits have been made are sound. They suggest that they are very dodgy indeed, particularly as the proposed industrial take-off, on which many of the cash limits were based, has not materialised. Secondly, there is the assumption of the cost of new weaponry. Credit has been given to the rate of inflation in the cost of military hardware. There is at present no evidence that it will come down to the rate that is expected. If that is so, the Government's five-point policy will be considerably at risk. That policy is based upon the nuclear option, United Kingdom protection, NATO maritime, NATO conventional and out-of-area activity. During the next five years, that policy will probably have been underfunded by 10 per cent. to 15 per cent.
Even if the Secretary of State is not bounced again in November — he probably will be — the Government's defence policy will be considerably suspect. There have already been cuts of £230 million. If there are further cuts of £500 million in the autumn, the total will more than cover the cost of the Falklands garrison. Therefore, rather than the Treasury separately funding the cost of the garrison, it will be directly funded from the defence budget, and the contingency fund might never have been raided.
What will the Secretary of State do then? He will begin to flounder. He will try to cut staff and put out work to private industry, thinking that that will save money. He will play with the idea of privatising the Household Cavalry — free rides around the park. He will cut back—
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McNamara: I am flattered to be called the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend, but I will not give way—
Mr. Holt: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten the bombing of the Household Cavalry and—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) is not giving way.
Mr. McNamara: I am well aware of the role played by the Household Cavalry. I am not making a sick joke. I am pointing to the foolishness and defeatism of the
410
Secretary of State's defence policy. He will try to make savings wherever he can. Our conventional forces will become distorted and unbalanced and our allies will begin to worry. He will eventually have to come to the House with a new White Paper.
What the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to carry out cannot be carried by our economy, will not be carried by his colleagues and will not be accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When that happens, the irreducible minimum will be reduced out of all context. Serious decisions about our nuclear defence policy will then have to be made. There will be enormous pressure on the Government to give up their pretence of maintaining Trident. That will come about not only because of what is happening in Britain, but because the United States Government will eventually want to make a deal with the Soviets. They will ensure that they get their deal despite Britain.
Our European allies will continually worry about the pressure on our NATO commitments. The pressure on the cruise decision and the agitation of the peace movement throughout Europe has forced NATO leaders to recognise that first use and early use of nuclear weapons is not an acceptable policy in the west. It is not accepted either politically or economically.
Mr. Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker enjoined right hon. and hon. Members to be brief. May I suggest that this vapid filibustering by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) verges upon the tedious and repetitious?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members are responsible for the length of their speeches. I am sure that the House recognises that a number of hon. Members are awaiting the opportunity to take part in the debate. I repeat Mr. Speaker's plea for short speeches. However, I repeat that hon. Members are responsible for the length of their speeches. The hon. Gentleman has not raised a point of order.
Mr. McNamara: I am aware of the length of my speech, which will shortly be concluded. If Conservative Members continue to barrack and ask me to give way, which I do as often as possible out of courtesy, that will lengthen the time that I take for my speech—as will having to explain why my speech has taken the time that it has.
Because of the political pressures of NATO, the economic pressures of Britain and the pressure exerted by the United States, we will have to give up Trident as a weapon, and I welcome that.
As I said earlier, the Government's policy is based on emotion. It is lacking in logic. It is filled with theatrical gestures. It achieves nothing but weakening our nation's security and putting the NATO alliance at risk. That being the case, the House should not support either the White Paper or the Estimates.
5.25 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) reminded me of a thick sandwich. There was some meat in it, and I shall deal with that first.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quite rightly gave first priority in his speech to NATO. The NATO area

411
covers the land, sea and air approaches to our islands, and long may that continue. However, none of us can be sure that NATO will exist for the 40 or 50 years for which the Trident programme is devised. I am concerned about my right hon. Friend's reference to bringing our independent nuclear programme to the conference table. I do not see how that programmme can be reduced if we take account of any improvements that may be made by the other side. I have always thought that five boats would be better than four, but, accepting that four are enough, I do not think that we can reduce below that.
I do not want to read too much into what was said yesterday, but I want an assurance that what was said was said in concert with our French allies. If it was not, I would feel that there was cause for grave concern.
Mr. John Silkin: The right hon. Gentleman said that NATO might not exist in 40 years and that, therefore, we would need a weapon of ultimate resort. In what circumstances does he envisage us being able to use Trident, even as a deterrent, if that was against the wishes of the United States?
Mr. Amery: I understand that Trident will be under our sole control. The warheads will be manufactured in Britain. I do not see why we would be unable to use it, just as a shotgun bought from a foreign firm can be used against a pheasant if the shotgun owner so wishes.
Mr. Silkin: I am sorry to detain the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure he understands that this is an important point. The basis of the agreement between Mr. Macmillan and President Kennedy at Nassau in 1961 was that only in the case of supreme national emergency could Britain use Polaris. That condition applies also to Trident. Surely that means that it is for the United States and Britain together to decide what is a supreme national emergency. That implies that the two countries must be in agreement. In those circumstances, I cannot see how it is possible for us to use Trident without the agreement of the United States.
Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman is taking an unduly legalistic attitude. If the weapon is under our control and we think that there is a supreme national emergency, we are free to use it. That was recognised by President Kennedy at Nassau. The decision did not depend on him, and he knew that perfectly well. It is for us to decide what constitutes a supreme national emergency.
I come now to another aspect of the White Paper. A number of us, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall), have been talking for some years of the importance of the threat not to the NATO area, but to the peripheral areas. It is not such a mortal threat immediately as the threat to our island itself, but it is in some ways more tempting to the potential aggressor. He could, for example, risk an attack on the Gulf, with its oil resources, without incurring as great a risk of nuclear war.
The White Paper does not say much about that threat. Let me enlarge on it. There are about 22 divisions of the Red Army on the Iranian border, about 100,000 men in Afghanistan and 40 divisions in the far east. All these forces have associated air power. The Red Navy is in the Indian ocean and increasingly in the Pacific. There are also well established detachments of Soviet forces in Syria, Aden, Vietnam and Cuba, which could rapidly be reinforced. I think we all agree that only the United States
412
can take the lead, with such local allies as it can find, in meeting this threat. It is doing so by sea with the development of the rapid deployment force.
The United Kingdom can make a contribution to meeting the threat, which is directed against vital interests of Britain and the rest of Europe in the middle east, southeast Asia and Africa. We can make a contribution, and to some extent we are already doing so, by associating the United States with us in Diego Garcia, by our possession of the sovereign base areas in Cyprus, by the special relationships that we still have with Oman and some other countries, by naval detachments in the Indian ocean and by the provision of NATO forces, including forces that are based at home, that coud be made available. Ascension Island has already proved valuable to the United States as well as to us, so our facilities on the Falklands may prove not unimportant to the United States in the years ahead. Britain is not the only Western ally that can make a contribution. The French can do quite a bit and they already make a contribution.
I should like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister of State that contingency plans for crises that might develop in these areas are discussed between our staffs and those of the United States and France.
The object of planning in NATO and in the outer areas is to deter potential aggressors from starting a war; but we must not forget that war is already being waged on a substantial scale by the Soviet Union against the West. It is war of another sort, but one to which we cannot be indifferent. Important areas are being conquered by the Soviet Union with its own or allied forces. Angola is an obvious example. The Soviet Union has put 20,000 or 30,000 troops into Angola, with a number of East German forces. I think that there are 15,000 Cuban troops in Ethiopia with about 2,000 or 3,000 Soviet troops. It has an enormous army in Afghanistan and it is assisting the Vietnamese in Kampuchea.
The Soviet Union is meeting stiff resistance from the local populations in all the countries to which I have referred and it must be in the interests of the West to give that resistance every possible piece of effective backing to prevent the Soviets from consolidating the gains that they have been making. The Soviet Union has been conducting unprovoked aggression and if it were to succeed in establishing itself in Angola, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and Kampuchea, those countries would surely become launching pads for further Soviet expansionism from Angola to Namibia, from Afghanistan to the Gulf and Pakistan, from Kampuchea to Thailand and from Ethiopia to offensives against Somalia.
Another aspect of the undeclared war is the Soviet Union's support of anti-Western movements. These are not necessarily Marxist or Communist—many of them are not — but they seek to destabilise and overthrow Governments and countries with which the West has important economic or political relations. The Americans are facing this problem in El Salvador. A large section of the PLO appears to be entirely under Syrian and Muscovite influence. SWAPO has always been largely in Russian hands. The Somali rebels that are used by Ethiopia are another case in point.
All these movements receive political support and moral encouragement from the Soviet Union. They receive Soviet training in both military and terrorist operations, and they receive Soviet supplies and equipment and propaganda backing. Of course some of

413
them have their own indigenous reasons for operating as they do, but they are being used and exploited by the Soviet Union across the board.
The Soviet Union's objective is to destabilise countries that are pro-Western and, if the opportunity presents itself, to take them over. It is a creeping process. Each gain becomes a launching pad for the next operation. Aden, for example, became the launching pad for the Soviet Union's operations in North Yemen, Nicaragua becomes the launching pad for El Salvador, Ethiopia for Somalia and Afghanistan for the Gulf.
How should the West respond? Britain has had long experience of these operations and so have other countries. There are pretty clear limits to the extent to which a guerrilla movement can be beaten by the adoption of purely defensive operations. We were able to defeat the guerrilla movement in Malaya with the help of Thailand. The Persians, ourselves supporting the Omanis, did so in the Dhofar. But experience has shown that a guerrilla movement can generally be beaten only if the base from which it operates is destabilised, and its base will usually be found in the neighbouring country.
We need a special operations and political warfare organisation at the interface of foreign policy and defence strategy. Its objective would be to destabilise the other side's base, and, as opportunity came, to roll back its control over Angola, Afghanistan or whatever country it might be.
Our American allies are already active in this area, and quite openly so. The CIA is a powerful organisation; its chief is known to be a member of the cabinet and its operations are freely discussed in Congress, sometimes critically and sometimes encouragingly.
Our French friends have done quite a lot in Africa, and it is well known that they solved the problem of the mosque at Mecca when it was seized by rebel forces.
We in Britain have a long tradition of supporting resistance. That tradition goes back to the Marlborough wars, the Napoleonic wars and Lawrence in the first world war. It was certainly maintained in the second world war, when Britain was the most successful encourager of resistance both in Europe and in the Japanese occupied territories. What is the position now?
The campaigns in Oman and the Falklands showed that our SAS and SBS capability is one of the best in the world; but I suspect that something more is needed. We need an organisation to support resistance similar in character, although not necessarily in size, to the organisation that we had in wartime to sustain resistance in the occupied territories. It is almost taboo to talk about so-called clandestine operations, but I make no apology for raising this in Parliament. As we sit here, a subversive war is going on in the middle east, in Africa, in south-west Asia and in central America. Moscow makes no secret of its support for subversive movements. The Soviet Foreign Minister may talk about non-interference as a principle of Soviet policy, but the Politburo makes it quite clear openly and efficiently that it supports "progressive movements".
I see no reason for us to accept the Soviet doctrine that Soviet gains are irreversible. On the contrary, if we claim to champion the cause of freedom we must proclaim our determination to sustain resistance against tyranny and to do all that we can to recover lost ground.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), I must tell him that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment that stands in his name and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends, but that it will be in order to discuss the matters contained in the amendment.
5.41 pm
Dr. David Owen: This debate takes place against the background of an extraordinary sequence of events. The Secretary of State for Defence published his White Paper and the ink was barely dry before the Chancellor removed £230 million from the defence Estimates. We are now told that the Cabinet is likely to meet tomorrow to discuss further reductions in defence expenditure. The problem that the Government face is that, even allowing for the 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending, which I support, they already have within that White Paper enough commitments to make it extremely hard to live within that financial constraint.
We already know that the defence budget faces an acute crisis in 1986–87. In that year, the Treasury's acceptance of the NATO commitment to a 3 per cent. increase in defence spending comes up for review. In that year too, the contribution given by the Chancellor in exceptional circumstances for the garrisoning and the replacement of the battle losses of the Falklands comes to an end. There is no doubt that in the present economic circumstances it will be immensely difficult to continue on the present projected defence strategy beyond 1986–87.
What is to be done about this? I must draw attention to what the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) said yesterday in answer to my intervention. He justified the reduction in defence spending which various parts of his party want—it seems to be a little unclear—on the basis that there had been a fall of 15 per cent. in the gross national product. I do not know where that figure came from but I have studied the gross national product and it has increased in every year under this Government, as indeed it has done under all Governments. Our relative poverty in relation to the European Community is due to the fact that we have expanded our wealth at a much slower rate, but our wealth has increased in every year.
In fact, over the years that were mentioned, rather than a 15 per cent. fall, there was a 37 per cent. increase. The right hon. Gentleman may have been referring to industrial output, which has fallen, but even that has fallen by only 8 per cent. If the right hon. Gentleman is so way out in thinking that there has been a fall in the gross national product of 15 per cent., no wonder his defence policy is in such a mess. It causes us much concern that the principal defence spokesman of the so-called official Opposition can be so far removed from the financial realities of the day that he can project his defence policy on that basis. But the Government, too, face serious problems on their defence budget.
The fortress Falklands policy must now be examined by the House. I believe that it is strongly in the interests of Conservative Members who are concerned about defence to examine this issue carefully. If they do not grapple with it, and put pressure on the Government to come to a settlement on fortress Falklands before 1986–87, the defence budget, of all budgets, will suffer most. The Prime

415
Minister's fetish in refusing to discuss sovereignty on the Falklands when she is prepared to concede sovereignty on Hong Kong will have a savage effect on the defence budget. Fortress Falklands must become a major interest for hon. Members on both sides of the House who are concerned about the future defences of this country.
The present policy is unsustainable financially and it is unsustainable militarily, without paying a heavy price. If, as a result of a serious attempt to reach a negotiation, Conservative Members find that they cannot reach an honourable settlement, I think, with great reluctance, that many Members on both sides of the House will be prepared to continue and sustain a fortress Falklands policy. But in the absence of a serious attempt to reach a long-term settlement, the Government will be savagely indicted if they come to the House with reductions in the defence budget as a result of being ur able to grapple with this crucial element.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman formulating this policy in advance of having any knowledge of the result of the elections in Argentina?
Dr. Owen: I said clearly during the crisis and ever since that the British Government should start to open a dialogue with Latin America in advance of the Argentine elections. The direct conversations with the present junta will be unproductive but I believe that it is important to start the process of dialogue with key countries such as Brazil, Venezuela, the United States and even Peru. There is also the influence of the Organisation of American States on even the present military junta. We hope that the junta will change its character but I think it may well not—
Mr. Onslow rose—
Dr. Owen: I have given way once to the hon. Gentleman but I will not give way again. Even if the junta were to continue, it would still be in British interests to try to reach a long-term settlement. I believe that it is necessary to do so.
Mr. Onslow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to have to put it this way but the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that there has been no discussion of our relations with Latin America during visits which have been made there.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House for a long time and has sufficient experience to know that that is not a point of order. Bogus points of order inhibit the opportunities of other hon. Members to participate in the debate.
Dr. Owen: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) mentioned the out-of-area commitment. That is jargon which effectively means a commitment — beyond our primary commitment to NATO—to a worldwide policing role. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen continue to put pressure on the Government to extend that area, that too will add considerably to the already strained resources of the defence budget. I say to everyone who has wanted to strengthen the conventional forces of NATO that it is easy to let that glibly flow off the tongue but it carries with it serious costs. The new, accurate munitions of conventional forces that could substantially improve the
416
conventional capacity of NATO are extremely expensive. This is the highest area of priority for future defence expenditure.
A more important aspect of national defence policy is the Trident programme. The Government have a slight sense of disdain when this issue is repeatedly raised in the defence budget and they wish that it would go away, but it will not go away. It is a massive commitment of expenditure for the forward projection of defence. It is difficult to sustain and it has serious foreign policy and security ramifications.
The Government can rightly claim that they won the election and now hope that the issue will be settled. However, an interesting aspect of the Trident issue is that it is now clear that the United States is examining, much more closely than it did at the time when it initially accepted supplying the missile, the implications of pursuing Trident for its own bilateral negotiations with the Soviet Union.
Her Majesty's Government and the NATO countries have made a mistake, in my view, in not bringing the INF negotiations and START together. It is becoming increasingly difficult to justify the separation of those talks. It looks at present as though it would be hard to get those negotiations merged and even harder for the Americans and Congress to accept that the United Kingdom should participate in them.
It is becoming abundantly clear that Britain will have to define a minimum deterrent. The exchanges I had yesterday with the Secretary of State for Defence were revealing because there was a logical inconsistency in what he said. If it is an irreducible minimum already, there is no scope for reducing it further. He revealed, however, that it is not the irreducible minimum, and he conceded the case that we have all along argued against Trident—that it is a super-sophisticated deterrent system beyond what this country needs for a minimum deterrent, and that will increasingly be borne in on the Government.
The Government conceded something important when they decided to go for the D5 missile, which on logistic and other grounds had great merit. They said that they would not increase the number of warheads over and above that to which they were committed on the C4 missile. That meant that they had already put a cap on the warhead numbers for the Trident 2 system, and wisely so. But that cap is still substantially above what we need for a minimum deterrent and we shall see in the coming months —certainly in the years ahead—increasing pressure for that cap to be taken even lower.
One of the most significant changes in arms control negotiations in recent months has been the way in which the number of warheads is becoming the critical factor. That is to be welcomed. That has come out of the Scowcroft commission, and I recommend the Government to look carefully at the importance of that commission. Faced by a Congress that was divided along party lines on the issue of the MX missile, the Americans set up an all-party commission of experts and people with weight and authority in their parties and produced a bipartisan report that changes the structure of arms negotiations internationally as well as in the United States, and it achieves a remarkable consensus across Republicans and Democrats.
Her Majesty's Government should try to do a similar exercise over Trident. It does not do Britain any good for

417
this continued partisan political debate to exist on the basis of what minimum deterrent is needed for this country's security.
Mr. Denzil Davies: We would not disagree with what the right hon. Gentleman says about Trident. Because at some time in the future—be it five years or longer—Polaris will no longer be useful, will he state the policy of his party on whether Polaris should be replaced by another nuclear weapon?
Dr. Owen: On the Government's present plans, some Polaris boats will still be in service in 1998. With the re-motoring of the Polaris missile and warhead modernisation, the Polaris system not only provides Britain with a minimum deterrent now but, in my view, would provide a minimum deterrent into the next century.
Mr. Denzil Davies: Come, come.
Dr. Owen: It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Come, come," but that is the reality. If we have a minimum deterrent with which we are not trying to penetrate Moscow — if we are not worried about ABM defences, the Galosh deterrent around Moscow—the Polaris system is an adequate minimum deterrent. The problem is that the submarines will require replacement, extending their life as much as possible, by about 2005. Some say that they are already becoming noisy and will need replacement earlier.
The issue of replacement is not the Polaris system itself. We used to argue that, because the supply line had been cut off for motors, we could not continue with the Polaris missile. Now that that line of manufacture has been reopened by the Government, at a cost of £300 million, there is no longer that limitation; nor is there a limitation in terms of warheads.
That is the reality, but there are other ways of achieving a minimum deterrent. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked me to give the policy of my party. I suggest that it is unwise for any of us to put ourselves in a trench, so to speak, by stating exactly what we would do in, say, 10 years, when none of us knows what the negotiations and arms control atmosphere will be like. I have never made any secret, nor has the Social Democratic Party, of the fact that we believe at present that Britain should maintain a minimum nuclear deterrent.
The Government would be more honest, when challenged by the Labour party, to say whether they believe that one reason for holding a minimum deterrent is that they are not totally confident of the United States, to say, "Yes, that is one argument for having a minimum deterrent." It is no use anybody denying it; it is a fear, held in varying degrees throughout Europe, that there are circumstances—perhaps 20 or 30 years down the track —when the United States might go into another period of isolationism.
It is also why people say, "We are not sufficiently certain of the politics even of Europe to wish to give it up." We may be driven to do so. I have never believed that Britain must pay any price, make any sacrifice, to retain a minimum deterrent. I argued against the Trident system when in office. I argued then on the same basis as I argue today — that it is more than what is required of a minimum deterrent.
Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Dr. Owen: I will not give way, because I do not want to make too long a speech.
There are two actions which the Government should take. First, they should look at the Scowcroft commission to see if there is a way of examining the issue on a wider and deeper basis than has been done up to now, with just one party looking at it, and a small number of people doing so in that party. Secondly, if they will not merge the INF talks and START, they should prepare the way for a bilateral agreement between Britain and the Soviet Union relating to the number of warheads that we would deploy under any system which we might have.
That is an essential reinforcement of START. In the United States those negotiations are making substantial progress. What is more, there appears to be a fair measure of agreement. France will not enter START under any circumstances, but Britain should enter them and, following the precedent of the comprehensive test ban, it would be acceptable for Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union to negotiate together; and if France decides to stand aside, it can do so. However, if the United States does not want us to be a partner in START, a bilateral dialogue should be opened with the Soviet Union, and I am sure that the United States would welcome that.
An appalling indictment of the policy of the present Government is that, since taking office, no Foreign Secretary has been to Moscow. I remind Labour Members that, from the point of view of Andropov, according to the diplomatic niceties of the day, it is the turn of the Soviet Union to come to London. It is not necessary always to think of the British Prime Minister going to Moscow, although I do not object to that.
What has been absent is any serious dialogue on these issues between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. Indeed, I was the last British Foreign Secretary to go to Moscow, and I signed an agreement between the Soviet Union and the United Kingdom on the accidental use of nuclear weapons. As for warhead numbers and placing a ceiling on them, that is now an extremely important aspect of achieving a steep reduction in strategic weaponry.
Personally, I think that France would find it much more acceptable to make a bilateral agreement with the Soviet Union. The question for the British Government is how those points relate to the INF negotiations. I feel strongly that the Government, NATO, my own party and the Liberals have been quite right not to make any commitment on cruise missiles while the negotiations continue. Month by month, the talks have begun to make sizeable progress, although we do not know whether they will be successful at the end of the year. The Government made a mistake in the Queen's Speech by committing themselves to the deployment of cruise missiles regardless of the outcome of the negotiations. They seemed to be assuming that the negotiations would fail.
At this stage, a realist must admit that the most likely agreement will be an interim one rather than a total agreement to deploy neither cruise nor Pershing missiles and to withdraw all SS20s. That zero option disappeared from the serious negotiating table almost a year ago. Some would say that it was never a serious possibility. There is still, however, considerable life left in the concept of a bigger concession on Pershing and a smaller deployment of cruise missiles.
If the Germans do not wish to go ahead with Pershing 2, Britain and Italy should not insist upon a deployment of Pershings as the quid pro quo for our deploying cruise

419
missiles. We should have enough faith in our internal stability to believe that we and Italy could, if we had to, take on the burden ourselves, exempting the Federal Republic of Germany from Pershings at the moment—remembering that Pershing I would continue at this period—and even accepting the non-deployment of cruise missiles in Belgium and the Netherlands. That is a contribution that we could make as a major nuclear weapon state in the context of the European NATO powers.
It has been suggested that the United States should not concede the non-deployment of Pershing, as it emerged from the walk in the woods between the Soviet ambassador and the American negotiating ambassador on the INF, because it would embarrass Britain. I do not believe that that is the case. If the cost of a satisfactory interim agreement in the INF was that only Britain and Italy were deploying cruise missiles, I would justify and defend that state of affairs.
The issue of Trident will not go away. The Government will have to face the fact that at the, moment they are planning to deploy far too many warheads. The United States will not accept the deployment of so many. There are many different options for maintaining a minimum deterrent. By the time of the next election, the first Trident submarine will not have been launched, none of the D5 missiles will have been bought and it will be possible to cancel the whole system.
The Government may feel confident that they can win again. I doubt it, but that may be a partial judgment. They would do well to recognise, however, that the Trident system does not have the wholehearted consent of the British people. It does not have the wholehearted consent of senior admirals, generals and air force officers in the Ministry of Defence either. The project does not carry conviction across the span of those who are interested in defence policy. The Government would be well advised not to pitch it into an election campaign in four or five years time. That might lead to an expensive cancellation. They should seek a consensus in this country and internationally. Our handling of the Trident issue could contribute to deep cuts in strategic armoury and earn Britain once again an international reputation as a constructive force in the pursuit of arms control and disarmament. That prize is within our grasp. It would be within the grasp of the Prime Minister, if she had the capacity and vision to see it. I urge her 1:o think afresh and to envisage a role for Britain as a serious contributor to arms control. The right hon. Lady could contribute towards opening up a dialogue with the. Soviet Union, as her distinguished predecessor, Mr. Harold Macmillan, did so ably.
6.5 pm
Mr. Richard Tracey: II is with humility that I rise to make my maiden speech in this important debate. I thought that I would feel more solitary at this moment than I do. The reason for my comfort is perhaps that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have confronted me before, with a broadcasting microphone between us, so I am not faced with complete strangers.
I have the honour to succeed Sir Nigel Fisher, who represented Surbiton with distinction for 28 years and was described by one reporter at the moment of his retirement
420
as the nicest man in the House of Commons. I am sorry that his son, the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) is not in his place at the moment.
I have a lot to live up to both here and in my constituency. Sir Nigel's career took in Government office in Commonwealth and colonial affairs, and he ended as a senior Back Bencher. He was a great individualist. He was also the biographer of two distinguished Members of the House, Mr. Harold Macmillan and Mr. Iain Macleod, and I believe that his biographer's pen is at work again.
In Surbiton, Sir Nigel will always be much loved as the Member of Parliament who worked assiduously for everyone he possibly could. He is soon to be honoured with the freedom of the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames, of which the constituency is part. Surbiton is a sound, sensible, and stable community which built up rapidly with the development of the railway network in the last century. It consists principally of domestic dwellings and small businesses, with some small green fields in Chessington in the south.
Appropriately in this debate, I am proud to say that the commander of the Falklands task force, Sir John Woodward, lives in my constituency, and also in the royal borough, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), there is the British Aerospace factory, which builds the remarkable Harrier aircraft. Some members of the skilled work force of that factory live in my constituency. A serious question mark hangs over the future of that factory, but that will be the subject of another debate.
The people of Surbiton are rightly proud of those within their midst, and they are always very concerned about the defence of our islands and dependencies. During the election campaign I was asked many times about my attitude to defence. I was able to give a full assurance of my wholehearted support for the Government's policy, which was so well set out in the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
My generation has had very little knowledge of, or contact with, war. I was born towards the end of the second world war and was too young to remember any detail, with the exception of having a father who, sadly, returned from the war seriously mentally disabled, and of seeing an uncle who had suffered grievously in a prison camp. I have read the history of the build-up to that war. I have read of warnings unheeded, of appeasement and of complacency towards the Nazi threat. I never again want to see such complacency towards the defence of our people. Defence must be our first priority. It is the cornerstone of all our freedoms, and for that reason I wholly support the Government's policy.
Some of my generation, and those younger, clearly do not feel the same; hence the rise of forces calling for the one-sided nuclear disarmament of our nation. Perhaps I can comment best on those people by using the words that I heard my predecessor, Sir Nigel Fisher, use in several speeches. He described them as "utterly naive". I suggest that they read carefully pages 21 to 23 of the first volume of the "Statement on the Defence Estimates".
The statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is steadfast and rightly emphasises our relationship with our NATO allies and, in particular, the United States of America. He pays tribute to the almost unbroken period of 40 years during which American forces have been present in Britain, and rightly says:

421
"the presence here of United States forces is a vital element in ensuring that war does not break out".
Despite that surely axiomatic statement, too many people in his land complain about, run down and positively stigmatise America. I very much agree with the comments made yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell). I am glad to say that I have not heard the phrases in this debate, but to talk of "United States Fascists" and to denigrate President Reagan is dangerous talk indeed. Considering all that the United States of America has done for Britain, and is doing, our premier ally deserves full credit and finer words than those which we hear so often from propagandists.
Much of the sadness in me about such dangerous talk stems from the fact that it seems too often to come out in our schools from young teachers who, like me, have never experienced war. They, in turn, inculcate even younger people with their falsely based prejudices. Too often, supposedly informed journalists belonging to my former profession, and working in Fleet street and broadcasting, add to the nonsense that can so debilitate our national and international security.
If there is one thing on which I would particularly welcome an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, it is that the Ministry has the financial means, expertise and manpower, in adequate supply, to explain our policies, through the written word and other media, to counteract propaganda attacks on our valued alliances. Every hon. Member should be at the forefront in the task of explaining our vital defences.
In conclusion, I realise that the statement shows only too clearly the multi-billion pound nature of our defence commitment. Some people say in siren voices that that money should be spent elsewhere in our lives and that we could make vast savings by carrying out one-sided nuclear disarmament and—on any serious analysis of what they say—by running down other major arms of our defence. To the proponents of those arguments I have said before —but it cannot be said often and loudly enough—that our defence, and the necessary expenditure thereon, is the cornerstone of all our other freedoms.
6.13 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) on his maiden speech. Although it was the first time that he has spoken in the House, he was courageously outspoken and quite controversial. He paid some generous and well-earned compliments to his predecessor, whom I think he called one of the nicest men in the House. As the hon. Gentleman said, one of the nicest things that Sir Nigel did was to bequeath to us his son, who is one of the excellent new Labour Members.
The hon. Gentleman clearly has some excellent defence connections. He has some celebrated people living in his area, and he also told us of his family background. Although it is the custom to wait a while before becoming embroiled in controversy, I have no doubt that we can look forward to some hard-hitting and well-argued contributions from him in future defence debates. I wish him well.
422
In his opening speech yesterday, the Secretary of State repeated a commitment, almost word for word, that appears in the first page of the defence statement, where the Government set out their objectives. It states:
"We must do all in our power to reach agreement with the Soviet Union on the limitation and reduction of armaments."
That is an admirable sentiment, but there are several good reasons for doubting how serious the Government are about disarmament. I shall concentrate my relatively brief remarks on that crucial issue.
One reason for scepticism is the handling by the Government, and by the Western powers generally, of the Andropov proposals on Euro-theatre nuclear weapons. The original offer, almost to halve the number of SS20s targeted on Europe to the level of the 162 British and French missiles, was rejected by the Government on three grounds: first, that there was still no comparability, because the SS20s each had three separate warheads; secondly, that the British and French missiles were last-ditch national deterrents, with long-range strategic capability, and therefore irrelevant to an intermediate-range nuclear force count; and, thirdly, that the deal would still leave the United States of America without its own land-based arsenal in Europe.
When Andropov countered the first objection by offering to cut the number of Soviet Euro-nuclear warheads—I stress "warheads"—to the level of British and French warheads, thus involving a further major cut in the number of SS20s, to about 97, the Prime Minister again rejected it on the grounds that the British and French warheads should not be included in the balance, and that the Polaris missiles were sea-based and therefore should not be counted against the land-based SS20s.
The latter is a thoroughly specious argument, because what matters is the level of destructive capability, not the mode of basing. The much more important argument concerns not including British and French warheads. However, I submit that that argument would have more credibility if the Prime Minister demonstrated the genuineness of her disarmament intentions by saying that even if it were not a candidate for the INF talks, Polaris was certainly for inclusion in START on long-range nuclear weapons. That point has already been touched on. However, the Prime Minister has consistently refused to make any such offer.
Of course, as all those who have attended this debate know, the Secretary of State said that if, in the course of START, there was a substantial breakthrough in the scale of world deployment, it would be taken into account by a British Government. He said that a British Government would not stand aside. However, that is quite different from actively seeking participation in the talks and making offers to bring about a successful conclusion, as opposed to simply responding if a successful conclusion were achieved. It has been rightly said, and hammered home, that that is particularly true when the Government retain an unspecified quantum in the form of an irreducible minimum deterrent.
There remains the third argument—that if the SS20s are not removed, the United States of America needs to have its own land-based arsenal if the West is not to be at a disadvantage within the European theatre. The premise of that argument is false. For two decades—little is made of this point during debates on the INF talks—NATO has possessed more missiles capable of hitting eastern Europe than the Soviet Union has had systems

423
capable of hitting western Europe. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may express disagreement, but since 1961 the United States has assigned five Polaris ballistic missile submarines to SACEUR. In 1972, these were replaced by Poseidon C3 Missiles. That means that SACEUR has had no fewer than 400 MIRV warheads since that time. I recognise that these are defined as central strategic systems and as such technically SALT-counted and therefore they cannot be included in European theatre arsenals, but the fact is that they are allotted specifically to the European theatre. Therefore, it is perverse to exclude them from consideration in the European region.
Mr. Wilkinson: Surely the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that his argument is specious, because it is impossible for us to quantify the number of Soviet strategic ballistic missile submarines that could target their weapon systems against western Europe, especially as the prime operating base for such missile launching submarines is in northern Europe on the Kola peninsula at Murmansk.
Mr. Meacher: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point, but that does not alter the effectiveness of my argument that it is not necessary to have a United States land-based arsenal within Europe when an effective sea-based United States deterrent has been allotted to SACEUR for use within the European union. Whether it is matched by a comparable Soviet sea-based arsenal is irrelevant.
It is hard to believe that these objections create an impasse over the INF negotiations. They look more like a smokescreen which has been used to rationalise cruise and Pershing 2 deployment. It is significant that the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), who spoke yesterday and who has an acknowledged expertise in these matters, recently wrote:
"the objective of recognising the (Reagan) zero option as a desirable but implausible goal is to place the responsibility for the NATO modernisation on the Soviet Union."
I believe that to be the case.
Apart from the INF saga, there are two other immediate grounds for doubting the sincerity of the British and American Governments in the current search for disarmament. The first—it has been mentioned before and it is important to repeat it—is the recent stance of the British Government in the United Nations on this issue. Britain has voted against or, occasionally, abstained from voting on no fewer than 28 disarmament resolutions during the past three years. The British Government have also opposed a nuclear freeze. I do not see how that is compatible with a genuine search for nuclear disarmament.
The second factor is President Reagan's emasculation of his arms control agency. I submit that that puts into a different perspective the person who is sometimes regarded as our major western ally in the search for peace and nuclear disarmament. He has recently selected for the post of deputy director of the arms control agency a former Congressman, Mr. David Emery, who favours higher military spending, nerve gas weapons, renewed production of the neutron bomb and the deployment of MX missiles carrying 540 more warheads than the President favours. In addition, President Reagan has slashed this year's budget for the arms control agency; and he has threatened to make more cuts this year. He has cut the number of staff by a quarter, abolished the independent research unit and transferred 20 years' research material to a local university. If the Kremlin or Mr. Andropov had
424
acted similarly with regard to the Soviet Union's counterpart agency, would anyone credit Mr. Andropov's bona fides with regard to a genuine search for disarmament?
Last, but not least important in interpreting the significance of what is happening, is the eerie sense of replay of past negotiations. It is true that agreement on arms limitations has been reached in the past, but only in a manner that has institutionalised the arms race and only by prohibiting in many cases what neither side any longer wished to do. The partial test ban treaty which was concluded in 1963 has not prevented from taking place 60 per cent. of all the nuclear explosions that have occurred since 1948. With each major so-called disarmament agreement, limitation in one sphere, which had already been largely exploited, has been accompanied by let-outs in another sphere which have greatly facilitated nuclear escalation in other areas. For example, the partial test ban treaty was vitiated by allowing underground tests. The SALT I freeze on the number of launchers was vitiated by allowing MIRV to roar ahead — and that has revolutionised the arms race. SALT II has been vitiated by permitting the accelerated development of a new generation of counterforce weapons such as MX, Trident, cruise and Pershing 2s.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: SS18s?
Mr. Meacher: Therefore, are we not seeing the same process recurring in Geneva? Attention is being focused upon reducing the level of INF balance in Europe and on START taking place in Geneva, which may or may not —I hope that they do—achieve a settlement. If they do, they will no doubt be hailed as achieving a major breakthrough in disarmament.
If that were to be achieved, the significance would be far outweighed by President Reagan's intentions, which were clearly signalled in his "Star Wars" speech last March, to escalate the nuclear arms race in a new and dangerously destabilising manner by the militarisation of space. The development of microwave, particle beams and lasers as ABM systems opens a new dimension of nuclear warfare. Can that be consistent with a genuine intention to seek nuclear disarmament?
For those reasons, the Opposition are singularly unimpressed by the rhetoric of disarmament which is unaccompanied by solid evidence of matching action. Whatever the Government's declared aims, there is a prodigous risk of an escalation of the current arms race. First, there is the current NATO policy of the first use of nuclear weapons by the West, which the Minister mentioned today, and which is surely absurdly dangerous. It is no good saying, as he did, that there is no certainty that the weapons would be used; that the aim is to increase uncertainty for the other side. No deterrent deters unless its use is regarded as plausible. If it were used, ii would be an act of self-immolation without precedent. It would undoubtedly pave the way to uncontrolled and uncontrollable nuclear escalation.
Secondly, the introduction of counterforce weapons with their first strike nuclear capability, far from providing, which presumably is the objective, a greater balance in security, represents an unprecedented, chronic destabilisation which, by any standards, is exceedingly dangerous.
The introduction of MX, Trident or cruise is bound to have an effect on the other side. The proliferation of

425
nuclear weapons which the Government's policy is bound to generate must, mathematically, hugely increase the chances of the outbreak of nuclear war as a result of error or miscalculation. That fact is rarely mentioned, but it is important as there are about 50,000 nuclear weapons in the world and that number is increasing annually.
Above all, for all the insane risks that are involved in the policy, what ultimate credibility is there in a deterrent when, if the Prime Minister pressed the button, as she said during the election she would, it is inconceivable that the result would be other than national self-genocide for us? How can such a deterrent carry any plausibility with potential enemies when they know as well as we do that its use would have such absurdly annihilatory consequences for this country?
It is for those reasons that we find the Government's case so unconvincing. The rhetoric of two-sided disarmament has been used to serve as a cover for what is, in practice, unilateral rearmament. That is the central flaw in the defence Estimates and that is why we unreservedly reject them.
6.31 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I think that I shall have the House on my side when I say that I shall not speak on nuclear matters. When I hear Labour and Social Democratic Members speaking again and again about those things, which were so clearly removed from the consideration of the electorate, I wonder whether they and I were fighting the same campaign.
I cannot give the source, but a grey head once said that the best thing in politics, particularly at the time of a setback, was neither to explain nor complain. Having worked as hard as I can, and having had complete loyalty for the Government during the past four years, I share the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), who said that to be summarily dismissed was an acutely hurtful experience. He had spent about 21 years in office, much of the time in high positions of state. After four years at the bottom of the ladder I am tempted to use stronger language, but I must obey my own strictures.
I shall address myself, first, to one or two matters of administration. It is important that junior Ministers look upon a great part of their function as one of management. I noted with pleasure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday referred to his role in managing his Department. The Prime Minister might pay no regard to what I say, but perhaps future Prime Ministers will bear in mind one or two of my points. The Ministry of Defence is in itself a different Department from others. It is not a Department which simply has the Civil Service to communicate with its Ministers; it has the three Services and the procurement executive, all advising, and not always in unity. I have often compared it to a complicated game of poker, because in the end the Minister is under special pressure from no fewer than five different quarters.
In those circumstances, it is important that there should be some continuity. I remind the House that since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister first went to No. 10 in 1979 there have been three different Secretaries of State, five different Ministers of State, five different Under-Secretaries of State, seven Ministers have been dismissed and one has retired. I humbly suggest that that plays into
426
the hands of those whose smooth organisation, training and brilliance lead them to the top of the Services and the top of a big Department in the Civil Service. It puts Ministers at a serious disadvantage if, in this complicated Department with 620,000 people working for it, buying about 1 per cent. of the gross national product, the managers are constantly changing. I hope that that point is taken up.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, having started to learn his way around the Department, was rightly beginning to ensure that all Ministers had clear individual responsibilities. That should not be exclusive to the Ministry of Defence. It is the right way to run a Department. I suggest that the time has come when the best way to administer the Government is to have a Cabinet assisted by Ministers not in the Cabinet, whether they are called Ministers of State, or whatever. There should be only one second tier of Ministers with specific, known responsibilities, and answerable to their Cabinet Ministers.
Another matter which has concerned me very much, as I believe it has concerned others of my colleagues, is the way in which the Government control their finances. I believe that I am right in saying that, historically, the Government's accounting procedures were invented by Pepys to control the Navy and that progressively over 200 years they have altered modestly. Anyone with the slightest experience of business would find it almost impossible to compare the financing information and accounts of commerce and industry with the way in which the Government run their accounting system. The rules of annuality put constraints on economies, capital investment and other things which even the smallest business does as a matter of routine.
Given the availability of information, with modern systems, the time has come to suggest that we make a quantum change in how we administer Government accounting. On many occasions I have found that one cannot do what one would do in business—for example, amalgamate two establishments—because the once-andfor-all cost is never discounted over 20 or 30 years as it would be commercially, but is totalled in the year in which the change takes place. That elementary housekeeping system is too primitive for the sophisticated Government that we run today.
Therefore, I was particularly pleased to see in the recent announcements about the Ministry of Defence that a small concession had been made by the Treasury to run savings over the end of the accounting year. It is depressing for a junior Minister to find that there is no incentive because the savings will be dragged away to the Treasury or distorted by annuality. I hope that I shall be supported in considering whether we can act in a more modern and better way.
Many people have said to me in the past couple of years that they wish that we could go back to the old system of service Ministers. From my experience, I strongly oppose such a change. There are several reasons for that. A problem arose with my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed). After many months of working for the Navy, he was faced with a dichotomy of loyalty on the one hand to the service in which he had been brought up, was working for, and of which he was the titular political head, and on the other hand to the Government for whom he was working. He was put in an incredibly difficult

427
position. The more I considered the facts afterwards, the more I was sympathetic. That should never be allowed to happen again.
My predecessor was in the new post for only a few months, but I soon found that I was surprised by the number of occasions on which when we examined a function, perhaps across all three services—something mundane—we found that one service did it differently from the others and that one service did it better than the others. I could give many examples.
Mr. Bill Walker: Dog training.
Mr. Wiggin: I have been assured that an Army police dog requires a completely different place to be trained in and a totally different team to train it than a Royal Air Force police dog.
As for teaching cooks to boil cabbages, or whatever, I had the great success of getting them all into one school. In relation to the Ministry as a whole many of these are tiny matters, but there are also major areas—medical services, educational establishments, maintenance depots and so on—in which tens of millions if not hundreds of millions, of pounds could be saved through a determined approach by a Minister to pull these things together for the benefit of the services and of the front line. I certainly learnt that, working with all three services.
I entirely oppose a purple service on the Canadian model, in which the three front-line services are put together. That would destroy many wonderful features of our services, but we can do a great deal of good in the background administration and support services. The House and various Select Committees have played a major role in pressing the Ministry to do these things. I am sorry to say that there has been plenty of kicking and screaming, but I believe that when the savings become apparent many developments in which I was involved will be seen to have been working towards a successful conclusion.
The problem of combining Ministers is that what was once a job for nine Ministers when there were three departments is now carried out by five, two of whom rightly deal with defence procurement. Defence procurement takes up 46 per cent. of the defence budget. Anyone with any experience in the services, in the House or as a Minister will agree that there have been quite disgraceful instances of the Ministry of Defence being ripped off because for many years there was no ministerial responsibility to study procurement. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement made so much of this, setting out a long list of steps that he was taking to try to clobber this problem.
All this leaves the armed forces sick, of the Ministry with a great deal of work. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces has been dealing with the problem of arranging the work load. In the past, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) and I had 48 subject headings between us. That was too many and we became overloaded. I hope that the new arrangements will deal with that domestic problem. When I came into the Ministry, we started work on implementing the White Paper, "The Way Forward", Cmnd. 8288, but just as that was getting under way the Falklands war occurred, with all the lessons that that brought. The Ministry is probably now moving into its age-old triennial battle with the Treasury. I hope that I am wrong, but I shall have more to say about that.
428
Having attended a great many debates on defence White Papers over the years, one is tempted to pick out a handful of minor subjects and to attend properly to none. I hope that I shall not be guilty of that in commenting on various aspects of each service which left an impression on me.
The Navy conducted an extremely militant political campaign against Cmnd. 8288. I believe that that was wrong and did no credit to the Navy. Indeed, at times that campaign came close to the borders of constitutional propriety. The first sea lord now in office, however, has stamped out that feeling and relationships within the Ministry and between the Navy and the other Services have been restored to their rightful harmony and cooperation.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will beaver away at his opposite number to ensure that he obtains the submarines mentioned in Cmnd. 8288. I shall not go into the technicalities of why I believe that the numbers will not be as they should, but there is a lack of capacity in our yards for building submarines.
People ask why Sir John Nott got the White Paper wrong and say, "Look what happened in the Falklands." His general proposition in Cmnd. 8288 was that there were too many platforms which could not defend themselves and not enough submarines. In the Falklands conflict 16 ships were hit by not particularly sophisticated aircraft and, happily, utterly unsophisticated bombs, but our submarines contained the Argentine navy from the day they were known to have arrived. In my view, the general conclusion from the Falklands war is that that was a correct philosophy and I hope that my hon. Friend will pursue it.
I worry about the Royal Marines because they have a minority interest and the Navy controls their budget so that they do not always get the finance or attention that they deserve. They certainly do not have the officer structure that they deserve. It would be rash for a Minister to say this, but as a Back Bencher I can now say that in my view it would be in the interests of the Royal Marines to be attached to the Army. There are virtually no Royal Marines at sea and we need an amphibious capacity.
Sir Patrick Wall: The view of the Royal Marines is that either they stay with the Royal Navy or disband altogether.
Mr. Wiggin: I am aware of the Royal Marines' view, but I ask them to be courageous. They stand very high in the public's mind and they have a real role to play. They train quite ruthlessly and I have nothing but admiration for them. En passant, the remarkable way in which General Pringle has conducted his personal recovery in front of his own corps has been a deeply moving example of magnificent bravery.
I am glad that it has been possible to do something for the Royal Naval Reserve. Too often the reserves are second best, they take resources from the regulars and it is hard to persuade a regular that a reservist is good value for money. At the end of the last Parliament, however, we were able to announce that a new ship had been promised for every Royal Naval Reserve division. The London division will also have new headquarters, so I believe that the climate of opinion has now changed.
Two or three years ago the Army realised with a jolt that it had spent too little time on defending the home base. Since then, efforts have been made to ensure that every

429
service man knows what he is to do at the outbreak of war. The Territorial Army is expanding on line, the building programme for drill halls is going ahead and the home service force has got off to a good start. Those matters may sound basic, but they are crucial.
The Army's money problem must lie in BAOR, with its vast army of civilians, many of them Germans, and a building programme with costs far in excess of our own, while our own barracks have not yet been modernised. The Army must attend to many problems in the immediate future.
My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement referred to the Challenger tank—a superb item of equipment and probably the finest tank ever produced—but our infantry now carry weapons which can knock out tanks even of that calibre. We also read of the sophisticated weapons, both helicopter-borne and tank-borne, which will be introduced on to the battlefield, so one must question whether tanks will ever be viable again.
The Air Force has been locked in the greatest re-equipment programme ever, leaving little room for political manoeuvre as I suspect that cancellation would now cost more than going ahead. The Air Force has too many different types of aeroplane and it carries too vast an inventory of spare parts. I believe that it also has too many men, although that will of course be denied.
The decision to consider the new trainer came as a direct result of the realisation that it was no longer necessary to go for an all-jet basic trainer. I am not an expert on these matters, but I have studied the figures and am convinced that an elementary course on a Chipmunk, followed by the basic trainer and then proceeding straight on to the Hawk at an earlier stage makes good sense. The pilots would be trained just as well. However, it is a bold step to take. I hear people ask why it should take so long to reach that decision. The reason must be that it is a major departure from the Air Force's philosophy.
In the Falklands, the role of the Ministry of Defence has been to respond to the threat and create a relatively small garrison for a small number of ships and aircraft. It has had to do that further away from home than ever before, in great difficulty, and in the complete absence of resources. There is no local labour force, no water supply and none of the things that people would expect to find east of Suez. The process has been carried out with great fortitude. Although for a long time there will be debates in the House about costs, they are as much under control as possible and much is being done each day to pull it all together.
I have three worries. The first is that none of the three services has yet given adequate thought to protecting itself from a threat from the air. For as long as history, service men must have said, "You politicians do not know about defence. We have studied the matter for 10 years and we assure you that such and such is the case." The grandfather of my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) promoted the invention of the tank because service men had not. Service men sent their soldiers to war on horses in 1939. Everyone can understand the implications of that. Once again it is the responsibility of Ministers, other right hon. and hon. Members and non-technical people to point out that the odds are too great. The services have not appreciated the threat from the air.
430
My second worry is the threat of chemical warfare. There can be no doubt that to subject the Army, the Air Force or the Navy to chemical attack, no matter how well protected it is, is the most inhibiting, slowing and discomfiting of all operations. Even if the clothing and gas masks prove adequate, such warfare would hold up our troops immensely if they came under attack. This must be the classic case of a deterrent—it worked throughout the second world war. The Russians have built up stocks of chemical weapons in their tens of thousands of tonnes and arranged methods of delivering them to our side of the battlefield. Surely we should seriously consider doing the same, for the deterrent effect. Chemical warfare is the last thing that we want, but the only way to prevent it is to have a deterrent. We should start to do that.
My third, and perhaps most important, worry is money. My hon. Friend the Minister should know that the Conservative party will not tolerate a Ministry of Defence, which has finally made itself able to spend approximately the correct amount of money — there is less wild overspend and less wild underspend—and which has a cash limit system which is beginning to work, being subjected to a long series of attacks by the Treasury. That would be disastrous and would undo much of the good that has been done in the past few years.
Without taking credit for it myself, I can say that the services are in good order. That is the result of the policies which the Government adopted in 1979–80 in regard to pay and then on consistency about equipment and other matters. The morale of the services is high. They have spares and fuel for training and can see that money is being spent on weapons development. I say that with pride.
Serving in the Government for the past four years was a great honour and an unforgettable experience. I sincerely believe that almost all of my hon. Friends have the capacity to be a Minister, yet many never are. I am grateful for my good fortune. I should like to thank the many people, civil servants and service men alike, who helped me through a frenetic life on the sixth floor of the Ministry of Defence. I wish my successors well and urge them as strongly as I know how to keep as their main objective the welfare and maintenance of Britain's armed forces—the very best in the world.
6.54 pm
Dr. John Gilbert: The debate has already provided me with two pleasant surprises. The first was the speech by the hon. Member for Weston-superMare (Mr. Wiggin). He made a speech that I did not realise he had in him. It was much better than any speech that he was allowed to make from the Dispatch Box. I do not regret his being on the Back Benches. Although I did not agree with everything that he said, I listened to most of it with a great deal of interest and support.
My second pleasant surprise is to find an Opposition motion on defence with which I can almost agree, or, conversely, with which I can agree without too many mental gymnastics. There is nothing in it about getting rid of American bases, nor is there any mention of getting rid of Polaris. I congratulate my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Shadow Cabinet and the Front Bench team responsible for defence on starting their pilgrimage back from the disastrous election manifesto with which the Labour party was saddled during the election campaign.
In my part of the country—I speak for no other—nuclear issues were important during the election. It was

431
clear that many people switched their vote away from the Labour party because they did not want Britain to be deprived of nuclear weapons while other countries refused to give up theirs. I am not saying whether that judgment is correct, but the Labour party's stance was electorally disastrous. I predicted that it would be, and I told my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) privately more than once before the election. Now I shall deal with the future.
It is no secret that I have supported Britain's having a strategic nuclear capability. I shall address myself to what I call the Down, South question. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not present. I apologise to him for not giving him notice that I would raise this point. In the previous defence debate he posed the question whether a British Prime Minister would ever initiate a strategic nuclear exchange. For reasons that are familiar to many of my hon. Friends — my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) mentioned it today—such a strategic nuclear exchange, would lead to national disaster from which Britain would be unlikely ever to recover. It is clear that there is no need for Britain to make a "no first use "declaration. "No first use" is inherent in the logic of Britain's stance on strategic weapons. It is pointless making such a declaration. Other concepts are wandering around—"no early first use" or, as I have recently heard, "no early use". The latter is incapable of analysis.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said that Conservative Members regard Polaris and Trident almost as anti-American weapons and as a sign that we do not trust the United States. I must argue along the same lines as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). When Britain first acquired Polaris, it was regarded substantially as an anti-American weapon. It was designed, if we felt that the Americans would not be with us on the day, to create a state of affairs in which the Americans would be dragged into the conflict on our side. That might have been an utterly naive failure on our part to recognise the sheer horror of such weapons systems—those were the days before hydrogen bombs, when we thought simply of atomic weapons of the Hiroshima type—but that was largely the motive behind the decision to have Polaris. Of course, that was never said.
Trident, which has an enormously increased striking power, is not so much an anti-American weapon to drag them into a conflict as an insurance policy against the Americans not being there on the day. That is the one justification for Britain having a strategic weapons system. As the right hon. Member for Devonport said, there can be no guarantee of what the state of the world will be in 30 or 40 years' time. That does not mean that we do not trust the present American Administration. The acquisition of a strategic nuclear capabilitiy simply means that one can never predict 30 years ahead, and that it would be folly to predicate Britain's security on an alliance that may not exist 30 years ahead.
It may surprise some hon. Members to know that I believe that there are many possibilities for unilateral nuclear disarmament by the Alliance and by Britain alone. I start from two premises. The first is that the Alliance, Britain and the Warsaw pact countries need not supremacy or parity in nuclear weapons, but stability in the international security arena.
432
My second premise is that the size of the nuclear arsenals on both sides of the iron curtain is such that neither a considerable increase nor a considerable decrease will have a measurable effect upon the security of either side. Nuclear disarmers, especially those in the United Kingdom, are obsessed with big ticket items, such as submarines. However, they could make a more constructive and rational contribution to the discussion on international security if they started less ambitiouslay. There is a clear case for unilateral disarmament of battlefield weapons. That case will become stronger as we develop our conventional capability, although we should take seriously the French view that the nuclear threshold should be kept as low as possible, because the lower the threshold, the greater the fear of an incident that could lead to a conflict. I do not endorse the concept, but it is foolish of us not to discuss it.
Once we have made a start with battlefield weapons, we can turn our attention to theatre weapons such as Tornado, which costs much more than Trident. Tornado is a precision guided weapon that must acquire greater range, accuracy and reliability, and I am glad to see the signs of that.
I agree with what the right hon. Member for Devonport said about strategic systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) and I said much the same in a minority report of the Select Committee on Defence when it considered Trident some years ago. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has caught up with us. Several years ago we said that Trident was not the only possibility as a successor to Polaris. There were cheaper alternatives. The Government of the day and successive Secretaries of State for Defence have not been fair to the Select Committee, the House or the British people in not making available the facts about the cost of alternative systems, such as a running-on strategic deterrent with a modernised Polaris-type system.
We must recognise that the longer the Conservative Government stay in power—God help us all—the more likely it is that Trident will become the Polaris of the future. However, it is evident that the majority of the British electorate voted for parties that opposed Trident. That is statistically unarguable. The electorate wished to have nothing to do with cruise missiles. However, they voted in favour of Britain's having a strategic nuclear deterrent, and in eight or 10 years' time the cheaper option will no longer be available. I reinforce what has been said by the Opposition, and I beg the Government to consider seriously the possibility of a cheaper option to Trident while preserving Britain's strategic nuclear capability.
The United States has far more warheads than it needs. For some time I have not believed that the best anti-tank weapon is another tank. A fortiori, the best defence against a nuclear weapon is not another nuclear weapon. There is no need in military terms for parity in such weapons systems. The present arms build-up does not seriously challenge international stability, so large are existing nuclear arsenals. That view is shared by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It is clear that our American friends at the strategic level, and ourselves at lower levels of nuclear weapons systems, could easily dispense with part of our nuclear arsenals. It would become progressively easier for us to do so with the growing sophistication of conventional systems. If we did so, we would save our Treasury much money and our people

433
much anxiety, and we might persuade our potential enemies that their security would not be jeopardised if they took similar steps.
7.6 pm
Mr. James Couchman: I have chosen to make my maiden speech during a defence debate because the constituency that I have the honour to serve is a defence town. Gillingham's links with defence are part of our glorious history and stretch back more than 400 years. It is customary to take the House on a Cook's tour round one's constituency during a maiden speech, but I shall keep that part of the exercise brief because the bulk of my speech will concern the single major feature for which my constituency is best known.
Gillingham lies on the Medway in Kent and is one of the three Medway towns. With an electorate of about 70,000 and a population of more than 90,000, it is a tight and compact urban area. However, along the motorway at the eastern end of Gillingham are several prosperous farms and farm-related businesses, as one would expect in the garden of England. Travelling west from the farming villages, one comes to Rainham with its enormous commuter estates and its busy commuter railway line to London. As about 7,000 people travel daily between Gillingham and London, the House can expect a contribution from me when it discusses British Rail.
From Rainham one moves west along the old A2, just as the Romans moved along Watling street, to Gillingham proper. From Norman times, Gillingham developed as a fishing village and port, and in 1547 Chatham dockyard was founded on the banks of the Medway. That great installation gave Gillingham its prominence. Although the third of the dockyard that is described as the historic dockyard lies in Chatham, and is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Mrs. Fenner), the other two thirds which form the modern and commercial dockyard are in Gillingham. I shall concentrate on Her Majesty's dockyard at Chatham and on the associated Royal Naval base, HMS Pembroke.
In some respects this will be a sad speech—almost a funeral oration over the near-cold corpse of the dockyard — but I hope that it will also contain a message of optimism. As one door closes, another opens, and I shall say a little about the new door opening.
I shall talk of the fall and rise of Chatham dockyard. There are others better able to recount the history of Chatham dockyard than myself. However, I must mention that many of the ships that sank the Armada in 1588 were built at Chatham. Nelson's flagship, Victory, was built at Chatham in 1765 and rebuilt there shortly before the battle of Trafalgar. In 1863, the first iron ship, the battleship Achilles, was launched and from 1908 a tremendous expertise with submarines was developed. Latterly, this expertise in submarines has most symbolised the Chatham dockyards.
Particularly in the refuelling and refitting of the hunter-killer submarines, the SSNs, Chatham has enjoyed a preeminence. This pre-eminence caused many to doubt the wisdom of the decision, announced in the 1981 forerunner of today's White Paper, to close the dockyard and its associated royal naval base HMS Pembroke. Those doubts linger. It is not so much the loss of employment prospects that hurts, grievous though that wound is, as the lack of
434
confidence in the alternative facilities for the difficult tasks involved in handling SSNs. The White Paper makes little mention of the royal dockyards. The closure of Chatham commands just 13 words—not much of an obituary for a major part of our naval history.
I pay tribute to my predecessor Sir Frederick Burden, for I share some of his apprehensions about the closure of the Chatham dockyard. Those apprehensions related particularly to the loss of the SSN refuelling and refitting facilities. Sir Frederick fought to save Chatham dockyard in his latter years in the House. He sat in the House for a third of a century and for the whole of that time he fought for the retention of the Chatham dockyard. In his last two years he fought like a tiger for his constituents' interests, frequently to the discomfort of his colleagues. That discomfort did not worry Sir Frederick for he held the interest of his constituents second only to the integrity of the nation. He fought his last battle for the dockyard and lost, but his fight was honourable, for all that.
The dockyard is closing rapidly and the last frigate, HMS Hermione, has completed her refit, which was a particularly long and complex one, and left, as has the nuclear submarine Churchill. The flag officer, Medway, has been appointed to a new post and will finally call down his flag in September. The last social events have been held, and the last wedding has taken place in the garrison church. The petty officers have consumed a bottle of rum and buried the empty near their now-closed petty officers' mess. However, I must not become maudlin. Her Majesty's dockyard Chatham and HMS Pembroke will finally close on 31 March 1984 and 437 years of naval history will be at an end.
Now for the good news. The historic dockyard will be preserved as a living museum with several craft industries vying with one another to set up their skilled trades in the beautiful Georgian dockyard buildings. Already, the newly formed Chatham dockyard flag loft has replaced the naval enterprise making flags, taking on all the former yard employees, and a further four youngsters under the youth training scheme. The historic ropery has been taken on by a private company; it will use the ancient machinery to continue to make ropes, and will provide the Victory with its supply of rigging, which has come from Chatham for the past 200 years.
Here, my speech turns from a mood of pessimism to one of optimism. When I was adopted last August as prospective candidate for Gillingham, there was still an air of all-pervading gloom. The closure of the dockyard would inevitably lead, particularly when combined with other major closures locally, to high unemployment and local desperation. Since then, apart from the craft industries moving into the historic dockyard, the Medway ports authority has decided that it will run port operations in basin No. 3 of the Chatham dockyard. Already, more than 100 workers have been taken on by Thames Ship Repair Services, and there is a prospect of more initiatives.
The Government have taken a praiseworthy initiative by appointing the English Industrial Estates Corporation to redevelop the commercial dockyard. North-west Kent has been granted an enterprise zone. Much has already been done, although much remains to be done, and some of it must be undertaken by Government. Among other things, the road access to the dockyard is not good, but that is a topic for a transport debate.
In the context of this debate, I hope that where it is possible the Government will nudge new defence-oriented

435
industry in the direction of Gillingham and the Medway towns so that those skills that have been developed and honed over 400 years may be put once again to the defence of the realm. I welcome the sound steps taken for the redevelopment of the dockyard and the new youth training scheme with the 5,200 trainees taken on by the services, and, as I read in the paper today, the 2,000 places in the civilian establishment. That may well appeal to those youngsters who would formerly have been taken on by the dockyard to train in HMS Collingwood, the apprentice school. I welcome the new Medway information technology centre that has been set up in Collingwood with 50 young trainees.
All these steps will help the Medway towns to overcome the trauma of losing the Chatham dockyard. They should also help to attract new defence-oriented industry to an area where defence has always been the major employer. Gillingham will mainftin its commitment to our armed services with the presence of the royal school of military engineering. Gillingham's roots in defence are steeped in history, but also have a tremendous potential for carrying the town forward into the future.
I have not talked of the NATO twin-track decision, of cruise and Pershing, of Trident or the conventional forces balance, although I could have done. Rather, I have tried to offer a tribute to the defence efforts of my constituents in the past and to proffer their efforts in the defence of the realm in the future.
7.18 pm
Sir Patrick Wall: I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) on an exceptional maiden speech. As he said, his predecessor, Sir Frederick Burden, was a fighter. Unfortunately, he lost that fight, but his successor will no doubt prove an equally doughty fighter—perhaps over the commuter train services to which he referred. I do not believe that Devonport and Rosyth can compete with the refuelling and refitting of our nuclear submarines in times of tension or war. I regret the closing of that facility, although Chatham as a major dockyard had to go. However, I am glad that my hon. Friend was able to end his speech on an optimistic note.
The White Paper as a whole, with one exception, to which I shall refer later, is excellent, particularly in its explanation of nuclear matters, which are simplified enough to make anybody understand the Government's policy. Trident and cruise are essential. That is shown by the fuss that the Soviet Union, aided by its dupes and fellow travellers in Europe, is making over the deployment of cruise missiles. The result of the general election must have been a blow to the CND, but that will not keep rabble rousers such as Monsignor Bruce Kent quiet, and we shall hear more from that gentleman later. Sometimes, his words against the leaders of both the Church and the state seem to verge on the seditious. However, cruise missiles will be deployed, and only then, in my opinion, will the USSR negotiate seriously in the various defence conferences, such as those on the INF, the MBFR, and so on.
The main burden of my speech will concern NATO. My experience with the NATO Parliament — or the North Atlantic assembly—now spans a decade, and it has taught me much. I shall say a word, first, about the Navy. All the senior NATO naval commanders were
436
horrified at the last Government's plans virtually to decimate the Royal Navy, as we knew it. Fortunately for the Royal Navy, the Government and Europe, it was saved by the Falklands campaign. However, we have to consider not the indifferent Argentines, but the efficient USSR.
The White Paper tells us that in Eastlant the balance is as follows. There are 32 NATO submarines to 81 Soviet submarines, including, of course, the Typhoon of over 25,000 tonnes—the size of a battleship during the last war. In maritime patrol and strike aircraft the balance is 291 on the NATO side and 444 on the Soviet side. Nevertheless, every 24 hours 1,000 ocean-going ships dock in European ports. NATO has about 7,900 ships, 31 million gross registered tonnes, or 7·5 per cent. of the world shipping. Unfortunately, that is declining rapidly, as, of course, is the British Merchant Navy. Nevertheless, in wartime about 2,200 cargoes have to cross the Atlantic every month. That is vital at the start of tension and the continuation of war. How will that vast number of ships be provided, and how will they be defended? How will the ports be kept clear of mines?
In page 14 of the Estimates I see that we now have 59 anti-submarine vessels. However, the most grave sentence in the whole document appears in that page:
"Numbers are expected to decline to about 50 later tn the decade".
The anxiety of all naval commanders, from SACLANT downwards, is the paucity of anti-submarine vessels, helicopters and aircraft in NATO fleets. The Chancellor of the Exchequer need not worry about social services, education, pensions and so on, because, if the third world war happens, there will not be any. If we can avoid world war 3 in the next five years, which I doubt, it will be only by showing the Soviets that they cannot win. At present, I believe that they can win, and we shall never catch up if, for example, it takes us eight years to design and build a small frigate, or a 2,000 tonne submarine. I suggest that the whole of our ship design and building programme needs to be looked into. I am glad that that was mentioned by the Minister in winding up last night.
Now let me say a quick word about the Royal Air Force. The key at the start of any war is the suppression of enemy airfields. The JP 233, mentioned in the White Paper, is an excellent weapon, but it is not a stand-off weapon. In this day and age, against Soviet defences which are extremely good, it is impossible to destroy any well defended airfield without the use of stand-off weapons. That is the view in America. I found, from my experience of visiting various armaments firms, that every firm is adapting its own weapon, the Lance or Patriot, or even the MLRX, to a stand-off capability that can be delivered by an aircraft. We have no such weapons in this country, with the possible exception of Sea Eagle, which in any case is a maritime weapon. Stand-off weapons and good anti-radar weapons are essential for the RAF now —not in 10 years' time, which may well be too late.
I should like to make a constituency point, which has already been mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). It concerns the P164. I remember visiting British Aerospace in Brough, in my constituency, where I was shown diagrams showing that the Jet Provost will fall out of the sky in six or seven years' time. That was denied categorically by the RAF, which said that it did not need a replacement. A replacement was designed at Brough. I have seen the designs, and they have been shown to various hon. Members. Now the RAF

437
suddenly tells us that the air staff target is produced, that it needs the machine in two or three years' time, and that it will have to be bought off the shelf from another country. That is a disgrace. Frankly, for the RAF to say that it does not need a replacement for a number of years, and then to have a volte face, saying that it is needed in the next two or three years and that it will have to buy it off the shelf, is a disgrace. It is bad for British industry, not only for Brough, which expected to manufacture the new training aircraft, but for the whole export potential that would follow.
For the Army, the key problem in war is to identify and engage the enemy, particularly second echelon armour. Today, that could take up to four hours or more, but by the 1990s it will be nearer to four minutes. That shows the advance in high technology that is taking place at present and will take place in the next few years. Developments in America, such as JTIDS, which is mentioned in the White Paper, TAWDS/Pavemaker, which are battlefield airborne radars, Firefinder for locating artillery and mortars, and PLRS for locating other targets, will change the whole shape of conventional warfare. Once that happens, one does not have the same dependence on tactical nuclear weapons. The nuclear threshold will be raised, and that is what hon. Members on both sides want.
Once one has located the target, it must be engaged as rapidly as possible, and in this respect MLRS will be the first weapon system of the new generation. Its rapid engagement is such that it is 45 times the rate of the present artillery for immediate engagement, and 4·7 times the rate for sustained engagement. This illustrates the changes that are taking place in the battlefield in conventional weapons. Let no one think for a moment that conventional weapons will be cheaper than nuclear weapons. They will probably be more expensive. However, if we are to avoid a nuclear war, we must concentrate on the high technology developments that have taken place in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in this country.
It is therefore right for us to spend 24 per cent. of our total budget on research and development. The Minister said that 46 per cent. of the whole defence budget is spent on equipment. We must keep ahead. That is expensive, but it is much cheaper than war. We are ahead of the Soviet Union, even though it has greater numbers than we have.
Lastly, nothing has been said about standardisation, interoperability or co-production. All are happening, but far too slowly. For example, the different ammunition for tanks and different rockets would cause absolute chaos of supply on the battlefield. I believe that Governments should insist on co-operation. We have set a good example. We have co-production with the Americans of the AV8B and the VTXTS trainer and the MLRS that I have already mentioned. That sets an example for the rest of NATO. Of course it will be expensive in the short term, but in the long term it will save money. Greater, not complete, standardisation will be of immense benefit to NATO on the battlefield, if we ever have a war. If the British, American, French and German Governments insisted that every major weapon system should be standardised and co-produced, it would be an immense gain for NATO. That will happen in due course, but by then it may well be too late.
7.30 pm
Mr. Churchill: I endorse the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) and I welcome most warmly my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's first White Paper and his able and wide-ranging speech which introduced the debate yesterday. Many of the improvements to which he referred and which will come into service this year alone will significantly improve the capability of our armed forces —specifically, Challenger, Tornado and tracked Rapier, as well as the many improvisations that have resulted from the lessons learnt in the south Atlantic last year.
It is a sad spectacle to see the Labour party, especially its spokesman the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), who I am sorry is not in his place, lying stranded like some defunct walrus on the sands of time by an abrupt ebb in the tide of one-sided disarmament, so vividly demonstrated by the electorate's categoric rejection of the Labour party's defence policy. It was not merely rejected by the electorate: it was significantly rejected by a majority of Labour voters who are deeply patriotic and solidly in favour of the defence of the realm and who are not prepared to swallow policies that reek of appeasement and which led us into a world war in a previous generation.
So slipshod has the Labour party's approach to defence become that the amendment on the Order Paper today in the name of the right hon. Gentleman and the leader of the Labour party contains two glaring factual errors. It is untrue that Britain spends more, as a percentage of GDP and per capita, on defence than any of our NATO allies. Reference to page 28 of the defence White Paper would have advised the Labour party's defence spokesman that the United States spends twice as much per capita as we do—$856 compared to our $432. The United Kingdom is not just second to the United States in its percentage spending of GDP, it is fourth, coming behind Greece, the United States and Turkey. Such slipshod homework by the Labour party must make the country doubly cautious about accepting the seriousness of any of the propositions that it has advanced about defence.
One key proposition advanced by the Labour party is that we should move as a nation towards a non-nuclear defence in a nuclear age. That may be possible in terms of facing aggression from non-nuclear countries, such as Argentina last year. But what would be the Labour party's response should it ever be returned to government with the policies that it now enunciates, in the event that the Soviet Union demanded the United Kingdom's unconditional surrender and disarmament under threat of a nuclear attack? As my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) so ably put it in an excellent maiden speech yesterday, Britain would be as naked and defenceless in the face of such a threat today as the empire of Japan was in similar circumstances in 1945 when, following the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it had no alternative but to agree to unconditional surrender.
We are also told by the Labour party that we should be doing more for conventional defence. As implausible as the Labour party's proposed non-nuclear policy is its complaint is that the Government are not spending enough on conventional forces. That is rich coming from a party that recently fought an election on the avowed proposition

439
of cutting defence expenditure by no less than 31 per cent. —a cut of a scale that even the scrapping of the entire Royal Navy would be insufficient to satisfy.
We are told that we and our NATO allies should agree to a concept of no first use of nuclear weapons. That certainly gives great concern to many people, but the fact is that it is utterly impossible for NATO allies to resist an all-out onslaught by Soviet conventional forces without resort to nuclear weapons, either today or in the foreseeable future. It is difficult for us to appreciate the scale of conventional forces that confront us and it is not made any easier by the White Paper which, by taking a blinkered view of a narrow geographical area on the central front, minimises the scale of the threat that confronts us. That is a complaint that I have registered not only with the previous Secretary of State but with the Secretary of State in the Labour Government.
I make this plea to my right hon. Friend. In future, a wider geographical area should be taken into account, because the figures published in the White Paper show that the Warsaw pact, not just the Soviet Union, has 980,000 men with 17,800 tanks confronting NATO which has 790,000 men and 7,200 tanks. That is only a fraction of what confronts the West, because what is included on the Western side is virtually all our capability apart from the air mobile forces of the United States which would be flown in in a crisis. Thereafter, we have virtually no significant reserves worth the name to throw into such a conflict. In contrast, the Soviet Union has 25 million reserve forces which it can call up, which have had formal military training within the past 10 years on conscript service and which have done regular subsequent refresher training.
The scale of the disparity can be shown by the fact that the Soviet manpower on full mobilisation of all reserves amounts to 30 million while that of the United States is one tenth of that, at 2·9 million. There is no way in which under such circumstances NATO forces could hold their ground in the face of such a force without a minimum of two years' conscription throughout the Alliance and a doubling of the present outlays on defence, which most would find an unacceptable burden in peacetime.
I am the first to agree that we need to raise the nuclear threshold, which is unacceptably low at present. That can be done by acquiring the latest anti-armour precision-guided munitions and at the same time by increasing the reserve forces. That brings me to two areas in which the Government's efforts have been less titan adequate and where a high priority must be given to rectifying the situation. They are the reserve forces and air defence which are both vitally concerned with he defence of the United Kingdom's home base. The cheapest and most cost-effective form of raising military manpower on a large scale is by expanding reserve forces. I warmly welcome what has been achieved already in terms of expanding the territorials and creating the home service defence force. The fact remains that in, the event of an unforeseen future crisis we would have to mobilise more than 98 per cent. of our people without a weapon or a uniform. That is a grave weakness. I want a substantial expansion of, above all, the home service force to provide for our defence and to supplement the regular and territorial forces.
I had some fierce strictures to make on air defence some eight years ago when the Labour party was in government. I pointed out then that there were no more than seven
440
squadrons with 70 aircraft available for the air defence of Britain. When the Conservative Government took office they said that they would give a high priority to that problem. I am sorry to note that the White Paper allows for only six squadrons of Phantoms and Lightnings with fewer than 70 aircraft. Why is it taking so long to arm the 72 Hawks with sidewinders? That is desperately needed.
Following the renewal of the Government's mandate, I hope that they will take the lead in two areas above all others. First, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, I hope that they will assist Third world countries such as Afghanistan, Angola, Somalia and others to resist Soviet expansionism. It is in our interests to help them to do that. Secondly, I hope that we will take the lead in ensuring that no stone is left unturned in efforts to secure a far-reaching, balanced and verifiable disarmament—not only nuclear, but chemical and conventional. The time has never been more favourable to do that. We are close to reaching an agreement. Although we are a junior partner in the Alliance, we should take the initiative to bring about the agreement that we are so anxious to achieve.
It is time for a greater dialogue between the Government and the leadership of the Soviet Union. While it is important that in such dialogue we should hold tenaciously to our objectives, it is equally important that there should be discussions between the Government and the Soviet leadership. We should not leave that to our allies in Europe and to the United States.
7.43 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I catch your eye for the first time, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not without that feeling of awe and trepidation known to so many other new Members. A maiden speech is a hurdle that must be cleared quickly. The longer one puts off clearing that hurdle, the more daunting the task becomes.
I have listened with close interest to many of the speeches in both yesterday's and today's debates. Before making a specific contribution, I wish to make some general observations.
Since 9 June it has been my great privilege to represent the constituency of Basingstoke. Savaged by the Boundary Commission, the revised constituency is very different from the previous constituency represented for 19 years by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell). Hon. Members will not be surprised to hear me say that he was held in great respect, admiration and even affection by his former constituents. He is proving to be a difficult man to follow. My great hope is that I shall serve the new constituency as well as he served the old.
The revised constituency falls naturally into two parts. First, there is the new development of the town of Basingstoke. The developers and planners of the late 1960s and early 1970s transformed almost beyond recognition the old market town. It is now effectively a vigorous and thriving new town. Its industrial life exemplifies the transition that much of British industry must make from the smokestack to the microchip.
The industry of Basingstoke is essentially modern. It has generally weathered well, and is continuing to weather, the recession, for a number of reasons. One is its diverse and varied base. It is far from being a one-industry

441
town. Another reason is that the Conservative-dominated local authority has done its best to keep down costs. The result has been a growing town.
Around the town the constituency boasts some of the most delightful countryside and picturesque villages to be found anywhere in Hampshire or even further afield. Agriculture dominates those areas. The villages are, perhaps, being transformed slowly due to planned growth and the arrival of the commuter. The latter is attracted by the proximity of motorways and the excellent rail service.
As there are no military bases, depots or installations in the constituency, it is the least military of all the Hampshire constituencies. However, at least two of the town's largest employers—Lansing Bagnall and Smith's —are involved in defence contracts, and many of those working at Aldermaston live in the constituency. In recent months the proximity of Greenham has been hard to forget.
I welcome and applaud the contents of the defence Estimates. I especially welcome the quotation from the 1980 Estimates:
"It is the fundamental duty of Government to ensure the nation's security".
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Mr. Powell), who yesterday said how much that principle had influenced the result of the general election. The evidence that came my way overwhelmingly convinced me that national security was one of the greatest reasons why so many people changed their traditional voting habits.
I also welcome the White Paper commitment to continue
"substantially increasing defence expenditure … over the next few years"
and to make
"provision to meet the NATO aim of 3 per cent. annual real growth up to 1985–86".
With the clear lesson of history in mind that a potential aggressor becomes an actual aggressor when he thinks he can get away with it, it is essential to maintain sufficient spending to achieve an approximate balance of military power. The old saying, "If you want peace prepare for war," has lost none of its meaning.
Another welcome statement is:
"We must do all in our power to reach agreement with the Soviet Union on the limitation and reduction of armaments."
The INF negotiations and START provide the immediate forum for that. Such agreement will be achieved only by negotiating from a position of strength. Therefore, I fully accept the statement's argument:
"Only if they"—
the Soviet Union—
"are faced with a resolute approach may they eventually be brought to recognise that a balanced agreement to limit and reduce forces is in the interests of both sides."
I wish to widen my remarks and mention one or two or my heresies—areas where I depart from that norm of orthodoxy, the statement itself.
The first such area is the Navy. Despite what my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) said, I take courage from my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Pink), who expressed sentiments similar to those which I am about to declare. I confess that I still harbour lingering doubts about the wisdom of the reduction in size of our surface fleet. I hope that I am wrong, but I remain uneasy. There is a compelling logic in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for
442
Portsmouth, South that if our commitments are not to be reduced our Navy should not be reduced either. The statement refers to the deployment of a major maritime capability in the eastern Atlantic and the Channel as one of our strategic objectives. I wonder whether the right decisions have been made about how that may best be implemented.
I suspect that my second heresy will not make me popular with Opposition Members. However, it so happens that I have come to believe that a scheme of national service would do more good than harm. I have in mind a scheme that would include a major element of military service, but not exclusively such. A recent development which I welcome very much is the plan to extend the youth training scheme to the armed forces. I see the YTS thus applied as a measure that will go some way towards fulfilling my wishes. I wish the scheme well in that area and I hope that it will be expanded in the course of time.
I have the courage to mention my third heresy, which may well invoke wrath from my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am one of the unfashionable who are not entirely happy about the overall strategy of reinforcing BAOR at a time of crisis, or, God forbid, when hostilities seem imminent. I am a commissioned officer in the reserve forces and I do not think that I speak in entire ignorance.
I doubt whether such reinforcing could be carried out effectively and efficiently within the limited time factor. However, I am aware that the strategy was devised at a time when West Germany played a lesser role in defence of the West. There are strong political, military and economic arguments for thinking that West Germany should play an even greater part in the defence of mainland Europe.
In the Estimates we find reaffirmed with clarity and vigour the belief that our best security lies through our total commitment to NATO, in our independent nuclear deterrent, in our efforts to maintain an approximate balance of military power and through multilateral disarmament. I believe, just as the electorate decided a little over a month ago, that that is the voice of sanity.
7.54 pm
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am sure that we all much enjoyed the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter). If he felt nervous, he certainly did not show it. I hope that he was able to appreciate the way in which the House listened to him attentively. He will always find that the House listens to him in that way when he speaks with the knowledge and candour to which he treated us today.
I agree profoundly with the second and third of his heresies. I do not think that my hon. Friend should ever worry about admitting to a heresy, provided that he argues with the conviction and sincerity that he demonstrated this evening. He and his constituents must feel proud of his performanc. He is following in the footsteps of someone who is fortunately still with us in this place—my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell). I feel sure that the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke will come to respect him as much as they respected his predecessor.
I wish to draw the attention of the House to page 24 of the White Paper. Under the heading "New Technology, New Tactics", the first sentence of paragrah 4 sets out succinctly the Government's intention. It states:

443
"The successful combination of new technology and new tactical concepts holds out considerable potential for a major improvement in NATO's conventional posture, and the hope of a significant raising of the nuclear threshold."
In that paragraph the Government are expressing their support for and agreement with the June 1982 decision at the meeting of NATO Defence Ministers in Bonn that the Alliance should explore ways of taking full advantage, both technologically and economically, of emerging technologies. That, as much as anything else, gives the lie to the rather stupid statements that came from the Opposition Front Bench — that somehow they, the Opposition, invented conventional warfare, that they are the only people who believe in conventional technology and that the Government Benches are occupied by unreconstructed nuclear holocaust men. That is not true, and I think that many Opposition Members recognise that fact.
Conventional defence has been the subject of growing interest within the Alliance. For many years there have been repeated calls for increased conventional capability. The current debate has taken on a particular significance. As a member of the NATO assembly we have attempted to show our interest in the issue by setting up a subcommittee on conventional defence, of which I am chairman.
First, there is the desirability of raising the nuclear threshold. There is considerable public concern—which was expressed throughout the nation during the election campaign—about the role of nuclear weapons within the Alliance strategy.
Secondly, the changing balance of military strength and conventional forces between NATO and the Warsaw pact has been the cause of increasing concern. For many years we were able to say that NATO was quantitatively outnumbered by the Warsaw pact, but that we would be able to make good by qualitative superiority. As we all know, the qualitative gap has closed or is closing in many significant areas.
The third cause for increasing concern is the development of dramatic technological advances that will make revolutionary improvements in conventional force capability. Some important consequences flow from these developments, but we should not allow them to carry us away too far. I have in mind equipment such as Stealth, which will make aircraft invisible to radar. That development is taking place now. High definition airborne radar can pick up, identify and track moving vehicles many miles behind the enemy's lines. Command and computer control systems can interpret information and dispatch missiles loaded with hundreds of thousands of lethal microprocessor precision guided munitions—no bigger than clay pigeon skeets — to home in like a swarm of bees on unsuspecting Russian tanks.
The House will know that the SHAPE headquarters is close to the battlefield of Waterloo. A British commander, with a fine sense of history that we like to see possessed by our senior military men, reminded my Committee that, for the first time since Wellington's day, the modern commander will be able to see what is happening not only on the battlefield but behind the battlefield. We all know that Wellington was able to do that by sitting on a horse on a hill. Modern commanders will be able to see what is going on with the use of sensors, airborne radar and precision guided missiles. The new microelectronic technology, allied to the computer, will make for
444
increasing accuracy in targeting capability. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) said, these developments will fulfil many of the military missions assigned solely to nuclear battlefield weapon systems.
That is all heady and exciting stuff. The harnessing of emerging technologies to military science conjures up a vision of conventional terrestrial "Star Wars". Before we become too carried away by that prospect, a few observations should be made. I do not wish to be unduly sceptical, but certain reservations should be raised at this juncture. The danger is that the emerging technology, which may influence the conduct of battle and the credibility of our deterrent, may raise expectations that cannot realistically be fulfilled. It is possible to raise false hopes by fostering the belief that emerging technology will abolish dependence on nuclear weapons.
If we were to deprive ourselves of the nuclear deterrent, we would, of course, play completely into the hands of the Soviet war planners. I accept that, because many of NATO's short-range nuclear weapons are deployed far forward in Germany, we face the choice "use or lose them" in the event of aggression. Replacement by conventional weapons would help to move the Alliance towards, a "no early first use" policy. Therefore, on that score alone, I believe that we should encourage the Government vigorously to explore new ways of using the emerging technology for conventional forces.
It can also be argued that, by raising the nuclear threshold, one is lowering the general threshold of war by making conventional conflict more rather than less likely. Should the Alliance field conventional forces capable of holding and defeating a Warsaw pact conventional attack, Soviet war planning may include the early pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons. For that reason, I think that it would be folly to encourage people to believe that this new technology offers an easy escape from the necessity of possessing nuclear weapons. We should be in no doubt that, emerging technology or no emerging technology, we shall continue to require nuclear weapons in our armoury of response.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin)—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber, but some of his hon. Friends are present—denied the need for this type of response. I do not know what reliable source he draws on to sustain his belief. Yesterday, during the debate on the defence Estimates, the right hon. Gentleman was challenged by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who said:
"The right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to meet conventional with conventional, but if we do not have adequate conventional forces to meet the attack, what are the choices? They are either nuclear or surrender."
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford replied:
"The answer lies in two facts. First, we have the conventional forces available."—[Official Report, 19 July 1983; 'Vol 46, c. 193.]
The right hon. Gentleman went on to explain how he put faith in their ability to act as a suitable deterrent, if not to repel a Soviet attack.
The right hon. Gentleman wants people to believe that emerging technology is the salvation. I believe that that is an erroneous doctrine. The right hon. Gentleman believes that one can have a credible defence policy without nuclear weapons, but he cannot claim the backing of the most distinguished group so far to complete a study of conventional defence in Europe — the report of the Europe security study entitled "Strengthening

445
Conventional Deterrence in Europe". The group included Field Marshal Lord Carver. The study accepts the NATO doctrine of flexible response under which
"the Alliance stands ready to use whatever level of strength may be needed to repel aggression."
It accepts the need and ability to raise the nuclear threshold when this helps
"to sustain an initial and preferred resistance against conventional aggression by conventional means."
That is what we all prefer. The group adds:
"We do not believe that the Alliance can hope to escape from the need for nuclear weapons in order to deter nuclear attack."
Let the Government be aware that there are Conservative Members who respect the need to look for ways and means of raising the nuclear threshold. We also expect our Government to ensure that we have, and continue to have, in our armouries an adequate nuclear response.
Dealing with the conventional side and the emergence of new technology, paragraph 5 in page 24 of the White Paper says:
"The introduction of new technology cannot take place overnight, nor should it be seen as a panacea for any weakness in our conventional forces. There are three main reasons for this. Owing to their long gestation period, weapons systems that take advantage of even modest technological advances are unlikely to appear in numbers for some years; and more advanced systems may take a decade or more to appear."
The Government are wise to utter those caveats. They are well supported by people outside
Not long ago we saw the commander-in-chief of the central region in NATO. He told us that he was unable to include emerging technologies in his force planning. He noted that the cost of weapons systems increases exponentially as a function of depth of targets to be hit. In his book, emerging technology was not a number one priority. That, of course, is in the region where emerging technology would eventually become more applicable. Expenditure on sophisticated systems to attack poor quality follow-on forces would not necessarily make most sense from a military perspective. Enhanced readiness and sustainability of existing and programmed forces may produce more direct and meaningful results. They are less exciting and less exotic; but it is results we want.
In any case, before we plunge too readily into this giddy world of high technology, we should recognise that the Alliance force goals are not being met. Few countries are meeting the extra targets laid down and agreed to by their own Governments. Britain is one of the few exceptions. Fulfilment of these goals would be one immediate and straightforward measure to improve conventional defence. That is the sort of support that we expect also from Opposition Members who believe so fervently in conventional defence.
This will cost money. We must still focus our attention on prosaic things — my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) emphasised this point—such as logistics, readiness, better trained reserves—goodness knows, we need them—air defence, ammunition stocks and, of course, greater efficiency through interoperability. An important consideration is the cost not only of those things, but of emerging technology. The report of the study to which I referred estimated that over 10 years the cost would be about £10 billion for NATO as a whole. That could be 50 per cent. out either way. It is a crude guesstimate and we should be careful that we know what we are getting into.
446
What will be the effect of applying new technology on our relations with the United States? I shall not develop this point today because I am conscious that other hon. Members have sat through a long day on the Back Benches, but one point should be made. I am glad to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in the Chamber, because he fights a good battle on our behalf. Given the restrictive technological transfer issue, and the protectionist measures undertaken by the United States, is it not likely that emerging technology could mean for us not development and production of European technology, but additional European purchases from the United States defence manufacturers? It is not my purpose to put a wedge between us, but that point is worth making to encourage the Government to keep up this fight. If we are to adopt the technology, it must be on a fair basis between the American and the European producer.
Those are some of the issues raised by the reference in the White Paper to the new technology. Despite the fact that it is easy to get carried away by the new technology, in no way should that diminish the Government's resolve to raise the nuclear threshold.
8.8 pm
Mr. Colin Moynihan: I regard it as both an honour and a privilege to stand before the House as the Member for Lewisham, East. Any who doubt the high standard of political debate in the House should have listened to the many speeches that I have had the privilege to hear during the past few days. I only hope that my contribution will not completely disappoint those of my hon. Friends who have spoken before me.
A significant reason for feeling both humility and honour derives from the outstanding public service given to the people of Lewisham, East by my predecessor. Roland Moyle. Throughout his career he gave dedicated service as much to his party as to his constituents. He was a capable Minister, worthy of praise. Hon. Members in all parts of the House who have known him will long have recognised him as a loyal, likeable and highly competent Member of Parliament. Roland Moyle set standards I shall do my utmost to maintain. I take this opportunity to thank him for all the work he has undertaken on behalf of the people he has served.
The challenges in Lewisham, East remain considerable. It is a constituency notable for wide variations in housing and social conditions, embracing the large estates of Downham and the historic village of Blackheath. Such diversity requires a Member of Parliament who is capable of dedicating himself to hard work and close and continuous communication with his electorate.
The people of Lewisham are themselves the inspiration for the hon. Members representing that borough. They create an excellent community spirit and they maintain the very best characteristics of Londoners: independent minds, strong wills, friendly and open dispositions, a great sense of humour, yet powerful and determined in their views. Their privilege is to be Londoners in an historic borough. Mine is the honour to serve them. It is fitting that I should have the honour to address the House on an issue which concerns all my constituents, all Londoners and everyone who is rightly concerned about our future peace and prosperity.
During the election campaign, the whole question of our defence became a major electoral issue for the first

447
time since Suez. It was clear to all of us on the doorsteps that, as important as understanding the technicalities of modern weapon systems, we needed, and will continue to need, to enunciate what we are defending. We must be prepared clearly to voice the kind of society in which we want to live and how we shall defend it. We must strive for individual freedom, not just for our people but for everyone born into the community of nations around the world.
We must be prepared fully to understand the nature of systems which are inimical to the principles of freedom and democracy. Ours must never become a world where individual voices are muffled, where no public opinion is allowed to exist. Ours must never become a world where individual liberty extends no further than thought and where freedom of thought is exorcised by political indoctrination. Those characteristics find no home on the hearth of freedom.
Democracy has deep and strong roots. Its fruits may be delicate but they are well worth protecting because they feed our people with hope and opportunity. They are the fruits of representation, liberty and law. They nurture freedom for the individual. They protect the inalienable rights of all of us and they must be defended as much against external aggression as against internal subversion and anarchy.
Externally, we need to be realistic about what is and is not possible. What we arguably can do is to work with the Soviets to try to reduce the enormous expenditure on both sides and to turn away from the escalation of the nuclear balance towards a long and continuing process of arms reduction. What we cannot do—the sooner everybody realises it the better—is disinvent the nuclear bomb.
Those who want to engage in a serious debate about arms reduction should now consider carefully how we are to proceed. Those who want to disinvent the bomb have, I regret to say, embarked on a futile exercise which has no bearing on the serious debate.
From the nuclear arms build-up which we have experienced in recent years we muse move towards a balanced stand-off position and from there to verifiable and mutual disarmament. We must never settle for agreements which undermine our ability to deter. Nor should we restrict our full and total commitment to the arms control negotiating tables. It is the unity of NATO and a united and strong West which brings the Russians to the negotiating tables.
Without unity, there can be no strength. Weakness and disunity will be mocked in Moscow. One-sided disarmament has no place in this defence equation. Survival consists of an arms stand-off. Mankind has invented a weapon so fearsome that, provided the balance is never upset, it will never be used. In the year in which I was born, the late Sir Winston Churchill gave in this House a characteristically brilliant address on defence. In one of his last speeches as Prime Minister he said that it
"may well be that we shall by a process of sublime irony have reached the stage in this story where safety will be the sturdy child of terror, and survival the twin brother of annihilation." —[Official Report, 1 March 1955; Vol 537, c. 1899.]
Such foresight heralded the era of armed peace. Tomorrow, we must look to where new threats lie. In my view, they are twofold.
The Soviets already recognise that they effectively face a stand-off. They are therefore using political will to destabilise our democracies and win by stealth what they
448
cannot win by arms. Against this threat, we have the difficult and challenging task of defending our democracies. A system where choice and consent are principles of government is far more susceptible to penetration and subversion than a system in which the state insists that the individual must, in duty, respond in full to the state.
In tomorrow's world, the second and potentially the greater danger that we will face is instability and proliferation. People who have something to lose do not start revolutions; they are started by hungry people. Lunatics or dictators in the mood of Hitler with a nuclear arsenal at their disposal highlight the potential danger of proliferation. Moreover, the moral dilemma of counter-strike in such circumstances increases manifold in countries where 90 per cent. or more of the people may be known vigorously to oppose a dictatorial or military government.
Over the years, the House of Commons has seen many young men and women determined in their turn to voice their concern against the spectre of war. Half a century ago, many spoke of the need for disarmament and appeasement. Today, those voices are not silent. However, a new generation is entering the House. Its members are passionately determined to maintain the peace and passionate in their belief that we have a real prospect of doing so by attributing proper spending programmes to defence and maintaining an updated and serious NATO counterbalance to the Warsaw pact.
I recognise that many hon. Members have travelled the road through war with its misery, deprivation and suffering. Their experience and knowledge humbles me. However, I hope that, after 38 years of the most heavily armed peace in the history of the world, I will have the honour and opportunity to stand in this Chamber in 38 years' time. I pray that at the age of 65 I will then be able to say that my zeal on entering the House has not dwindled, my total belief in our system of representative government has not waned and my passionate conviction that peace is achieved through strength has been proved correct.
8.18 pm
Mr. Bruce George: I can forgive the electors of Lewisham, East for their temporary aberration a few weeks ago. I could not forgive them if that aberration lasted for 38 years, but having heard an excellent speech, which raised the standard of literary excellence to levels rarely exceeded in this House, I feel that the old stagers in this House, who always bring out the same speech, or permutation of five speeches, will be considerably threatened by the likes of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) with his new and sensible ideas, which may seem rather strange to his colleagues. It has absolved me from the difficulty of having to eulogise, as so often happens, an appalling maiden speech. Thankfully, I do not have to go through the tortuous process of lying, because the hon. Gentleman's speech was highly competent and well delivered, and will no doubt be delivered many times in the years ahead.
Given the upsurge of Conservatism following the election, I suppose that it will be my lot in life to rise to speak after many maiden speakers in the months ahead. However, I hope that the wheel will turn rather differently at the next election. Apparently, the worst maiden speech ever was made by a gentleman named Gibson Craig. The

449
hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) related the story in one of his books. He said that Mr. Craig got up for his maiden speech, opened his mouth and closed it. He tried to speak, but no words came out. He looked like a stuck pig. His friends cheered, "Hear, hear, hear," but no words came out. Finally, he sat down. I have no idea how Hansard coped with that speech. However, if the hon. Gentleman goes up to check his speech an hour from now, I am sure that he will discover that Hansard found it very difficult to improve on his style of presentation.
The Minister has heard my speech in part before. I have often said the same thing, but nothing ever happens to make me change my analysis of the situation. I am sure that the same is true for others. The White Paper is an excellent read, but it should be filed in many libraries on the shelf marked "fiction". At £8·50, however, it is reasonably good value for money, although at some stage I hope that we shall follow the pattern set by other countries in putting out cheaper versions that are easier to read. That would save people from wading through a document that is, nevertheless, in this case well written in parts. It is important not simply to rely on newspapers in order to pass on the contents of defence White Papers to the wider world.
It is not the Ministry's fault that the debate has not been preceded by an investigation by the Defence Committee. Publication of a White Paper involves more than just a ritual debate here. For three years, since the establishment of the Defence Committee, there has been a series of hearings at which Ministers, senior civil servants and military men have given evidence. The contents of the document are analysed closely and the House is then often presented with an excellent analysis of it. Therefore, those hon. Members who are interested in defence can read the White Paper and then read a good and searching study. It is regrettable that there was no such inquiry last year because of the Falklands war. It is even more regrettable that there has been no inquiry this time because of the failure to establish the Select Committee system.
It is most unfortunate that it will be some months before the Select Committees are functioning. However, I suspect that the fault lies more with the Opposition than with the Government side of the House. In any election, pundits tell us that there will not be much of a debate on defence and foreign affairs in a democratic society. In democracies, people are obsessed by their economic self-interest. After all, we are told, politics ends at the sea shore. That implies that there may be differences between parties, but that they are not fundamental. I am not saying that there has been a consensus on defence in the past 20 years, but it is regrettable that the views of the parties should have diverged so considerably.
The election settled some matters—who was to leave and enter the House and who the Government were to be — but it has not settled the defence issue for the Government or the Opposition. The Government cannot claim that they have a mandate to do all that they wish in defence. Anyone who invested money in the Conservative manifesto — a rather bland document — would hardly have been enlightened about defence.
If we analyse the poll data produced by reputable organisations, we will see many contradictions. Despite the fact that the Labour party took a hammering—in some cases deservedly—because of its ambivalence not
450
just on defence policy but on some of our other policies, some elements of our defence policy did not incur the universal contempt that a reading of Conservative speeches since the election would have us believe. We must remember that there is by no means an overwhelming majority—depending on which poll one looks at—for the siting of cruise or Trident missiles here. Quite the reverse.
The Labour party failed to convince the electorate that it was seriously interested in defence. We made the ritual statements that we were committed to NATO and that we wanted to build up conventional defences. However, because of what had occurred in previous years, many of the statements were looked upon with some sceptcism by those of the electorate who were interested. That does not necessarily amount to a majority of the population. The electorate was interested, but not knowledgeable in every case.
The Labour party has lessons to learn and I wonder whether it is prepared to learn them. The first lesson is that if it is a democratic Socialist party, that does not imply that it must be a pacifist or a neutralist party or that it has no obligation to maintain a viable defence policy. If we look at sister or brother Socialist parties throughout Europe, we will see that socialism does not mean a low defence commitment.
Next week, I am going to Paris at my own expense—this is a bit difficult because of the decision of 4 o'clock this morning; my plans were laid before the vote—to look at French defence policy, to see how a Socialist President can have a defence policy that out-deGualles de Gaulle. In France, Socialism is not to be equated with the laying down of arms and reliance upon the good nature of potential adversaries. If we look at all shades of Socialist parties, not just thoughout Europe, we see that a fundamental duty of any Government is to maintain a level of defence expenditure that the country can afford and, in many cases, a level that it cannot afford.
Governments do not devise defence policies just on the basis of internal party politics and compromise but on alliance obligations and a perception of the threat. While I do not belong to that camp of the Labour party that views the Government of the Soviet Union with great favour, it is not the time to adopt such a charitable attitude towards such a potential adversary. This is a view shared by many of my colleagues in the Labour movement. When that time comes — I hope that it does — we can devote our resources to health, social services and those areas of public policy that have been, and I suspect will be, starved of funds.
The first lesson that the Labour party must learn is that it must develop a viable defence policy that serves our needs and convinces the electorate that it is seriously interested in defending this country. There is nothing immoral about the concept of patriotism, although patriotism carried to extremes is repugnant. Working-class people can have a pride in their country and want to defend it whichever Government might be in power. The Labour party must not assume that patriotism or nationalism is per se immoral and repugnant.
We must say not what we will abandon, but what we will provide for defence. At the Labour party conference, we passed resolutions maintaining our support for NATO, although many of its policies might have weakened NATO and might have led to something that I fear—an attitude developing among many Americans who say, "Why do we

451
bother? If the Europeans are not prepared to defend themselves, why should we?" That may be an irrational view — Europe may be contributing more to its own defence than many Americans believe —but it is not what is true that is important, but what people think is true. Therefore, the Labour party must play its part within the Alliance and the Labour party and the Government must ensure that the Alliance is kept on a proper course and maintains a proper balance between rearmament and arms control. Those are some of the lessons that the Labour party must learn, but whether we do only time will tell.
The election campaign was not spent rationally debating defence issues. It focused largely upon the deficiencies, real and imagined, of the Labour party, which meant that the spotlight was turned away from the Government's defence record, which, despite high expenditure, is not one in which Conservatives can have enormous pride. I have listened to the codewords being used by hon. Members who are not yet sufficiently courageous to condemn the Government or to make a frontal attack upon them. It is done clandestinely in subliminal words. If Ministers read the speeches, they will find many hon. Members voicing reservations about defence policy.
The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), in his maiden speech, made a fine attempt to justify what is being done by job creation schemes and small craft industries in Gillingham. However, that did not hide the fact that this Government have done what no Government have done since the time of Henry VIII—denude that area of a royal dockyard. If there were Members of Parliament here representing Gibraltar, they would say the same, and hon. Members from Portsmouth would lament the fact that the dockyard there is beilg run down. That is unfortunate, because the party committed to defence is diminishing our Navy, which has played such an important part in the Alliance and in our history.
People are worried about the cuts in the Navy. No doubt the Admiralty board is expressing anxiety about the size of the Navy and the fact that naval de sign is farmed out to private enterprise. It is surprising that we did not send Group 4 to the Falkland Islands, such is the Government's mania for privatisation.
We are going for Trident, which means that the hunter-killer submarine programme will be reduced and eliminated. The Soviet navy has 200 attack submarines which might directly threaten us, yet we will virtually abandon any hunter-killer submarine programme.
As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I have seen how tank drivers and others have been deprived of practice because of fuel cuts. I have seen pilots whose expertise and efficiency are decreasing because they have not been allowed to fly for long enough. There has been a so-called reorganisation of BAOR. There have been cuts in service personnel. In 1979 the Government proposed an emergency programme to improve our air defences by arming the Hawk. How many Hawks have been armed with sidewinders so far? I believe that it is only one. If I am wrong, I will apologise. So much for an "emergency" programme.
It has been said that we have 70 planes in our air defence. I remember an article in the Daily Telegraph five or six years ago, when Labour was in office and when the size of our air defence was larger, stating that its size was
452
a major scandal. Scandals in defence are reserved for the Labour Government and not for the so-called party of defence.
If we are going for Trident, as the Government are determined to do, a price will have to be paid. It is too accurate for our needs and too expensive. We shall not have enough money to put the missiles in the missile tubes. Trident's range is too long and its price is too high. The costs of maintaining it will be even higher than budgeted. The Government are already making room for Trident expenditure. The cuts in service personnel and the dockyards and the reorganisation are to make room for Trident expenditure. I have said many times that there is no way that the Government can have Trident and adequate conventional defences. I said that 18 months ago. If one superimposes on our stretched defence budget the Falklands expenditure and the new runway, it is stretched to the limit.
The Falklands runway should be improved, but I am sceptical of the need to build it on a green field site at March Ridge. I am not yet convinced that the case for expanding Port Stanley runway has been made. We need to have a strategic airfield, though at Stanley it might be less diplomatically provocative. It might be more expensive to build it on a green field site. It might be more difficult to defend because we are splitting our forces between the new airfield and the seat of Government. As the Select Committee on Defence said on page 81 of its report:
"We have not sufficient detailed information to state a firm preference for any particular course of action."
The press got it wrong. It said that the Select Committee was in favour of the fortress Falklands policy. It was more in favour of a stockade Falklands policy. "Fortress" implies permanence and "stockade" implies impermanence. There was little contact between the Select Committee on Defence and the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, but they appear to have come by different routes to the same conclusion. We have to stay in the Falklands in the short term and perhaps in the medium term until we can enter into genuine negotiations with a civilian Government in Argentina. Then, once again, we can start negotiating properly. The reason is obvious. We are digging a hole for ourselves in the Falklands and pouring vast sums of money down that hole, and our defences elsewhere will be—perhaps not now, but in the near future—stretched thinly.
Hon. Members may not regard the department of peace studies in Bradford as a sacrosanct source of information. If they cut through their prejudice and look at the well-argued case and the evidence given to the Select Committee on defence, which was expanded in a paper published yesterday, they will come to the conclusion that I came to—that we shall be maintaining far too high a percentage of our diminishing Navy in the south Atlantic. We need to look at that matter with considerable trepidation.
Many diplomatic solutions for the Falklands have been suggested, but rejected. I am certain that in the not-toodistant future, with some intelligence and good will on both sides, the leaseback arrangement that was mentioned some years ago and rejected out of hand will have some validity and support.
In today's edition of The Times we are told by a former hon. Member, Bill Rodgers, how the Select Committee on Defence, of which I am a member, has shirked its

453
responsibilities and been duped by the armed forces, civil servants and Ministers. That is unfair. I am proud to be a former member of the Select Committee on Defence and I hope to be a member of that Committee when it is reconstituted. I am sure that the stampede to be a member of that Committee will be greater among Conservative Members than among Labour Members. The Committee was not afraid to enter contentious areas. We examined the D notice system, the replacement of Polaris, the defence of the Falklands, the relationship between the media and the Ministry in that war and positive vetting.
Committees of that kind also play an important role in informing hon. Members and in improving accountability. That is why they must be swiftly reconstituted. They enable the quality of debates in the House to be maintained, to put it politely, or even enhanced. Few hon. Members on either side of the House express interest in and have knowledge of defence issues. Ministers and civil servants can thus get away with generalities and platitudes and debates in the House frequently revolve around such generalities.
The House must establish a raison d'etre, not just in defence but in other areas, because we have lost much of our power. That power has not been usurped; it has been thrown away by Back Benchers. We must reassert our historic role and be involved in policy formulation at an early stage. The Government have no monopoly of wisdom and intelligence. There is a knowledge of defence matters throughout the House which should properly be incorporated into the decision-making process.
In conclusion, I reiterate my compliments to the hon. Member for Lewisham, East. I warn him that he will ruffle many feathers with his new approach and speaking with such style, but no doubt the dead hand of mediocrity that tends to prevail will in time reduce him to the standard of us mere mortals.
8.43 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: We are all indebted to the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George), who showed great courage in criticising his party's approach to defence in the general election. Perhaps that is because he was a member of the Select Committee on Defence. President Mitterrand's stand, as I hope the hon. Gentleman will agree, derives from the fact that France has been invaded twice within a century. Mitterrand himself took part in the last war and he appreciates the dangers of the Soviet Union as an enemy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) said in a brilliant speech that the general election was the first election in which defence was the paramount issue, and that was certainly my experience. Whether he likes it or not, I am sure the hon. Member for Walsall, South will agree that the Labour party did not approach defence in the right way. The result of the general election shows that the country as a whole has departed from a unilateral approach to a multilateral approach to disarmament. The argument between unilateral disarmament and multilateral, verifiable disarmament helped to give the Conservatives their large majority. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that Cmnd. 8951 sets out the general policy on which the Conservatives fought the general election. There is no
454
question about that. The election result thus proved that the electorate would never accept any form of unilateral disarmament.
The document before the House spells out how Britain and NATO can preserve peace in the world by a combination of three things — our possession of an independent nuclear deterrent, our reliance on NATO and the presence of the United States. We must never forget that the United States has a presence of 60,000 people in Britain and more than 500,000 in Europe. Nor should we forget the generosity that the Americans have shown us in the supply of equipment. That has meant that we have been able to stand up to Soviet superiority.
I am always impressed by what my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) says. Today, he spelt out the disparity between us and the Soviet Union, especially in conventional weapons, and it is not only in conventional weapons that the Soviet Union is greatly increasing its superiority. It will be a tremendous task to persuade it to reduce its arms. All the signs are that the Soviet Union is determined to preserve its strength. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East said, there is a great danger that we shall come out of any peace negotiations at a disadvantage.
As we do not have compulsory military service, we must ensure that we have sufficient armed reserves, not simply in the form of the Territorial Army. Like many hon. Members, I welcome the youth training scheme, but the scheme for military training is not sufficient. We must increase our manpower in the Territorial Army and other reserve forces.
The day might come when the American Administration flag and do not support NATO and our islands. Therefore the Soviets must be alarmed by our independent nuclear capability, because in the unlikely event of the Americans ceasing to back us — such an eventuality might rest in Soviet minds—we should still have our independent nuclear deterrent to pose a real threat.
American fear of the Soviets might be illustrated by the fact that they believe it necessary to reappraise their chemical arsenal. Although they have an enormous stock of such weapons it might not be sufficient to combat the vast Soviet reserves.
China's role has not been mentioned. Those who study the Mongolian scene will be aware of the tremendous friction which exists between China and Russian dominated Mongolia. Hon. Members will agree that the East is an unknown factor. China might go with the Russians and produce the greatest force in the world. However, the Russians are fearful at the moment that they might have to fight on two fronts. That could influence events.
I am sure that the Government are doing the right thing and that we can look forward to their making every effort to defend the West and also reach agreement on balanced and verifiable arms reduction.
8.50 pm
Mr. Ioan Evans: There has been some misunderstanding in the debate about the Labour party's attitude to defence, as there was during the general election campaign. The central objective of the Labour party's defence policy is the promotion of peace, and it believes that Britain should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression and to defend

455
itself. Some hon. Members have said that the Labour party is pacifist, but,it is not. It believes than Britain should have defence forces. Some hon. Members have suggested that the Labour party wishes Britain to leave NATO, but it is clear from our manifesto that we wish to remain in NATO.
Mr. James Hamilton: I was a sergeant major in the Army.
Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend says that he was a sergeant major. Many Labour Members served in the armed forces, for much longer than some Conservative Members. The Secretary of State for Defence served for only a short time in the Services.
Recent events have set in motion a series of political and military developments, the momentum of which threatens to carry Europe into a nuclear holocaust. We should consider that matter, because the international arms race has escalated. The balanced force talks between NATO and the Warsaw pact countries have made little progress, and American support for repressive military regimes in neighbouring territories in central America, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and military rule in Poland, have highlighted world tension.
The House must discuss the fears of many people in the world about the dangers of nuclear warfare. I hope that Conservative Members do not believe that a policy of nuclear disarmament lost the Labour party the election. We lost the election because of a major defection from the Labour party when the SDP was formed—
Mr. James Hamilton: Where are they?
Mr. Evans: They are not here tonight. There are only six SDP Members left, and they are seldom here. Where is the Liberal party tonight?
Mr. George: Its Members are on holiday.
Mr. Evans: The alliance shows little interest in defence or in much that is discussed in the House. A few Labour Members defected to the SDP during the previous Parliament, which had a major impact on the general election. Conservative Members should realise that they polled fewer votes in this election than they did in the previous election. They must not believe that they carry with them the overwhelming support of the British people. An overwhelming majority of the population opposed the basing of cruise missiles and the introduction of Trident.
Mr. Bill Walker rose—
Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman knows that I usually give way, but I cannot do so now because there is so little time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] Very well, but be quick.
Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman is probably aware that for the past four years I have gone round Scotland explaining why we should have a submarine base there, and that I have more than 50 per cent. of the support of my electorate. Can he say the same?
Mr. Evans: I received the votes of more than 50 per cent. of my electorate. I was not aware that the hon. Gentleman had been round Scotland. That may be the reason why there are more Labour Members in Scotland now than there have been for some time. It is nonsense for him to put forward his experience in his constituency—[Interruption.] The problem with giving way is that it is a waste of time.
456
One reason why the Conservative party gathered support at the election was the Falklands invasion. That is strange, because, although Britain had a military victory, the way in which the Government stumbled into that unnecessary war was a political disaster. Month after month and week after week we hear about cuts in necessary public expenditure, yet in this year alone the Government will spend £625 million on defending the Falkland Islands.
Mr. Keith Best (Ynys Mon): The hon. Gentleman supported it.
Mr. Evans: The Queen's Speech brought together the Falkland Islands, which are costing us—
Mr. Best: The hon. Gentleman supported it.
Mr. Evans: I wish that the hon. Member for Ynys Mon (Mr. Best) would not interrupt. He knows that there is not enough time.
Mr. Best: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. James Hamilton: Sit down. The hon. Gentleman is only a boy.
Mr. Evans: I am surprised that in the Queen's Speech the Falkland Islands are coupled with Hong Kong. The relevant paragraph says:
"My Government will continue fully to discharge their obligations to the people of the Falkland Islands. They reaffirm their commitment to the people of Gibraltar. They will continue talks with China on the future of Hong Kong".
The Government are talking about the Falklands. Gibraltar and Hong Kong in the same breath. I hope that they will not now start talking about fortress Hong Kong or fortress Gibraltar. The Government are falling into a dangerous trap.
From this House we governed a quarter of the world's population in the British Empire. We now have left the remnants of the imperial outposts. We must come to grips with our problem. I hope that the Government will not stumble into a war with China, where over 1,000 million people believe that they have certain rights over Hong Kong, and that the Government do not want military exploits with Spain over Gibraltar either.
Certain lessons must be learnt from the Falklands. It is a tragedy that one of the greatest political blunders by any British Government—a stumbling into military conflict — has been exploited by a Tory Government and has contributed, perhaps, to their gaining momentary support. If we are faced year after year with cuts in social expenditure, unemployment benefits and pensions, while at the same time being told that we are to spend over £1 million per family per year on the Falkland Islands, the British people will say, "Enough is enough." It is to that issue that we must address ourselves.
There is a misinterpretation of the Labour party's attitude to defence. We believe in defence, but say clearly in the amendment that we regret
"the Government's failure to take any initiative to stop the escalation of the nuclear arms race"
and it will be our first step to stop the nuclear arms race.
Today we are told that the United States has stockpiled a total explosive yield that is the equivalent of 9,000 megatonnes of TNT. That means that the United States has added the equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb to its arsenal about every 30 minutes since world war two. The USSR has increased its stockpile by roughly the same level. This policy is referred to as MAD — mutual assured

457
destruction. I am proud that my party is prepared to give a lead to the people of the world in moving away from the mad policies being pursued by the great powers.
The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) made his maiden speech today. I did not agree with much of it, but I agreed with what he said about the dangers of proliferation. These dangers are real. The CND and the Labour party argue that if we are to prevent all the nations from joining the United States and the Soviet Union in providing one Hiroshima bomb every 30 minutes we have to prevent other countries from entering the nuclear arms race. There is a mad escalation of the arms race, heading for a world war that will be the end of civilisation. We already know that the leading nations possess enough nuclear weapons to blow up the world—some say ten times, some say 17 times. Civilisation as we know it could be destroyed, and the Tory Government are giving no lead to deal with the situation.
Time is passing, but I want to make one last comment. The White Paper says that defence expenditure in 1977 was £6,158 million. In 1982 it had increased to £12,607 million. In 1982–83 there will probably be an increase in defence expenditure, but I am not quite sure what it will be, because we had a defence White Paper one day and a cut was announced the following day. That is not good defence planning.
In 1983–84 the plan is to spend £15,973 million on war preparations. That is an increase of £9,815 million since 1977. Are we to increase our defence expenditure each year? Our amendment says that we are spending
"more on the defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation both in terms of gross national product and per head of the population than any other member of the Alliance".
Why should we take on the task of providing more than any other member of the alliance?
Mr. Best: That is not true.
Mr. Evans: It is true.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin), in an excellent speech, referred to the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on 13 December, which was sponsored by Sweden and Mexico. It was adopted by 119 countries to 17, and called for a nuclear freeze. This House should give a lead, have a nuclear freeze and call for nuclear disarmament.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute year book says that the estimate for the size of world military spending incurred in 1982 had reached a figure of between $700 billion and $750 billion. The world is spending over £500,000 million in preparation for a war that no one wants. I am delighted that my party decided that enough is enough. We shall not be stupid and waste our people's wealth in preparing for a war that no one wants. We must give a lead. It is not just a matter of the strength of a nation being determined by the amount of arms that it has. If that were true, every military junta in the world would say that it was strong. Strength lies in getting a Government to pursue policies that will maintain social services, improve industry, export manufactured goods and defend ourselves, but defend ourselves within reason and not at the expense of the well-being of our country.
9.2 pm
Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mr. Evans) has not only shaken Conservative Members out of their complacency, but reminded the House, quite rightly, that these are issues not just about warheads, technical jargon, and so on, but about life and death. It is important for people both inside and outside the House to recognise that, because it is easy to fall into the jargon and pretend that we are living in our own rarefied world.
We have had four excellent maiden speeches in this debate today, from the hon. Members for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey), for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman), for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) and for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan). I congratulate them all, and hope that we shall hear more from them, as I am sure we shall, in defence and other debates.
The hon. Member for Surbiton followed Sir Nigel Fisher, who was a most respected Member of the House. He made a substantial contribution in both domestic and international matters because of his wide knowledge.
The former hon. Member for Gillingham, Sir Frederick Burden, was very active in our defence debates, particularly because of the decision by his own Government, which he deplored and which we deplore, to close Chatham dockyard. Ministers—I am sure they are sad that he is no longer here—will no doubt have a slightly easier ride because he is not on the Benches behind them.
The former Member for Lewisham, East, a close friend and colleague, Mr. Roland Moyle, was an excellent Minister in the Labour Government and a good spokesman in the House. It is no disrespect to his successor to say that Labour Members are sorry that Roland Moyle is not with us in the House after the election.
The debate has shown to some extent the gulf that exists not only between the mainstream views of the Labour and Tory parties, but between Conservative Members and Members of other parties.
The consensus on defence issues, certainly on nuclear issues, has broken down in Britain, and there are many reasons for that. The Secretary of State tried to bridge the gulf a little, but I am afraid that the Tory party over the past few years, especially with the Prime Minister's rhetoric, has, with many hon. and right hon. exceptions, moved to being the party of cold war.
The Secretary of State mentioned arms talks, but got into great difficulty once he started to talk about the irreducible minimumn of the British nuclear deterrent. No doubt we shall hear a lot more of that phrase when these matters are debated again.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) recognised the lack of consensus and, in characteristic Social Democratic fashion, suggested setting up a commission to deal with it. He seems to have been bamboozled and dazzled by the Scowcroft commission in the United States. Unfortunately, that commission did not solve any problems, as he knows, because, like all commissions, it made a brilliant analysis of why there was not a window of vulnerability or the danger of a first strike and concluded therefore that the MX missile was not necessary because it was created and designed to close the window of vulnerability. Having made that brilliant analysis, the commission said that it still needed the MX missile, apparently because it would

459
be a bargaining chip in the Geneva negotiations. Unfortunately, the world is littered with nuclear bargaining chips which are put into negotiations but which, at the end of the day, become dangerous weapons systems.
The first comment to be made on the White Paper is that. however long the Secretary of State may be in office, this is likely to be a fairly temporary document. Already, as we know, some of the expenditure figures have been changed. While the Secretary of State was perhaps congratulating himself on his election victory or playing with his MINIS—or whatever the Ministry of Defence does these days—the big bad bear came along, slipped into his kitchen and took £250 million out of his larder. It is ironical that that big bad bear was not the red one from the Urals, but the one from across the road in the Treasury in the form of the right hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson). The Secretary of State knows that over the next few years — certainly from tomorrow onwards — he should keep his sights trained on the Urals of Great George street. Perhaps he should get one of those new-fangled thermal imaging night sights that the Minister described.
The reason for the Treasury's concern is obvious. According to the White Paper, almost £ 16,000 million will be spent next year on defence. That is more than is spent on any programme, except social security, which in the main now is keeping people on the dole. Under this Government defence expenditure has risen by almost 25 per cent. in real terms since 1979. The only growth has been in defence and social security. Labour Members believe that it is a sad but telling commentary on the Government's political philosophy and economic management that the only real growth after four years in office has been in guns and dole queues. That is not only morally reprehensible but it makes little economic sense.
As the White Paper and the amendment show, we are now in the absurd position of spending more on defence than any other European country—except Greece and Turkey, which have an ancient feud to settle. That is true whether we look at it in terms of actual expenditure, which is not a very good way to calculate such things, of the percentage of the country's GNP—its national wealth—or of the expenditure per head of population. By all those figures and measurements, we are now spending more than any of our European allies or defence. That is nonsense. We are spending more than West Germany, which is almost twice as wealthy as Britain, is far closer to the Russian bear and, because of its historic association with Russia, is more worried about the threat that it poses.
The reality is that the Government's defence policy is not based on any rational and clear analysis of Britain's real security needs. It is rooted in the same emotional and ideological hangups as characterise the Government's economic policies. The defence policy is an unlikely cross between old-fashioned imperial nostalgia and the Commie-bashing red-baiting attitude of the American radical Right. That is why there is no coherence in the Government's defence policy.
Rather than waiting for the Treasury's blunt axe to fall—and fall it will, and it will be characteristically blunt—the Secretary of State should begin to think seriously about defence. He should think also about foreign policy, which obviously preceeds defence strategy. He should do that before his defence budget is torn to pieces by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
460
The Secretary of State should wind up that propaganda unit hidden in the basement at the Ministry of Defence. He should try to give up those little gimmicks that so endeared us to him before the election. He should abandon that cold war mentality that we heard from him before and during the election—and which led him to parade around the Berlin wall looking like a down-market John Kennedy.
As many hon. Members have said, there will have to be another defence review. The defence budget cannot stand the strain of Trident, which we believe will cost more than £10 billion. It cannot stand the strain of the cost of making an adequate contribution in conventional forces to NATO, while providing for the adequate and proper defence of Britain and the pursuit of the fortress Falklands policy. The pressure for a change in the fortress Falklands policy will come not from South America or the United Nations, but from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary-General of NATO. When NATO considers these matters and realises how low will be our naval contribution, it will apply pressure for a change in policy. In addition to the fortress Falklands policy, we must protect those other relics of empire that are scattered around the world. The Government cannot maintain a defence policy that will pay for all that expenditure.
The key to all that must be the decision to buy Trident. We have always argued that the Trident missile system should be cancelled. It adds nothing to the real defence or security of Britain. It is too expensive and, most important of all, it increases the danger that a conventional war in Europe will escalate more quickly into a nuclear confrontation.
The only way to pay for Trident is by cutting our conventional forces. There is no other way. Already, the Navy has been cut by the previous defence review, and that was before certain things happened. It was before the decision to buy the expensive Trident 2 and prior to the Falkland war and all the costs of the Falklands policy.
The debate during the next few years will be not whether we should have a blue water Navy against the continental Army, but whether we have Trident and a weaker conventional contribution to NATO—with all the dangers of that—or not have Trident and therefore have a better contribution to NATO.
I do not know where the axe will fall. It might fall in Germany on the continental Army, or it might fall on the Navy and our maritime contribution. Wherever it falls, the debate will centre on Britain's ability to make a conventional contribution to NATO instead of the ridiculous nuclear totem pole of Trident.
Ministers must know that Trident is of little use to the western Alliance. I believe that it will represent only about 2 per cent. of the total nuclear capacity of the West. The other 98 per cent. comes from America's huge strategic nuclear arsenal. Our NATO allies would much prefer us to use our money to make a conventional contribution to the Alliance.
If 98 per cent. of the West's nuclear capability deters the Soviet Union, what is the point of Britain having an extra 2 per cent? If the 98 per cent. fails to deter, the extra 2 per cent will not deter the Soviet Union. Trident is a waste of money in terms of the western Alliance, NATO and our partnership.
I have no doubt that some will argue that Trident is a weapon of last resort. Perhaps the Prime Minister believes that, and I am sure that the Government do. On that basis, the scenario becomes very different at the end of the day.

461
It will be something like this: the Russian hordes are sweeping across Europe, an American President is not prepared to risk nuclear destruction for the defence of Europe, the French nuclear Maginot line is bypassed and Britannia stands alone with Trident and with her back to the sea. Ultimately, that is the scenario, and that should be faced by those who argue for the weapon of last resort.
I have no doubt that some in that situation might wish to invoke the spirit of 1940, but it is no longer 1940. I am sure that the debate in 1940 was about victory or defeat. Given the horrible scenario that I have outlined—which, please God, may never happen — the debate will be about survival or extinction, not victory or defeat. It will be about the survival or extinction not of a way of life or of democracy but of the island itself.
If the United States were out of the war and most of western Europe were under Soviet domination, I do not believe that Britain would be prepared, or be seen or thought to be prepared, more importantly, to fight a nuclear war. We are talking about a weapon of last resort and fighting a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. That is preposterous and incredible, and I do not accept that anyone really believes that such a thing could happen.
Mr. John Powley: It is an incredible scenario.
Mr. Davies: Indeed, but it is one that we must face. It is the only one that we can consider if we are talking about a weapon of last resort.
The White Paper restates the Government's determination to carry out the NATO twin-track decision of December 1979 to put cruise missiles in Britain. I believe that that decision was wrong and that NATO made a mistake in not rescinding it. It should recognise that it was wrong and rescind it even at this late hour. No one has ever argued a convincing military case for cruise, and cruise has been a complete disaster politically. It has brought to the surface the latent anti-Americanism that exists in Britain and the rest of Europe. It has caused great difficulties between us and the United States and been a political disaster in terms of our relationship with the Warsaw Pact. Apart from the Soviet Union, other countries in eastern Europe and the eastern block are now afraid that they may have to take cruise missiles in return for the cruise missiles that we are deploying.
The West has enough nuclear weapons already to destroy the Soviet Union many times over. What is the point of having cruise missiles, even if we take into account the Soviet deployment of SS20s? I shall quote an authority. Professor Michael Howard, who I believe is one of the Conservative party's favourite historians, in The Times last November, wrote:
"The SS20s remain a very small proportion of the enormous nuclear forces that the Soviet Union is capable of launching against Western Europe. The belief of some strategic analysts that the Russians can be deterred only by the installation of precisely matching systems—that ground-based missiles must be matched with ground-based missiles—is naive to the point of absurdity."
Once we go down the road of matching every weapon with another weapon, every missile with another missile, we are heading for complete disaster.
Cruise is the latest part of that crazy NATO concept which is described euphemistically as "flexible response", when it is really fighting a so-called limited nuclear war.
462
That is what we are talking about in those terms. What does "limited" mean? It means that when the conventional battle looks as though it is being lost, we throw a few nuclear shells at them. If they do not work, we move up the nuclear ladder, going on to bombs and missiles—cruise, perhaps Pershing, and, at the end of the day, the strategic systems. That scenario is also ridiculous, and even those who play war games, the generals and others, do not believe that it is credible.
The decision to deploy cruise was taken mainly for political reasons, and I do not blame the Americans. It was taken because the Europeans, especially the Germans, went through their periodic panic that an American President might not be prepared to see New York become a nuclear desert in the defence of Stuttgart, Bremen, or any other city in Europe.
Cruise does nothing to resolve that dilemma. If the United States is afraid to commit its strategic forces to the defence of Europe, it will not use cruise for fear that that will lead to a strategic war. The dilemma—I accept that it is real—is created by nothing but the limitations of geography, and cruise or any other weapon system will not be able to bridge that gap or solve that problem, which, in the present situation, will remain with us. Whether the missiles are on Greenham common, in Germany, Nebraska or the depths of the sea, the American President is still faced with the awesome decision whether he can risk the extinction of his country in the defence of Europe, and cruise makes no difference to that.
The Government like to say that the decision to deploy cruise followed the SS20s. In fact, cruise was designed and planned long before the technologists and planners knew about the SS20. The history of cruise is a classic history of what happens in the nuclear arms race. The technologists and scientists finish designing one weapon and have to look for another to create; otherwise, they are out of a job. So they design something a little bigger, better and rather more clever. That is what happened to cruise.
Once that has occurred, the missile must be sold to Congress or Parliament, as the case may be, and it is sold by the think tanks—those organisations that are actively becoming job creation schemes for PhDs who cannot find jobs anywhere else. They think up some kind of spurious intellectual justification for what they propose. They say that there is a bomber gap, but at the end of the day it turns out that there is no such gap. They then say that there is a missile gap, but there turns out not to be one. Apparently there has recently been a "window of opportunity", but the Scowcroft commission—the SDP constantly quotes it—has said that there is no such window.
There must be a spurious, pseudo-intellectual reason why a new missile must be bought. Once the politicians have accepted that, they tour their respective countries curdling the blood of their electorates by declaring that if the missile is not bought, the other side will have an enormous advantage. That is the history of cruise and that is the dangerous reality of the nuclear arms race, which is escalating all the time.
The Government stand condemned because they have shown no real interest in any form of nuclear disarmament, even multilateral disarmament. They are not present at the two talks which are taking place in Geneva; no British weapons feature in either of those talks. The Government talk about multilateral disarmament, but where is the "multi"? They are bilateral talks. The Secretary of State

463
tried to move in that direction by saying that if substantial progress was made at START, something might happen with Trident, and he went on to talk about an irreducible minimum, but what he said did nor: make sense. This Government have taken no steps in favour of their professed policy of multilateral disarmament. By buying Trident and by deploying cruise they are engaging in unilateral nuclear rearmament. They are engaging in an escalation of the arms race and making the world a more dangerous place.
It was pointed out in the debate that at the United Nations the Government voted several times against a freeze — not a one-sided freeze, hut on both superpowers' manufacture, deployment and testing of nuclear weapons. They were prepared to do so in deference to President Reagan's mad and futile attempt to try to regain American nuclear superiority. The Government voted against the freeze because President Reagan believed that he could go back and recreate the world of the 1950s in which there was American economic and nuclear domination. He cannot do that. We cannot go back to that. That is one reason why the Government, instead of standing up, instead of deciding matters on their merits, followed President Reagan and decided to vote against the freeze.
The Government have done nothing to try to promote the idea of no first use of nuclear weapons. No one is saying that it is possible overnight for NATO to move towards a position of no first use. We understand the difficulties about conventional weapons, but at least the Government could start arguing the case instead of scorning it and pouring cold water on it. Eventually NATO will have to move to a doctrine of no first use. Its present doctrine—which is, at the end of the day, one of first use of nuclear weapons—is immoral. It is based on what an American general described, in the characteristic way that only Americans can describe these things, as a bigger bang for a buck. That is the basis of NATO's nuclear policy and we must start moving away from it. The Government should at least start arguing in the councils of NATO for a change of policy.
The Government have lost little opportunity to employ all the rhetoric of the cold war to create and increase tensions in Europe. Just as we reject their mean and narrow economic philosphy at home, we deplore and reject their bigoted and dangerous ideology abroad. That is why we shall be voting against the Government in the Lobby tonight.
9.27 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): Our interesting debate today has been marked by a distinct and pronounced imbalance between the two sides of the House. On the Conservative Benches my hon. Friends have been queueing up, seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to say that a great many have been able to do so and have been able to contribute a great deal of expertise and knowledge of defence. That has been in striking contrast to the near-desert that we have seen on the Opposition Benches, where there was a striking lack of interest in participating in what is undoubtedly an important debate.
I am glad that the debate has seen four maiden speeches of considerable quality from Conservative Members. I should like to endorse what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) in paying tribute to
464
his predecessor, Sir Nigel Fisher. We remember Sir Nigel with a great deal of affection and regard. Sir Nigel was clearly a model parent and believed in conferring a total independence of mind on his children. I am sorry that he has not managed to pass on his own political views, but we remember him with much regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton spoke most forcefully and eloquently about the ultimate priority that we must give to defence, which he rightly described as the cornerstone of all our freedoms. I can assure him, as he specifically referred to it, that the Department gives a great deal of attention to the manifold defence policy issues. We also give a great deal of attention to explaining defence policies and trying to secure a greater public understanding of defence policy. I assure my hon. Friend that we intend that to continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingharn (Mr. Couchman) who is my near neighbour, also spoke with much knowledge and great feeling about the closure of Chatham dockyard. The dockyard is only a few miles from my own constituency, and I endorse what my hon. Friend said about the tenacious fight put up on behalf of his constituents by his predecessor, Sir Frederick Burden. We shall all miss Freddie Burden, but we welcome my hon. Friend in his place. He made a helpful and forceful contribution to our debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) spoke about his constituency with a great deal of knowledge. He also spoke with much acknowledge about defence, clearly drawing on his experience as an officer in the reserves. I can assure that he will make many other speeches on the subject of defence. I welcome his comments about the armed services youth training scheme, which is a valuable initiative. My right hon. Friend has just announced an extension of the scheme to the civilian part of the Department. The scheme will make a worthwhile contribution to creating more employ merit in the armed services and in civilian Ministry of Defence posts for those aged between 16 and 17.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) paid a warm and generous tribute to his predecessor, Roland Moyle. I am sure that that tribute will be much appreciated on the Opposition Benches as it was on the Government side. My hon. Friend made a conspicuously lucid and eloquent speech, saying that the defence of the individual and parliamentary freedom are the ultimate rationale of our defence policy. All those who heard his speech greatly appreciated it. I am sure that my hon. Friends have made only the first of many contributions to defence debates. What they have said today will stand the test of time.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to our out-of-area defences. I can assure him that my right hon. Friends and I will study closely his proposals about how, organisationally, we should assist those in Third world countries who are seeking to preserve freedom and independence. 'We are also very much aware of the importance of consultation between the NATO nations on out-of-area matters. However, we regard contingency planning as essentially a national matter.
Mr. Wilkinson: On the crucial question of out-of-area operations, can my hon. Friend give a firm undertaking that there will, particularly in current circumstances, be no question whatever of Her Majesty's Government

465
withdrawing the garrison from Belize? That step could have a serious adverse effect on stability in Guatemala, and would be deeply disquieting to our American friends.
Mr. Stanley: The Government have made no statement about the duration of that deployment. The garrison is there to safeguard the external defence of that country. If there were a proposal to end that deployment, my right hon. Friend would of course come to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Weston-Super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) spoke about his time at the Department in a well-informed, fair and constructive manner, which we all appreciated. I echo his admiration for General Pringle, whose recovery and leadership of the Royal Marines are in the very highest traditions of the indomitable spirit of that corps. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work in the Department in many areas, and in particular his conspicuously important and valuable work in carrying out the Government's policy to expand the reserves and the Territorials. My hon. Friend called for defence Ministers to remain longer at their posts and I can assure him of our unanimous and enthusiastic support on this Front Bench for that proposition.
The right hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) made a very refreshing and candid speech, which may be why he is not yet back in his place. He acknowledged the electoral damage done to his party by its defence policy and stated once again his commitment to the retention of a British strategic deterrent. His speech deserves wide praise from his party, although I have some doubts about whether it will get it. We on this side certainly appreciated it.
I shall touch later on a number of the points made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). However, I should like to make just two comments now. The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) made a telling intervention when he asked the right hon. Member for Devonport whether he favoured the replacement of Polaris if there was no breakthrough in Geneva. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he would wait and see. He suggested that Polaris would be an effective deterrent into the 21st century. I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that he is wrong on that point. We cannot afford the luxury of saying that we shall simply wait and see. That is why the Government have taken decisions now. The right hon. Gentleman and the SDP will have to get off the fence and say whether they support the maintenance of a British strategic deterrent.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman must either listen to replies or at least study the position. The SDP has made it quite clear that at present, and as far as it is possible to envisage, we believe that it is right for Britain to retain a minimum strategic deterrent. We have not committed ourselves and will not commit ourselves to saying that the only way of perpetuating such a deterrent is to purchase the Trident system.
Mr. Stanley: The right hon. Gentleman perhaps misses the fundamental point. The issue involves the retention not only of a deterrent, but of an effective and credible British strategic nuclear deterrent. That is the only logical rationale for the possession of a deterrent. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue that path, he must make clear now what his policy is, whether he is in favour of
466
procuring a replacement system for Polaris, and what it would consist of. The issue simply does not admit of being fudged, because the time scale is not as he imagines it to be.
The right hon. Gentleman also suggested that there should be bilateral negotiations between Britain and the USSR on strategic weapons limitations. He outlined what Britain should give as concessions in such bilateral negotiations, but he did not say what the Soviet Union should concede in return, or mention the implications for our security. It is not good enough first to talk about bilateral discussions with the USSR in the context of Britain cutting back its nuclear strategic capability. If that proposal is to have any credibility or currency, it is essential that the right hon. Gentleman should make clear what is to be expected from the Soviet Union in return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) rightly highlighted another important aspect of the defence White Paper — the impact on defence of the emerging technologies. I can assure him that that subject takes up much of the Ministry's time and that we pay it great attention. Notwithstanding all the enormous advances on the technological side, I am sure that he will agree that we must not lose sight of the enormous worth of the basic human skills, such as discipline and training, that were so vividly demonstrated in the Falklands.
I regard it as a very great privilege and a matter of great good fortune to have been asked to be Minister of State for the Armed Forces. At the outset, I should like to convey to the armed forces on behalf, I am sure, of both sides of the House, our admiration for their extraordinarily high standards and professional skills, our recognition of the demanding and often hazardous work that they do and our firm support for their physical guarding of our freedoms.
I am sure that every hon. Member, in approaching this debate, shares the same hopes for the world. We all want a world in which nations renounce force as an instrument of policy and in which no nation need fear that its independence and sovereignty might be violated. Much as we might want it to be otherwise, that, unhappily, is not the reality of the world. The Government must, and will, work responsibly and persistently to realise our hopes, but we cannot afford to allow our hopes to propel us out of reality and into illusion.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made an admirably realistic and constructive speech yesterday when he opened this debate. In his agenda for peace, he spelt out the whole series of proposals that have been tabled by the West to try to secure genuine progress on multilateral disarmament. Nothing would give me, or any other Minister, greater pleasure than to be able to come to the Dispatch Box during the defence debate next year and to say, "Since our debate last year, progress on multilateral disarmament has been so good and the reduction in the threat to western Europe so great that we can sensibly and responsibly contemplate a significant reduction in our defence capability." However, that is not the case today.
Any rational consideration of our defence needs must start and finish with a cool, realistic and objective assessment of the threat that faces us. The unpalatable reality is that the Soviet Union continues to enlarge and improve every arm of her already massive offensive military arsenal—nuclear, conventional and chemical. There are many illustrations of this, and I shall give one.

467
The nuclear capability of the latest Soviet ballistic submarine, the Typhoon—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley (Sir P. Wall) referred to this—is so great that it has a displacement approximately half as much again as HMS Invincible. The Soviet Union continues to spend a much higher proportion of its GNP on defence than the NATO countries—over twice that of the United States and approximately four times that of the European members of NATO. Her military occupation and subjugation of Afghanistan is a daily reminder, if any were needed, that the Soviet Union is ready not merely to possess a massive military capability but to use it.
The persistent language that we have heard during this debate from the Opposition has been the language of abandonment, especially on the nuclear side. We have been urged to abandon Trident, cruise and Polaris and to oblige our most powerful and important ally to abandon its bases in our country. In our view, that is not the substance of a responsible defence policy. Any realistic and sober assessment of the world must make this a time not to talk of abandonment but to retain and strengthen our defences until the Soviet Union is willing seriously to embrace multilateral disarmament.
One of the key areas of defence is expenditure. During this debate there has been a glaring contradiction within the Opposition between those who have been seeking to criticise the Government for not spending enough on our conventional defences and those who, like the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) yesterday, have wanted to criticise the Government for spending far too much even on our conventional defences.
The Opposition cannot have it both ways. It is absurd for the Labour party in its manifesto to criticise this Government of all Governments for not spending enough on defence, including conventional defence. The Labour party's position on defence expenditure was clearly stated during the last election. It said that it would
"reduce the proportion of the nation's resources devoted to defence so that the burden we bear will be brought into line with that of the other major European NATO countries".
The House will be interested to know what the results would be if that policy were implemented today. It would mean a cut of approximately £5,000 million in our defence spending this year, which is why it is utterly absurd for any member of the Labour party to criticise the Government over the level of our conventional spending.
The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) suggested incorrectly yesterday that expenditure on the Trident programme would destroy the country's conventional capability. It is not Trident that will destroy our conventional capability, but the £5 billion a year cut in defence expenditure to which the Labour party committed itself during the last election.
The House will be glad to know that, excluding Falklands and nuclear expenditure, expenditure on the Navy is 15 per cent. higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party left office. Expenditure on the Army is 7 per cent. higher in real terms, and on the Royal Air Force 19 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79. It is an excellent record of spending on the conventional forces.
The right hon. Member for Devonport has put his name to the SDP-Liberal amendment on the Order Paper which pontificates somewhat and
"regrets the reduction in British conventional forces".
I remind him that Government spending on our conventional forces knocks into a cocked hat what was
468
achieved by the Government of which he was a member. The position of our conventional forces is much improved compared to what it was in 1979. We have made substantial strides on pay and in all three of the armed services. The Navy's capacity has been mentioned. An increasing proportion of the naval programme has been devoted to submarines. An illustration of that is the fact that by the end of the 1980s, we expect the number of nuclear hunter-killer submarines in service to be more than half as many again as in 1979.
The conventional position of the Army and the Royal Air Force is substantially better than it was in 1979. As many of my hon. Friends said, we have substantially expanded the TAVR—the home service force—and our reserves.
The nuclear side of our forces has rightly preoccupied the House for a good deal of this debate—
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Before my hon. Friend deals with the nuclear side, I want to refer to one element of the control of defence expenditure which I raised yesterday. The Minister will be aware that I produced figures showing that $1 billion-worth of arms have been supplied during the past four years to the front line states — a portion of $3·7 billion. The rest has been supplied entirely by the Soviet Union. The Minister referred earlier to the importance of the public understanding and perception of the rationality of our defence policy. Neither he nor my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement said anything about what I said.
We are entitled to an answer. Who is paying for the supply of those weapons? The supply of $1 billion-worth of weapons in four years means a considerable resource allocation which might have gone to our armed services. Who paid for the weapons? What proportion was paid by the countries involved? If they have not paid for them, who is picking up the bill?
Mr. Stanley: I cannot answer now the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend. I shall look into them and write to him as fully as possible.
The deployment of cruise missiles has featured in the debate. I find it striking that just three and a half years ago the then shadow defence spokesman said from that Dispatch Box:
"It was the view of the previous Government that theatre nuclear modernisation was essential, and that is our view today." —[Official Report, 24 January 1980; Vol 977, c. 691.]
It is quite extraordinary that in so short a time the Labour party has adopted a policy of not merely rejecting basing modernised theatre nuclear weapons in this country but doing so without attempting to get any concessions in return from the Soviet Union. In the Conservative party we are in no doubt that for Britain not to play its part in NATO cruise missile deployment, in the absence of the Soviet Union's agreement to the zero option, would be damaging and dangerous. I shall spell out why.
If this country and perhaps other European countries did not proceed with cruise, we would be saying to the Soviet Union, "You can develop an entirely new nuclear missile of a range and type that has not previously existed in Europe, with no response from the West." We would be further saying to the Soviet Union that, having developed its SS20, it could target approximately two thirds of the warheads—over 700—on western European countries, again with no response from the West. Finally, we would be saying to the Soviet Union that even when NATO had

469
decided to deploy a weapons system that would go at least some of the way to balancing the number of Soviet SS20s, Britain had so lost the will and resolve to make a contribution to NATO's defence that she had told the Americans to get out of their bases and take their cruise missiles with them. I cannot think of a more irresponsible or potentially more dangerous message to convey to the Soviet Union.
No one should think that a unilateral decision by Britain to prohibit the deployment of cruise missiles in this country would have consequences limited to Britain. It certainly would not. Such a decision would be intensely damaging to our relations with the United States and also to the all-important perception by the American people of the willingness of the European members of NATO to play a full role in the defence of their own countries. A decision by this country not to deploy cruise missiles here would have profound consequences in other European countries. The December 1979 decision to deploy cruise was not taken by Britain alone. It was taken by the whole of NATO. Its deployment involves the Belgians, Dutch, Germans and Italians as well as ourselves. If Britain were to break ranks unilaterally, that could jeopardise our other European allies going ahead with deployment in their countries.
The Labour party's policy unilaterally to reject cruise missiles being deployed in Britain is neither responsible nor soundly based. There is one way to stop the siting of cruise missiles in this country or in any other European country. That would be through the Soviet Union agreeing to the zero option. The offer is on the table.
We are also prepared to consider a reasonable interim settlement based on equal numbers of warheads. We shall do all that we reasonably can to make progress at the INF talks. If the Soviet Union will not respond, however, the only responsible course is for cruise missile deployment to go ahead. Any other course could only show the Soviet Union that she could deploy a new nuclear weapon system against the Europeans with complete impunity and that the Europeans had lost the will to safeguard their defences. That would be an extremely dangerous message to convey to the Soviet Union. It would damage peace and would not further it in any way.
The Opposition have made themselves unambiguously clear about the Trident programme. They want to cancel Trident, which means that they wish to deprive Britain unilaterally and without conditions or safeguards of an effective and credible strategic nuclear deterrent. That is a perfectly clear position, although what is much less clear and has become no clearer in the debate is why the national defence imperatives that caused both the 1964–70 and 1974–79 Labour Governments to support the maintenance of the British nuclear deterrent and to improve it with Chevaline, cease to be national defence imperatives today. The explanation of that change of view seems to lie not in any shift in defence or any reduction of the threat facing us but solely in the ideological make-up of the Labour Front Bench.
The Labour party wants to go still further down the unilaterist track. In addition to offering the cancellation of Trident in return for nothing whatever from the Soviet Union, it wants to offer up Polaris as well. In the interests of accuracy, I remind the House of the words of the Labour party's election manifesto:
470
"We will propose that Britain's Polaris force be included in the nuclear disarmament negotiations in which Britain must take part. We will, after consultation, carry through in the lifetime of the next parliament our non-nuclear defence policy."
In effect, it says that, regardless of circumstances and without any stated conditions, a Labour Government would unilaterally abandon Britain's nuclear deterrent within the lifetime of a Parliament. That is a profoundly irresponsible policy and I am sure that it will not find favour with the great majority of British people.
Unilateralism has been tested before—for example, in relation to chemical weapons. The serious consequences of that are well known, with the enormous expansion in Soviet procurement of chemical weapons.
Recently I read the following interesting comment about unilateralism:
"Unilateralism, whatever the intentions of those who preach it, is the enemy of a real and lasting peace. It is better to follow the road to genuine multilateral disarmament, however long and difficult, than to be diverted by a will-o'-the-wisp which can only lead us into greater danger.
We do not want to see East and West frozen in a cold war. We care passionately for peace, as passionately as those who claim proprietary rights over the word. But not peace at any price. Not one-sided disarmament."
Those are not the words of any Conservative Minister or politician. They are the words of Terry Duffy, Frank Chapple, John Lyons and Bill Sirs, among others, who talk more common sense and realism on defence than any Opposition Front Bench spokesman in this debate.
Against that background, the case for Trident is clear. The retention of Britain's strategic deterrent is supported both by the United States and by the European members of NATO. It represents a further not insignificant addition to NATO's nuclear capacity, an added dimension of deterrence to the Soviet Union and the ultimate safeguards for the defence of our country. Our strategic deterrent has now been contributing to the preservation of peace in Europe for nearly 40 years and the Government have no intention of abandoning it unilaterally.
Mr. McNamara: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Stanley: No.
This two-day debate has focused on what are undoubtedly the two central issues.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Stanley: The first is the need to strengthen Britain's conventional defences. The second is whether to adopt a multilateralist or unilateralist approach to the reduction of nuclear weapons.
The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) has said that unilateralism as an issue is dead. I wish that he were right, but I am afraid that he is wrong.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Stanley: Unilateralism is far from dead on the Opposition benches.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.
Mr. Stanley: Conservative Members see unilateralism for what it really is—a policy as irresponsible as it is

471
naive and devoid of defence justification in the light of the remorseless build-up of Soviet conventional chemical and nuclear weapons.
Freedom should never be taken for granted, least of all in Europe. It must be protected if it is to be preserved. The Conservatives will neither gamble with freedom nor shrink from the cost of protecting it.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.
Mr. Stanley: Our free way of life is our most valuable legacy from the previous generation.
Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Stanley: There is no higher obligation on any Government than to ensure that it is passed on to the next.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 384.

Division No. 34]

[10 pm

AYES

Abse, Leo

Dormand, Jack

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Anderson, Donald

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Eadie, Alex

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Eastham, Ken

Ashton, Joe

Edwards, R. (Whampt'n SE)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Ewing, Harry

Barnett, Guy

Fatchett, Derek

Barron, Kevin

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Fisher, Mark

Bell, Stuart

Flannery, Martin

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Bidwell, Sydney

Forrester, John

Blair, Anthony

Foster, Derek

Boyes, Roland

Foulkes, George

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

George, Bruce

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

Godman, Dr Norman

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Golding, John

Buchan, Norman

Gould, Bryan

Caborn, Richard

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Hardy, Peter

Campbell, Ian

Harman, Ms Harriet

Canavan, Dennis

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Haynes, Frank

Clarke, Thomas

Heffer, Eric S.

Clay, Robert

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Cohen, Harry

Home Robertson, John

Coleman, Donald

Hoyle, Douglas

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Conlan, Bernard

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Corbett, Robin

Hume, John

Corbyn, Jeremy

Janner, Hon Greville

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

John, Brynmor

Craigen, J. M.

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Crowther, Stan

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Cunningham, Dr John

Kinnock, Neil

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Lambie, David

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Lamond, James

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

Leadbitter, Ted

Deakins, Eric

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Dewar, Donald

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Dixon, Donald

Litherland, Robert

Dobson, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

472

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

Loyden, Edward

Richardson, Ms Jo

McCartney, Hugh

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

McCusker, Harold

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Robertson, George

McGuire, Michael

Rogers, Allan

McKelvey, William

Rooker, J. W.

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

McNamara, Kevin

Rowlands, Ted

McTaggart, Robert

Ryman, John

McWilliam, John

Sedgemore, Brian

Madden, Max

Sheerman, Barry

Maginnis, Ken

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Marek, Dr John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Martin, Michael

Short, Mrs RW'hampt'n NE

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Maxton, John

Skinner, Dennis

Maynard, Miss Joan

Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

Meacher, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'klds E)

Michie, William

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Mikardo, Ian

Soley, Clive

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Spearing, Nigel

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Stott, Roger

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Strang, Gavin

Molyneaux, James

Straw, Jack

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Nellist, David

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Nicholson, J.

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Tinn, James

O'Brien, William

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

O'Neill, Martin

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Wareing, Robert

Park, George

Weetch, Ken

Parry, Robert

Welsh, Michael

Patchett, Terry

Wig ley, Dafydd

Pavitt, Laurie

Williams, Rt Hon A

Pendry, Tom

Wilson, Gordon

Pike, Peter

Winnick, David

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

Woodall, Alec

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Prescott, John

Radice, Giles

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, Stuart

Mr. James Hamilton and

Redmond, M.

Mr. Harry Cowans.

NOES

Adley, Robert

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Alexander, Richard

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Braine, Sir Bernard

Amess, David

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Ancram, Michael

Bright, Graham

Arnold, Tom

Brinton, Tim

Ashby, David

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Ashdown, Paddy

Brooke, Hon Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Browne, John

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Bruinvels, Peter

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bryan, Sir Paul

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Buck, Sir Antony

Baldry, Anthony

Budgen, Nick

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Bulmer, Esmond

Batiste, Spencer

Burt, Alistair

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Butler, Hon Adam

Beith, A. J.

Butterfill, John

Bellingham, Henry

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Bendall, Vivian

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Benyon, William

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Berry, Hon Anthony

Carttiss, Michael

Best, Keith

Cartwright, John

Bevan, David Gilroy

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Chapman, Sydney

Blackburn, John

Chope, Christopher

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Churchill, W. S.

Body, Richard

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

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Bottomley, Peter

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

473

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Henderson, Barry

Clegg, Sir Walter

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cockeram, Eric

Hickmet, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Hicks, Robert

Conway, Derek

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Coombs, Simon

Hill, James

Cope, John

Hirst, Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Corrie, John

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Couchman, James

Holt, Richard

Cranborne, Viscount

Hordern, Peter

Critchley, Julian

Howard, Michael

Crouch, David

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Dicks, T.

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Dorrell, Stephen

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Dover, Denshore

Hunt, David (Wirral)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dunn, Robert

Hunter, Andrew

Durant, Tony

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Dykes, Hugh

Irving, Charles

Eggar, Tim

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Emery, Sir Peter

Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

Evennett, David

Jessel, Toby

Eyre, Reginald

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Johnston, Russell

Farr, John

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Favell, Anthony

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Fletcher, Alexander

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Fookes, Miss Janet

Kennedy, Charles

Forman, Nigel

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Kilfedder, James A.

Forth, Eric

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

King, Rt Hon Tom

Fox, Marcus

Kirkwood, Archibald

Franks, Cecil

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Freeman, Roger

Knowles, Michael

Freud, Clement

Knox, David

Fry, Peter

Lamont, Norman

Gale, Roger

Lang, Ian

Galley, Roy

Latham, Michael

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Lawrence, Ivan

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lee, John (Pendle)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gorst, John

Lester, Jim

Gow, Ian

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Lightbown, David

Grant, Sir Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Greenway, Harry

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Gregory, Conal

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

Lord, Michael

Griffiths, Peter (Portsn'th N)

Luce, Richard

Grist, Ian

Lyell, Nicholas

Ground, Patrick

McCrea, Rev William

Grylls, Michael

McCrindle, Robert

Gummer, John Selwyn

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Macfarlane, Neil

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

MacGregor, John

Hampson, Dr Keith

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Hanley, Jeremy

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Maclennan, Robert

Harvey, Robert

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Haselhurst, Alan

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

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

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

McQuarrie, Albert

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Madel, David

Hawksley, Warren

Major, John

Hayhoe, Barney

Malins, Humfrey

Hayward, Robert

Malone, Gerald

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Maples, John

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Marland, Paul

Heddle, John

Marlow, Antony

474

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Mates, Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Maude, Francis

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Mellor, David

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Merchant, Piers

Shersby, Michael

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Silvester, Fred

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Sims, Roger

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Miscampbell, Norman

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Moate, Roger

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Monro, Sir Hector

Speed, Keith

Montgomery, Fergus

Spence, John

Moore, John

Spencer, D.

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Squire, Robin

Moynihan, Hon C.

Stanbrook, Ivor

Mudd, David

Stanley, John

Murphy, Christopher

Steen, Anthony

Needham, Richard

Stern, Michael

Nelson, Anthony

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Neubert, Michael

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Normanton, Tom

Stokes, John

Norris, Steven

Stradling Thomas, J.

Onslow, Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Tapsell, Peter

Osborn, Sir John

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Ottaway, Richard

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Page, John (Harrow W)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Terlezki, Stefan

Paisley, Rev Ian

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Parris, Matthew

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Patten, John (Oxford)

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thornton, Malcolm

Pawsey, James

Thurnham, Peter

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Penhaligon, David

Tracey, Richard

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Trippier, David

Pink, R. Bonner

Trotter, Neville

Pollock, Alexander

Twinn, Dr Ian

Porter, Barry

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Powell, William (Corby)

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Powley, John

Waddington, David

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Wainwright, R.

Price, Sir David

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Prior, Rt Hon James

Waldegrave, Hon William

Proctor, K. Harvey

Walden, George

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Raffan, Keith

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wall, Sir Patrick

Rathbone, Tim

Waller, Gary

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Walters, Dennis

Renton, Tim

Ward, John

Rhodes James, Robert

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Warren, Kenneth

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Watts, John

Rifkind, Malcolm

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wheeler, John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Whitfield, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Whitney, Raymond

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wiggin, Jerry

Rossi, Hugh

Wilkinson, John

Rost, Peter

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Rowe, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Wolfson, Mark

Ryder, Richard

Wood, Timothy

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Woodcock, Michael

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Yeo, Tim

475

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Tellers for the Notes:

Younger, Rt Hon George

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Question accordingly negatived.
Main Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 30.

Division No. 35]

[10.14 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Crouch, David

Alexander, Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Dicks, T.

Amess, David

Dorrell, Stephen

Ancram, Michael

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Ashby, David

Dover, Denshore

Aspinwall, Jack

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

Dunn, Robert

Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

Durant, Tony

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Dykes, Hugh

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

Eggar, Tim

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Emery, Sir Peter

Baldry, Anthony

Evennett David

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Eyre, Reginald

Batiste, Spencer

Farr, John

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Favell, Anthony

Bellingham, Henry

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Bendall, Vivian

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Berry, Hon Anthony

Fletcher, Alexander

Best, Keith

Fookes, Miss Janet

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman, Nigel

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Forth, Eric

Blackburn, John

Fowler, Fit Hon Norman

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Fox, Marcus

Body, Richard

Franks, Cecil

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Freeman, Roger

Bottomley, Peter

Fry, Peter

Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

Gale, Roger

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Galley, Roy

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Bright, Graham

Glyn, Dr Alan

Brinton, Tim

Goodhart:, Sir Philip

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Gorst, John

Brooke, Hon Peter

Gow, Ian

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Browne, John

Grant, Sir Anthony

Bruinvels, Peter

Greenway, Harry

Bryan, Sir Paul

Gregory, Conal

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

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

Budgen, Nick

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bulmer, Esmond

Grist, Ian

Burt, Alistair

Ground, Patrick

Butler, Hon Adam

Grylls, Michael

Butterfill, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Carttiss, Michael

Hampsor, Dr Keith

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hanley, Jeremy

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Hargreavos, Kenneth

Chapman, Sydney

Harvey, Flobert

Chope, Christopher

Haselhunst, Alan

Churchill, W. S.

Havers, Fit Hon Sir Michael

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

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hawksley, Warren

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hayhoe, Barney

Clegg, Sir Walter

Hayward, Robert

Cockeram, Eric

Heath, Rt Hon Edward

Colvin, Michael

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Conway, Derek

Heddle, John

Coombs, Simon

Henderson, Barry

Cope, John

Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

Cormack, Patrick

Hickmet, Richard

Corrie, John

Hicks, Robert

Couchman, James

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L

Cranborne, Viscount

Hirst, Michael

476

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Montgomery, Fergus

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Moore, John

Holt, Richard

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Hordern, Peter

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Howard, Michael

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Moynihan, Hon C.

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Mudd, David

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Murphy, Christopher

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Needham, Richard

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Nelson, Anthony

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Newton, Tony

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Nicholls, Patrick

Hunter, Andrew

Normanton, Tom

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Norris, Steven

Irving, Charles

Onslow, Cranley

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Osborn, Sir John

Jessel, Toby

Ottaway, Richard

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Page, John (Harrow W)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Parris, Matthew

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Patten, John (Oxford)

Kilfedder, James A.

Pattie, Geoffrey

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Pawsey, James

King, Rt Hon Tom

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Pink, R. Bonner

Knowles, Michael

Pollock, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Porter, Barry

Lang, Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Latham, Michael

Powley, John

Lawler, Geoffrey

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Lawrence, Ivan

Price, Sir David

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Prior, Rt Hon James

Lee, John (Pendle)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Raffan, Keith

Lester, Jim

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Lightbown, David

Rathbone, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Renton, Tim

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Rhodes James, Robert

Lord, Michael

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Luce, Richard

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Lyell, Nicholas

Rifkind, Malcolm

McCrea, Rev William

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

McCrindle, Robert

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

McCurley, Mrs Anna

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Macfarlane, Neil

Roe, Mrs Marion

MacGregor, John

Rossi, Hugh

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Rowe, Andrew

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

Ryder, Richard

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

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

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

McQuarrie, Albert

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Madel, David

Sayeed, Jonathan

Major, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Malins, Humfrey

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Malone, Gerald

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Maples, John

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Marland, Paul

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Marlow, Antony

Shersby, Michael

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Silvester, Fred

Mates, Michael

Sims, Roger

Maude, Francis

Skeet, T. H. H.

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Speed, Keith

Mellor, David

Spence, John

Merchant, Piers

Spencer, D.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Squire, Robin

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Miscampbell, Norman

Stanley, John

Moate, Roger

Steen, Anthony

Monro, Sir Hector

Stern, Michael

477

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Waldegrave, Hon William

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Waller, Gary

Stokes, John

Walters, Dennis

Stradling Thomas, J.

Ward, John

Sumberg, David

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Tapsell, Peter

Warren, Kenneth

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Watts, John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Wheeler, John

Terlezki, Stefan

Whitfield, John

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Whitney, Raymond

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Wiggin, Jerry

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Wilkinson, John

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Thorne, Neil (llford S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Thornton, Malcolm

Wolfson, Mark

Thurnham, Peter

Wood, Timothy

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Woodcock, Michael

Tracey, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Trippier, David

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Trotter, Neville

Younger, Rt Hon George

Twinn, Dr Ian

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Tellers for the Ayes:

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Waddington, David

Mr. Alastair Goodlad.

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

NOES

Ashdown, Paddy

Harman, Ms Harriet

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Home Robertson, John

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark

Boyes, Roland

Johnston, Russell

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Marshall, David (Shettlestor

Cohen, Harry

Meadowcroft, Michael

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mikardo, Ian

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Parry Robert

Eastham, Ken

Pavitt, Laurie

Fatchett, Derek

Penhaligon, David

Freud, Clement

Richardson, Ms Jo

478

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Wilson, Gordon

Skinner, Dennis

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Tellers for the Noes:

Wainwright, Robert

Mr.A. J. Beith and

Wareing, Robert

Mr.Archy Kirkwood.

Wigley, Dafydd

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983, contained in Cmnd. 8951.
It being after Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions which he was directed by paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 18A (Consideration of Estimates) to put at that hour.

Orders of the Day

  Defence Estimates
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on amendment to Question [19 July]:
  That this House approves the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983, contained in Cmnd. 8951.—[Mr.Heseltine.]
  Which amendment was to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 (Cmnd. 8951) do not provide the United Kingdom with a viable defence against aggression; regrets the Government's failure to take any initiative to stop the escalation of the nuclear arms race and, as a first step, to support a nuclear freeze; notes that the Government plans would require the United Kingdom, which already spends more on the defence of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation both in terms of gross national product and per head of the population than arty other member of the Alliance, to increase that spending still further; and therefore calls upon the Government to work within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation for a strong non-nuclear defence policy and, in particular, to cease its reliance upon Trident and the deployment of Cruise missiles within the United Kingdom."—[Mr. Silkin.]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES 1983–84
  Question,
  That a supplementary sum not exceeding £1,003,830,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1984 for expenditure on Defence and civil Services, as set out in House of Commons Paper No. 27.
  put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. Nicholas Ridley, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. John Moore.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND
  Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1984 and 1985; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 13.]

Sex Discrimination
10.30 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Alan Clark): I beg to move,
That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.
The debate is on the draft regulations to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. The regulations arise from a need to amend the Act to conform to our European obligations. To do this in a way that is sensible and fair to everyone requires careful balances to be struck, raising complex matters of law and procedure. I apologise if I have to lead the House into matters which are complicated and which may seem to certain hon. Members on first consideration to be unwelcome. I apologise also, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the fact that on the first occasion on which I am speaking from the Dispatch Box in your presence I might have to deviate from the injunction for brevity of which you almost constantly remind us. However, there are certain legalistic passages which I might have to deal with at 78 rpm instead of 33. I am sure that the House will understand.
At first sight, the regulations consist of some simple propositions. The Equal Pay Act allows a woman to claim equal pay with a man, or a man with a woman—I do not propose to repeat that disclaimer on every occasion on which it might arise and in all comparative contexts henceforth a man can also mean a woman and a woman can also mean a man— if she is doing the same or broadly similar work, or if her job and his have been rated equal through job evaluation in effort, skill and decision. However, if a woman is doing different work from a comparable man, or if the jobs are not covered by a job evaluation study, the woman has at present no right to make a claim for equal pay. This is the gap, identified by the European Court, which we are closing. We are providing for those women to make claims to industrial tribunals, which will be helped by newly appointed experts who will furnish independent reports on whether the jobs compared are in fact of equal value.
It might be helpful to hon. Members if I summarise the history and background of this amendment. The House will recall the Equal Pay Act 1970—a most progressive measure. Five years later, in 1975, there was promulgated a European Community directive on the principle, and a further four years later, in 1979, the European Community Commission started infringement proceedings against the United Kingdom on the ground that the Equal Pay Act did not provide for equal pay for men and women for work to which equal value was attributed unless that work had already been rated as equivalent under a job evaluation scheme.
I note that some of my hon. Friends are getting slightly restive already—
Ms Clare Short: Speed it up a hit.
Mr. Clark: The speedy bit comes later. The European Court of Justice at Luxembourg gave judgment on 6 July 1982 to the effect that the United Kingdom had failed to fulfil its treaty obligations because United Kingdom legislation did not contain measures to enable employees, where no system of job classification existed, to obtain
480
equal pay for equal work for men and women. We are therefore required to amend the 1970 Act to comply with the court's judgment.
The Government accept the principle of equal pay for men and women and are committed to the full implementation of the European Community directive. We accept the need to amend the Equal Pay Act so as to close the small gap between the directive and the Act found by the European Court.
The European Communities Act 1972 provides a means to do this swiftly and efficiently by regulations, the draft of which we are discussing tonight.
We circulated draft regulations for comment in February. In drawing up that draft, we sought to retain the existing structure of the Equal Pay Act and machinery for deciding cases while making provision for the assessment of the value of work where no job evaluation had been undertaken, thereby bringing the Equal Pay Act into full compliance with the European Equal Pay directive as required by the court judgment.
The draft that we circulated in February provided, as does this one, that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment not only in the circumstances laid down in the current Act—where she is employed on work which is "like" or already "rated as equivalent" under a study—but also where her work is of equal value to a man's in terms of the demands made on her.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sure that my hon. Friend understands, as I do, that we joined the European Community so that we could trade with our partners in the European Community. Why do we have this nonsense tonight? What have the regulations to do with trading? Why must we put up with this rubbish?
Mr. Clark: I do not think that my hon. Friend has fully comprehended the scope of our commitment to the European Community, which is set out in the treaty of Rome, and on which subject we do from time to time have the benefit of his views. I hope that if he should catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we will hear those in extended form later.
Where a claim for equal pay arises under the new equal value provision, the draft regulations provide for the industrial tribunal to commission a report from an independent expert on whether the jobs are of equal value. The experts are to be appointed by the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service, to which I shall henceforth refer as ACAS.
Three specific areas in the February draft were criticised, and as a result we have made changes. The criticisms came from the Equal Opportunities Commission, to which I shall continue to refer as the Equal Opportunities Commission and not as the EOC.
Mr. Michael Martin: Get on with it.
Mr. Clark: Does the hon. Gentleman want me to abbreviate the text or to speak more rapidly?
First, in the February draft the burden of proving sex discrimination in pay was placed on the woman. We did this because we were anxious to emphasise that a claim should be brought for equal pay for work of equal value only if sex discrimination was involved. On reflection, however, we felt this was unnecessary and what was

481
needed instead was a provision for employers to be able to argue in appropriate cases that sex discrimination was not involved. I shall explain later precisely what provision we have made for this.
The second area in which there was criticism of the February draft was a provision that people already covered by a job evaluation scheme could not bring a case under the new equal value provision. We introduced this limitation because the European Court judgment did not suggest that we needed to enable people whose job had already been evaluated to make a claim. However, representations were made to us by the Equal Opportunities Commission and others that the exclusion of people whose jobs have been evaluated would be contrary to the European equal pay directive.
We appreciate that the fact of creating a new provision to claim equal pay for work of equal value may highlight the difficult position of people whose jobs have been evaluated but who feel that there may have been sex discrimination—particularly indirect sex discrimination — in the evaluation itself. With that in mind, we decided on this point alone to go further than the European Court judgment required and provide that employees whose jobs had already been evaluated might have a claim considered under the new provision on the ground of sex discrimination in the original job evaluation study. Regulation 3(1) of the draft regulations gives effect to that.
Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Would it be possible for my hon. Friend to take time off from dealing with these regulations to take a rapid reading course?
Mr. Clark: I am surprised at my hon. Friend's intervention. I feel that it is desirable that the House should be able to digest what is an exceedingly complex matter.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Certainly, but a little faster, please.
Mr. Clark: I know that my hon. Friend has a capacity to absorb data at a speed greater than some other hon. Members, but in the general interest of the House I will, for the time being, retain my existing pace.
Ms Clare Short: Does the hon. Gentleman believe in what he is saying? If not, is he not demeaning the office of a Minister of the Crown? Does he feel it right that he should stand at the Dispatch Box acting the part, just reading out words? He should either mean what he says or resign.
Mr. Clark: I applaud the hon. Lady's sentiments. When she has been here longer she will appreciate that a certain separation between expressed and implied beliefs is endemic among those who hold office.
Ms Short: Disgraceful.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order.
Mr. Clark: I regret that the atmosphere should have been sullied in this way.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: We have heard the hon. Gentleman speak from below the Gangway on many occasions. If he feels that it was worth while taking ministerial office, he should put the
482
Government's view that they, and he, believe in equal pay, and if he believes in equal pay, he should speak about it with enthusiasm and not in the manner in which he is speaking tonight.
Ms Short: If not, resign.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we might now return to the regulations.
Mr. Clark: Plainly, an assessment of enthusiasm is a completely subjective matter.
Representations have been made that any delay in implementation must be shown to be reasonably necessary to comply with European law; and in view of the fact that the administrative arrangements can be made within six months, we have decided to advance the date of implementation to 1 January 1984.
I now summarise the provisions of the draft regulations as laid before the House on 6 July, and inevitably I shall have to go into some technical, legal language, and I hope that the House will bear with me. In deference to the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) I shall accelerate my pace of delivery for this passage.
The draft contains regulations which provide that a woman is entitled to equal pay with a man in the same employment—or a man with a woman—where her work is of equal value to a man's in terms of the demands made on her, for instance, under such headings as effort, skill and decision—regulation 2(1). Where a claim for equal pay is to be determined under the new equal value provision, a tribunal will be able to dismiss an application if it is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that the jobs are of equal value—regulation 3(1).
Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Minister pause and explain the meaning of that last paragraph, because some of us who are skilled in understanding these provisions find it impossible to understand that one? Instead of racing through it, will he pause long enough to say what he believes it means, as presumably he is inviting the House to accept it? Will he remember that he is dealing with a matter which some of us regard with great concern?
Mr. Clark: I welcome so early a revelation of the fact that when one tries to please an hon. Friend one immediately offends an Opposition Member. I had hoped to disarm criticism on the Government Benches, but I find that I have aroused it on the Opposition Benches. I shall settle for a median rate of delivery between the two extremes.
If the tribunal is satisfied that there are no such grounds, it will dismiss the application.
Mr. Janner: What does it mean?
Mr. Clark: The hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Janner: Honourable and learned.
Mr. Clark: The hon. and learned Gentleman corrects me, using the very adjective that I was about to choose to suggest that his mastery of such language doubtless exceeds my own and that in the fullness of time he will form his own Government.
The draft regulations explicitly provide that if jobs are already covered by a job evaluation scheme and there is

483
no evidence that that scheme is itself sexually discriminatory, there are no reasonable grounds for the tribunal to let the claim go forward.
Ms. Clare Short: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have read in the newspapers that in the House one is not allowed to accuse another hon. Member of not being sober. However, I seriously put it to you that the Minister is incapable. [HoN. MEMBERS Withdraw."] It is disrespectful to the House and to the office that he holds for the hon. Gentleman to come here—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady ought not to make allegations of that kind. She should withdraw.
Ms. Short: I shall not withdraw.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Ms. Short: No. I am speaking the truth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady should withdraw the allegation.
Mr. Michael Brown: Name her.
Ms. Short: I should be grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I mean what I say, but I do not understand the rules of the House. How I am allowed to tell the House that I mean it, without being penalised for saying it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I understand how the hon. Lady feels. She has not been long in the House. However, she really ought to withdraw that allegation. It is not permitted to accuse an hon. Member in that way.
Hon. Members: Withdraw.
Ms. Short rose—
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not permissible for an hon. Member to ask you a question? As I understand it, the hon. Lady did not make an allegation but suggested to you that you should give—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady time to consider, and I ask her to withdraw the allegation.
Ms. Short: If I am allowed to withdraw when the House understands that I meant what I said, I withdraw.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall accept that as a withdrawal. We should now continue with the debate.
Mr. Wareing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for any right hon. or hon. Member to address the House if he were drunk?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. I think that we should continue with the debate.
Mr. Clark: The regulations expressly provide that there shall be taken to be no reasonable grounds for determining that the work of a woman is of equal value if her work has already been given a different value to that
484
of her male comparator on a job evaluation study and there are no reasonable grounds for detenning that the evaluation contained in the study was made on a system that discrimates on grounds of sex.
The draft regulations provide, in regulation 2(2), that a material factor which is not the difference of sex must, in the case of work which is like or already rates as equivalent, be a material difference between the woman's case and the man's. This is a test applied in the current Equal Pay Act. However, in the case of work which it is claimed is of equal value in terms of the demand made on the employees, the regulations provide that the material factor may be, but need not be, such a material difference.
The purpose of this provision is to enable unequal pay to be justified in situations where the work is of equal value but there is no sex discrimination. We consider that a wider test is required in equal value cases than under the current Act, because "material difference" under current case law has been interpreted as meaning factors personal to the employee concerned, and in these new equal value cases, where the scope for comparison will be much wider than under the current Act, we consider that the scope of the employer's defence needs to be widened accordingly.
I shall come back to that point a little later in my speech.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: In widening the scope of the defence, is the Minister satisfied that he is not undermining the purpose of this legislation, which is intended to bring the law into conformity with a judgment of the European Court?
Mr. Clark: The decision to widen the scope was taken after consultation. I shall return to that point shortly, but I think that I am satisfied in that regard.
To resume my summary of the regulations, if the tribunal is satisfied at this early stage that the employer has shown that the variation in pay is due to a material factor other than sex, it will dismiss the case. Otherwise, the tribunal will commission a report from an independent expert on whether the two jobs in question are of equal value. The independent expert will be drawn from a list of people designated by ACAS. The experts will have experience of industrial relations and the evaluation of jobs, though they will not necessarily be expected to use formal job evaluation in considering the value of the two jobs in question.
The expert will report to the tribunal on the value of the jobs and the tribunal will make a decision on equal value, taking such account of the expert's report as it considers appropriate. If the tribunal decides that the jobs are of equal value, and unless at this stage the employer can show that the variation is due to a material factor other than sex, the tribunal will award equal pay.
In addition to the draft regulations whose contents I have just been describing, provision needs to be made in procedure regulations for rules governing the operation of the independent expert and of these cases generally.
Mr. Marlow rose—
Mr. Clark: I shall give way, but because of various interruptions this speech is taking an inordinately long time to make, even by the standards of a full debate. I am sure that my hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot give way indefinitely.
Mr. Marlow: I shall be as brief as my hon. Friend has been in giving way. He says that equal pay will be

485
awarded. I assume that that means that the man or woman in question will receive more pay. Does that not mean that the product or service that she is providing is likely to become more expensive? If the product or service becomes more expensive, is there not a possibility that the company for which she works will go bankrupt and that she will lose her employment? Is not my hon. Friend a Minister in the Department of Employment, and is it not his job to secure maximum employment opportunities? If so, why is he introducing this measure?
Mr. Clark: It is, of course, true that where wage increases are reflected in the price of the article produced, they may also be reflected in the balance sheet. However, whether that subsequently leads to bankruptcy depends on the individual case.
In the event that a report is commissioned, we propose to provide for the tribunal to make the necessary request to the expert, for the parties to be sent copies of the expert's report by the tribunal and for the parties to be able to make representations and produce evidence in respect of the expert's report in certain circumstances. The expert would not be open to examination.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Full stop.
Mr. Clark: Having outlined the legal framework, I should like to say a word or two about the practical effect of these regulations.
The current Equal Pay Act will, of course, still operate. This means that people doing work which they claim is similar to or already rated as equivalent to work done by a person of the opposite sex may have their claim considered by an industrial tribunal, which will consider their claim and also any defence the employer wishes to make to the effect that the difference in pay is genuinely due to a material difference other than sex.
As I mentioned earlier, under the current case law the defence of a genuine material difference other than sex has been interpreted to mean factors personal to the employee concerned—for example, merit, qualifications or length of service.
To take a concrete example, if a woman claims equal pay with a man who is doing the same work but who has worked in the establishment for 15 years longer, the employer is entitled to justify a higher pay for the man on the ground of his length of service, provided this is a genuine reason and not just an excuse for underpaying the woman.
Under the amending regulations which are the subject of this debate, an employee will be able to bring a claim for equal pay with an employee of the opposite sex working in the same employment on the ground that the work is of equal value. When this happens, conciliation will first be attempted, as in all equal pay claims. If conciliation is unsuccessful, the industrial tribunal will take the following steps. First, it will check that the work is not in fact so similar that the case can be heard under the current Act. Secondly, it will consider whether the jobs have already been covered by a job evaluation scheme and judged not to be of equal value. If this is the case, the claim may proceed only if the original job evaluation scheme is shown to have been sexually discriminatory.
Having decided that the case should proceed, the tribunal will first invite the parties to see if they can settle
486
the claim voluntarily. If not, the tribunal will consider whether to commission an independent expert to report on the value of the jobs. It will not commission an expert's report if it feels that it is unreasonable to determine the question of value — for example, if the two jobs are quite obviously of unequal value. Nor, as I have already explained, will it commission an expert's report if the employer shows at this stage that inequality in pay is due to material factors other than sex discrimination.
Mr. Janner rose—
Mr. Clark: I have given way twice to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it might be interesting if he develops his theme at greater length.
Let me here digress for a moment on the intention of this "material factors" provision, to which I said I would return. The draft regulations specifically provide that in these equal value cases the defence of material factors may go wider than the current defence of material difference other than the difference of sex.
What we have in mind are circumstances where the difference in pay is not due to personal factors between the man and the woman, but rather to skill shortages or other market forces. If a man is paid more than a woman for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, this is not sexually discriminatory, provided the reason is genuine and the employer can show this.
Ms. Harriet Harman: The Minister mentioned market value as a material factor which could deny a woman her equal pay claim. Does he not recognise that the market awards higher pay to a man than it does to a woman because of the undervaluation of women's work in the market? The Minister will be providing a complete let-out if he allows market value as a way of excluding equal pay.
Mr. Clark: Market values on their own cannot operate in that way. What is true is that the market in some cases assesses women higher than men. I feel that it is safe to rely on the market, particularly as more women enter employment and their special skills become apparent in a wider area.
If a man is paid more than a women for work of equal value because his skills are in short supply, that is not sexually discriminatory, provided that the reason is genuine and the employer can show that. In making this provision, we have had regard to the reality that pay is not determined just by the demands made on the worker. At the same time, it must be possible for a woman to get equal pay if there is no good reason for the difference in pay other than sex discrimination.
I return to the procedure that will operate. If a tribunal considers that a claim of equal pay for work of equal value is clearly not going to succeed, either because the work is obviously not of equal value or because the employer has shown material factors unrelated to sex, the tribunal will dismiss the case. Otherwise, it will commission a report from an independent expert on the value of the jobs. Once the experts have reported, the tribunal will copy the report to the parties and at the subsequent hearing the parties will be able to make representations about the report, though not to cross-examine the expert. The tribunal's task will be to come to a decision on equal value in the light of the report.
Ms. Harman: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clark: I have just given way to the hon. Lady. I am greatly looking forward to hearing her speech if she catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are nearly at the end.
If the tribunal finds the work to be of equal value, and comes to the view that there are no genuine material factors other than sex justifying the inequality of pay, it will make an award of equal pay. an award may be backdated to two years, as is the case in the current Act, but no backdating before the new regulations come into force will be possible. That means that, as the regulations will come into force on 1 January 1984, that full award of two years' back pay will not be possible until 1 January 1986.
Mr. John Gorst: What my hon. Friend is reading out is of enormous complexity. Bearing in mind that just before the Dissolution his predecessor came to the Select Committee on Employment to give advance warning of this measure, would it not be more sensible for there to be a delay before implementation, so that the Select Committee, when it is set up, can examine not only the complexity of what my hon. Friend is reading out but its impact on British industry? We should have a proper inquiry before we rush into this complicated measure.
Mr. Clark: Alas, the manner in which the regulations are submitted and verified is not for me. There may be an implied reproach in my hon. Friend's reference to my reading my speech, but as he has been in the Chamber throughout he will appreciate that the complexities are such that it can be presented only by copious reference to the printed word.
Mr. Cranley Onslow: There are considerable difficulties for the Minister and the House. He said that the matter could be understood only by copious reference to the printed word. It would have been much easier if the House had had a chance to read his speech before he delivered it.
In all seriousness, if we are to make a measured judgment, which has been made somewhat difficult by the interruptions of Opposition Members, would it not be to the advantage of the House and the good name of Parliament if hon. Members had a chance to read the speech and make a decision on it later?
Mr. Clark: To make a measured judgment requires a high level of concentration.
I hope that it will be apparent from what I have said that our aim has been to implement the European Court judgment sensibly and quickly, having regard to the need to comply with European law and at the same time safeguard employers against having to give equal pay where there is no sex discrimination.
We have responded to criticisms from the Equal Opportunities Commission and others and the draft regulations incorporate amendments which have been made as a result of comment and discussions during the consultative period.
I commend the regulations to the House.
Mr. Janner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister referred to a great deal of information that is not in the regulations. Is it in order to place regulations before the House and then read a prepared explanation of procedures that will take place following, presumably, other regulations not before the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Fortunately, the Minister's speech is not a matter for me.
11.7 pm
Mr. Barry Jones: It is customary to welcome a new Minister to the Dispatch Box when he makes his first speech. I formally welcome the Minister. Many right hon. and hon. Members consider that he made a frivolous speech on an important subject about which they have strong feelings. Many of us looked forward to hearing serious and convincing views. On reflection, the Minister may consider that his speech was damaging and even demeaning to his Department, which has the tradition of Monckton and Macleod If he did not wish to address himself seriously to this matter, he might have borne in mind the conduct of those previous holders of office in his Department.
The Opposition are attempting to drag the Government —this is what the Equal Opportunities Commission and the National Council for Civil Liberties also wish to do— perhaps kicking and screaming, into line with the spirit as well as the letter of the European Community's directive on equal pay. Our suspicion—indeed, almost conviction—is that this Administration would be pleased to see women penned in the environment of the kitchen and child-rearing against a background of almost perpetual mass unemployment.
The TUC has said that the Government, seem to take an obstructive attitude to women in the labour market. The Minister said that his Department had done something. I concede that some of the criticisms of the August 1982 and February 1983 proposals have caused the Government to modify their intentions.
The Opposition must emphasise today that the background is daunting for a woman who merely seeks a fair deal on equal pay. Later this year, for example, the fair wages resolution will be set aside. Historically, that resolution provided protection against employers paying less than a fair rate, so the scales are now more heavily weighted against a woman seeking and obtaining work at a reasonable wage. Last year the Department introduced the young workers scheme, which offers a generous subsidy to employers who pay less than £40 per week to their employees. The wages inspectorate — the grass roots police who cope with cheating employers — has been whittled down as a result of public expenditure cuts. Moreover, 17 industrial training boards were abolished last year, just when they had begun to offer women equal access to skills training — in many ways the key to higher wages.
Today the Minister has promulgated a three-page statutory instrument of Byzantine complexity. When did anything of that nature last come before the House?
Ms. Clare Short: Does my hon. Friend agree that the only honourable course for a Minister who does not believe in the action that he is asked to recommend to the House is to resign?
Mr. Jones: That is ultimately a matter for the Minister, but I appreciate the strong feeling that has impelled my hon. Friend to make that and other interjections so far.
The statutory instrument is legal gobbledegook. It is an algebraic mystery — a small print bonanza for specialists. It is a daunting, obtuse maze of a measure and truly a stumbling block to a female complainant and her advisers, whoever they may be.
Mr. Frank Dobson: The lawyers will be quids in.
Mr. Jones: At this late stage in the debate I suggest that the House should consider briefly the passage beginning at line 16 of regulation 3. Those 11 unfathomable lines are virtually incapable of comprehension by this honourable House. Nothing that the Minister has said or that the Department has sought to put before us today has enabled any conscientious right hon. or hon. Member fully to comprehend what is proposed. That is the most disappointing aspect of the Minister's speech.
The new section 2A(1) is very much open to criticism on the ground of lack of candour. At present, tribunals may either find for the applicant or reject the application. Under the new proposals there is a third option—to decide that there are no reasonable grounds for determining the question. Tribunals already have adequate powers to deal with trivial, frivolous or vexatious cases. Moreover, the new instrument proposes that a pre-hearing assessment may be used by the tribunal to warn the applicant that costs may be awarded against her.
When those applications have been knocked out, it is hard to see what class of cases section 2A(1)(a) is intended to cover. A tribunal that has gone sufficiently deeply into the merits of an application to form a judgment that there are no reasonable grounds to determine that the woman's work is of equal value to the man's has, to all intents and purposes, determined the question before it, but the Minister did not make that clear. To decide that there are no reasonable grounds for determining equal value is to determine the question. The distinction between determining that a woman's work is not of equal value to a man's and rejecting it on the basis that there are no reasonable grounds for determining that they are of equal value is purely semantic and can only obscure the truth. The Minister has advanced a highly restricted view of what constitutes equal value. That is the kernel of our reservations.
The Minister has put time against all of us. I hope that my hon. Friends will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There are no draft procedural regulations, so uncertainties remain. Will the procedural regulations provide for compulsory adjournments to encourage the voluntary settlement of cases? What qualifications will the independent experts have? What guidance will the independent experts be given? What will happen if an employer refuses to co-operate with an expert who has been commissioned to make a report?
On a matter of such importance and topicality it is utterly unsatisfactory not to present the draft procedural regulations. Moreover, we fault the Government for providing only 90 minutes, under the affirmative resolution procedure, to debate these amending regulations. The House might be aware that the Government are using the procedure under section 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 to amend the Equal Pay Act 1970. They are using that device rather than adopting the route of primary legislation. The Opposition maintain that the latter route would have guaranteed the tabling of amendments and facilitated a genuine debate. In those circumstances, the House might have had the benefit of the Minister's explanation of the regulations. We have had no such explanation today.
It has become clear that Conservative Members do not know what their Minister is proposing. Worse than that,
490
notwithstanding interventions, the Minister made a lengthy speech—but in it there was no sense, rhyme or reason. It is astonishing that that should happen. When did right hon. and hon. Members last witness what we have experienced today? It must be a long time. It is utterly reprehensible for the Treasury Bench to treat the House in that way. It might be that the House has not heard the last of this issue. Perhaps the Minister will want to come back to the House before long, even if he does not consider his own position.
The Department could have given the Minister a brief. The Opposition can get one. Worse, however, is the use of the section 2 procedure rather than primary legislation, ruling out the possibility of the amending legislation being fully retrospective. The Department has taken a sneaky and diabolical liberty. Women should have been entitled to the right to claim equal pay for work of equal value since 1976. However, no order made under section 2 can take effect earlier than the date on which the order is made. Hence, under the amending regulations, no equal value claim will be heard before January 1984 and no tribunal will be able to award to a successful claimant the maximum compensation of two years' back pay until January 1986. The Minister should know that that contrasts unfavourably with the Government's stance on retrospective compensation for victims of the closed shop in the Employment Act 1982. The regulations and the closed shop legislation were two powerful, politically motivated decisions. Under the regulations women will get a shabby deal, and the Minister has been the vehicle of that shabby deal.
Britain is suffering from a severe economic crisis, and every resource must be utilised to speed our industrial and social reconstruction. North sea oil deposits are a prime factor in our fight for survival as an industrial state, but so, too, is our human capital. In this assessment of our national resources, it is apparent to many that Britain's economic resurgence would be more certain and speedier if the undoubted talents and capabilities of millions of women were more readily engaged and the discriminatory barriers against them broken down. The Department of Employment is in the hands of obstructionists. Ministerial responses to European directives are lacklustre, grudging, without conviction, cynical, shabby, and certainly equivocal, as we saw tonight.
A golden opportunity has been missed. This seems like a sell-out to employers' interests. It is a betrayal of the just proposals of those dedicated organisations that have argued positively for a better deal for women at work. The regulations represent the policy of a Government who are walking forwards with their face set stubbornly to the past. The Government should have brought forward primary legislation. The procedural regulations have not yet been published. There is no retrospective legislation. The regulations fall short of the standards required by the directive. It is obvious that the Government's commitment is half-hearted. We shall vote against the regulations.
11.22 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am sorry that we had a hysterical purple patch in the middle of the speech of the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones). I have seldom heard anything so intemperate and unjustified in the four years that I have been in the House.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman has not read his own speeches.
Mr. Marlow: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State on his speech, which made what for us is a very complex issue more or less intelligible and very human. It is as I understand it, my hon. Friend's first time at the Dispatch Box. Some people would look upon it as being a baptism of fire. I think that the problem with the measure that he had to bring to us was that he was in greater danger of being drowned in his own indigestion, and I can quite understand why. It is a most indigestible, unpleasant and unpalatable measure. There are bastard regulations, born out of the Equal Opportunities Commission and sired by the European Court of Justice. It may be the other way round, depending on which of those two organisations is the more butch.
The regulation states:
"An equality clause shall not operate … if the employer proves"
something to do with sex. Therefore, as my hon. Friend said, the employer is assumed to be wrong, is assumed to be guilty, is assumed to be in breach, unless proved innocent. This is a novel concept in British law. Our employers have enough to put up with without that.
The measure also states that equal pay should be given for work of equal value. Any trouble maker or any potential irritated employee is going to pretend that her work is of equal value. It is an open invitation to any feminist, any harridan or any rattle-headed female with a chip on her bra strap to take action against her employer.
I have heard of barrackroom lawyers and sea lawyers. This is a charter for petticoat lawyers. Why on earth do the Conservative Government bring this nonsense before the House? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.'] I understand that as a Conservative Government we are determined to keep public expenditure under control. This does nothing of the sort. It increases public expenditure. I understand that as a Conservative Government we are determined to take the burdens off business and to reduce bureaucracy. This puts massive additional burdens on business and industry, and increases bureaucracy. People will be taking pettifogging cases against their companies, and that will cause strife, concern, trouble, cost and disruption to business and industry. It will cause otherwise successful companies to have problems—perhaps even go bankrupt—and it will cause a loss of jobs.
I understand that we in the Conservative party believe in the market.
Ms. Clare Short rose—
Mr. Marlow: I shall not give way, because I shall be brief and I am about to sit down.
Surely, we in the Conservative party believe in the market. There is a different market in many respects between male labour and female labour. The majority of men go to work for a different reason than the majority of women. I do not say all men and all women. Do we not believe in a market? If we introduce these regulations, we shall interfere with the workings of the market. Why? I know why. The reason is that we believe that we are a law-abiding party, and the law has been passed, a directive has been issued, and the European Court of Justice has said that we must take action. Therefore, we must take action.
There is one thing that is more important than that. We here are a law-making Parliament, and I think that it is more important that the laws that we make here should not be bad laws than that we abide by the laws of an institution
492
the other side of the Channel. This is nonsense. We should be against it. We should throw it out. I shall vote against it and I plead with my colleagues to join me.
11.26 pm
Ms. Jo Richardson: Twenty-four hours ago in this Chamber we began a debate about Members' pay. The Benches on both sides were packed. I wish that this debate were conducted with the same seriousness as last night's debate.
One of the central themes that ran through that debate was how we could equate our jobs with an outside job specification so that we would not have the unpleasant task from time to time of deciding upon the level of our own pay. We wanted to be linked—in that case, with the Civil Service. In a way, that is what this debate is about. It is about the concept of equal work for equal value for many millions of women who are not in a job and not in a position where they have a man alongside them with whom they can compare their rates of pay.
This debate is about low pay. In a disgraceful speech, which he gabbled at a rate of knots, making it even more incomprehensible than it already was, the Minister—like the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) — showed that the Government lack any understanding of what it is like for women who work in low-paid jobs. We are here to try to lift women out of that situation.
There is no doubt that the equal pay legislation left out of consideration the many millions of women who should have been included in the first place. The Government are not doing that properly by these regulations. As has been said, it should have been done by amending the Equal Pay Act 1970.
Much has been said about the consultation procedure to which the Minister referred, which has gone on for 12 months. The majority of the opinions that have been sent to the Department of Employment have said, "For God's sake drop the regulations and do the thing properly." The Department should bring in equal pay for work of equal value on a proper basis. That has been the criticism from the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Fawcett society and the all-party equality group which I chair jointly with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). We had two meetings to which we invited a large number of organisations, not necessarily those that would be described as feminist. For example, there were the soroptomists, the townswomen's guilds and representatives of the political parties. All were against the way that this is being done. All were in favour of extending the Equal Pay Act in order to do the job properly.
It is a disgrace that Britain should be taken to court because it failed to fulfil its obligation to introduce the concept in the first place. That will happen again because these regulations do not do the job properly. I emphasise that it is disgraceful to take these steps by way of regulations.
It has been clearly demonstrated tonight that these are complex and badly written regulations. Regulation 2(1)(i) says:
"if (apart from the equality clause) any term of the woman's contract is or becomes less favourable to the woman than a term of a similar kind in the contract under which that man is employed, that term of the woman's contract shall be treated as so modified as not to be less favourable".

493
I defy any man or woman to decide when they are reading that whether they can bring a case for equal pay for equal work.
Mr. Ian Mikardo: Has my hon. Friend noticed that regulation 2(1) is a single sentence of 186 words, with 12 verbs, three subordinate clauses and two clauses subordinate to subordinate clauses? Does she believe, as I do, that it must be possible to write that lot in comprehensible English?
Ms Richardson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I had not counted the words. It is difficult to mouth some of them. The National Council for Civil Liberties has drawn up a model Bill which it introduced at a press conference in the House on Monday and I shall be happy to send the Minister a copy of it. That Bill introduces the concept in a proper way as an amendment to the Equal Pay Act. It is perfectly possible to do it properly, comprehensibly and in a way which will help women. We are here to help women out of the low paid ghetto-like occupations in which they find themselves.
If an employer has a job evaluation scheme which claims to justify the wage differential that will be a complete block to any claim based on equal value unless the woman can prove that that scheme is sex discriminatory. I do not know how she can possibly undertake that task. A woman may feel that she deserves to get more pay. She is faced with the daunting prospect of taking on an employer without the benefit of legal aid. That is the first obstacle that a woman will have to face.
The regulations propose a new section 1(3), in which a new form of material difference defence is set out. What is now proposed is that the material difference defence shall be substantially different and considerably less difficult for the employer to prove. Far from the regulations disadvantaging employers, as the hon. Member for Northampton, North appeared to suggest, they advantage employers all the way through. The employers must prove that the variation is
"genuinely due to a material factor which is not the difference of sex".
Whereas in like work the material factor must—that is the operative word—be a material difference between the woman's case and the man's, in this particular case the word has been changed from "must" to "may". As we all know, when "may" is used, there is no need to bother. That is the plain fact. From the imperative it has now gone down to not needing to bother. That is a very serious disadvantage to a woman when she is trying to tackle her own case.
Far from giving the employer an advantage, the regulations give powers to the tribunal which the tribunal does not have in other equal pay circumstances and cases. The tribunal can dismiss a case if it thinks that there are no reasonable grounds for deciding that the jobs are of equal value. There is nothing in the regulations which suggests that the woman, the applicant, has the right of appeal, or, as far as I can see, need even be informed as to why the tribunal does not think that she has a case. The tribunal will establish yea or nay, and no guidance is given in the measure. Even so, if the woman gets over most of those obstacles and gets through, the tribunal, as the Minister said, brings in an expert. Again, the regulations do not specify what the expert is to do or who he will be.
494
I would bet my bottom dollar that the experts will all be men. The regulations do not say what guidelines there will be for selecting the experts, or what guidelines there will be for the experts in the way they are to work. What is to happen in this case is a mystery.
Ms. Harman: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is nothing in the regulations to say that the expert, when producing the report, must come to the industrial tribunal to be cross-examined on it? The regulations do not say that the experts have to give reasons in their report. Does she agree that it is not clear from the regulations whether the industrial tribunal is free to override the experts' report, or whether the woman claimant can bring in her own expert to challenge the experts? The order simply leaves it completely blank.
Ms. Richardson: My hon. Friend has demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt that we are right to try to throw out the regulations, because they are riddled with holes, and there is no way in which they can help any woman to achieve the objective which is apparent in the judgment of the European Court.
Mr. Janner: My hon. Friend referred to regulation 3 and the proposed section 2A(1)(a). Does she agree that a "not" or a "no" has been omitted? In its present form the provision is incomprehensible. My hon. Friend, like the Minister, has tried to make some sense out of it, but it appears that it is impossible to do so because the wording is incorrect.
Ms. Richardson: I had not noticed that. The regulations are incomprehensible and it is difficult or impossible to find one's way through the negatives and double negatives. I defy anyone, including the Minister, who appears no longer to be listening, to make any sense out of them.
The Government have built the equal value concept into the existing procedure for individual complaints. The emphasis is on the industrial tribunal rather than the central arbitration committee. There is no procedure for considering the wider and desirable effects of collective pay structures. What will happen if a woman who works in a factory brings a case and wins? What will happen to the collective agreement which has been negotiated with her employers by her union? If the employer says, "Mrs. Jones has won her case and I must apply her rate of pay to her working colleagues," that will be all right. But if the employer refuses to do that, will each one of her colleagues working alongside her have to bring an individual case? The mind boggles at the difficulties that will arise if we proceed with the regulations.
As I have said, the NCCL has produced a model Bill and I commend it to the Minister. However, this afternoon I presented a private Member's Bill—I was fortunate in the Ballot—called the Sex Equality Bill. I propose to amend and tighten up the sex discrimination and equal pay legislation. At the same time we could take on board the issues that are now before us.
The Government must do better than this. If they wish to be a credible Administration for women, especially low-paid women, in the world outside where people live and work, they must show them that they have a commitment to eradicating low pay. It is not good enough to adopt this miserable skinflint approach that will prevent women from getting what is just and fair. I hope that Members will vote

495
against the regulations and that the Government will introduce proper legislation to ensure that women get the decent deal that we all know they deserve.
11.42 pm
Mr. Hal Miller: The Opposition have been ill-advised in their choice of attack, both in their approach to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and to the regulations. It should be remembered that the draft regulations were produced in February in an endeavour to comply with the law as conceived by the European Court in as short a time as possible. This is a genuine attempt to amend current legislation to comply with the findings of the European Court in as short a set of regulations as possible after a lengthy period of consultation. Calls for a Bill would inevitably mean the procedure of Standing Committee examination, and, as the comments of some of my hon. Friends have showed, that would probably be a protracted and uncertain process. However, these regulations, thanks to the European Communities Act, are capable of being put through with dispatch to comply with the law and to give the Opposition what they are asking for.
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Miller: I shall not give way. I have only a short time in which to speak and the hon. Lady has already made an intervention.
These regulations are a genuine attempt to fulfil our obligations and to meet the reasonable aspirations of women, but all we get is criticism about their complexity. The complexity arises from trying to legislate at all in this area. Many hon. Members have had severe reservations about that attempt. The Equal Pay Act has been on the statute book since 1970, but in the intervening years of Labour government there has not been much attempt to deal with the matter. Here is a positive attempt, which has been out for consultation since February, going through under the expedited procedure.
Ms. Harman rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not appear to be giving way.
Mr. Miller: I am certainly not giving, way, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to be brief, as other hon. Members wish to speak.
I am attempting to deal with a complex problem. Part of the complexity arises from the difficulty of legislating in the area of human relations—an extremely dubious form of endeavour.
The hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) rightly drew attention to the difference between "must" and "may" in new subsection (3) of section 1 of the Equal Pay Act. The hon. Lady will not be surprised if I take a different view from her on the effect of that, but I should be grateful if my hon. Friend could confirm that it is intended to allow a wider discussion than is available under new subsection 3(a) where there is a "must" in the case of a job evaluation or it is the same job. Where there has not been a job evaluation, a wider range of factors can be taken into account. That was the hon. Lady's fear, as I understood it, but if she pauses to reflect she will understand that it is only reasonable that there should be a wider range if it is not the same job and is not the subject of job evaluation.
496
As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said market forces must have an effect. We are talking about the employment of women and job opportunities for women. There is a real danger that the Opposition will be pricing their friends out of jobs —[Interruption.] This must be faced. There is far too much theory from the Opposition. I am concerned to do something practical to ensure that people can get employment and have the protection of legislation. The Opposition laugh about legislation, but we are trying to ensure that it is effective to give equal opportunities, which I thought was a common objective. Perhaps the Opposition do not want equal opportunities.
It is important to understand that there are market forces. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that we are trying to eliminate sex discrimination. That is the object of the exercise. The Opposition may laugh, but that is the object of the regulations. The elimination of discrimination lies behind the regulations. We are trying to comply with the European Court. We are trying to get involved not in the further and wider discussion that the hon. Member for Barking was raising, but in the further, wider and different discussion whether anyone, man or woman, should get the same pay for work of so-called equal value which an independent body is supposed to evaluate. I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to help us on that aspect. This is an important matter. We are making a genuine attempt to comply with the law to eliminate sex discrimination, and to do it in as short a period as possible.
11.50 pm.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: Because it is late in the debate, I will speak much more briefly than I had intended, bearing in mind the seriousness of the issue we are considering. It should be on the record that members of the alliance parties were as shocked as the official Opposition by the Minister's speech. One might have wanted to attribute it to first night nerves, but he is not a notably nervous gentleman. One might have wanted to attribute it to incompetence, but it was not covered with appropriate humility.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms Short), whose remarks were ruled out of order on the grounds that they were unparliamentary, was clearly aware of the reality of the situation, the nature of which I believe the Minister had mistaken; he thought he was delivering an after-dinner speech, a task to which he is more suited.
It is inappropriate, in seeking to bring the law of this country into line with the judgment, to proceed by way of secondary legislation in a matter as complex as this. The Minister, in his wanderings through a 35-minute speech, did nothing to explain the matters before the House. There are many issues which we would have wished to debate in Committee and amendments we would have proposed.
The Minister asked us to accept that the Government had succeeded in their objective of bringing our law into line with that of the European Court of Justice. I believe that the Government have failed to do that and that not only is it wasting the time of the House to introduce a measure of this kind, but that it will almost certainly result in further action being taken in the European Court, which will again prove this country to be in breach of its obligations to women under the equal pay directive.
Mr. Jim Craigen: In the legal advice given to the Equal Opportunities Commission, it

497
was suggested that the Government were falling foul of the European Court on six counts. It seems that as a result of the regulations we will now fall foul of the court on three counts.
Mr. Maclennan: It is not possible in a debate as brief as this to go through all the grounds on which this instrument falls short of the judgment, so I will deal with only two. First, if one considers the procedures set out in the regulations, their sole object appears to be to deter the maximum number of applicants from seeking remedy and to provide the greatest possible resistance to those who persist. That would be objectionable in itself if it did not involve procedures which are themselves arguably in breach of Community law requirements.
Reference has been made to he the independent expert's report. A reasoned report is necessary so that it should be possible to challenge the basis on which the findings of the independent expert have been made, but there is no such provision in the measure. Under the regulations, the expert is not to be permitted to be available for cross-examination. The applicant therefore has no direct way of presenting any challenge at all, and she is not permitted to present alternative expert evidence to sustain the challenge. These two possibilities having been excluded, what is the substance of the fair hearing to which she is supposed to be entitled?
In putting forward this proposition, the Government are denying the applicant the right to a fair hearing, to which she is entitled under article 6(1) of th European human rights convention. The regulations do the House no honour at all. The Government have proceeded in a disgraceful manner, and the Minister's wholly frivolous approach to the legislation was an unfortunate debut which I believe he will come to regret. He made it plain that he does not support the contents or the purposes of the legislation, and he distinguished between the implicit and the explicit views which Ministers can express at the Dispatch Box. Although he mentioned that the Government sought to implement equal pay provisions, he left the house in no doubt about where he stood. Many of his hon. Friends enjoyed his implied repudiation of these regulations and all that they stand for. It is time that television was allowed to reveal the dishonesty of such a proceeding.
I and my hon. Friends will vote against the regulations in the hope that a better piece of legislation will be brought forward—primary legislation, subject to amendment—and that our obligations under the European Community legislation will be fully met.
Finally, my only criticism of much of what was said by the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) was that it is somewhat surprising to hear the Labour party, which is wedded to pulling this country out of the European Community, urging us to rely upon the European Community to advance our protection of the equal opportunities of women in this country.
Ms. Harman rose—
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Maclennan: Labour and Conservative Governments alike—
Ms. Harman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Maclennan: Labour and Conservative Governments alike have been slower than the European Community to legislate for the benefit of women.
11.58 pm
Mr. Greville Janner: These are thoroughly bad regulations, and were introduced in a way that was tasteless, sad and unrevealing. Even for those who are trained to understand legislation, the regulations are impossible to interpret. We must pity those who will have to try to understand them in order to put them into effect. To mention only one example, it is clear that a negative has been left out of new section 2A(1)(a). If there is to be any hope of the regulations being put into useful effect, they will require immediate amendment.
The House has been kept in total ignorance of the way in which the regulations are to be put into force. The procedural regulations have been outlined by the Minister but have not been put before the House for our consideration. We understand that there are to be ways in which independent assessors, who are not to be brought before tribunal—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of ordr, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have nearly reached the end of a debate lasting for an hour and a half, and, of necessity, the Minister had to spend about 36 minutes explaining to the House the technicalities of this complicted legislation. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked questions, presumably on the asumption that the Minister might be able to answer them. In view of the fact that time is limited—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Question is as on the Order Paper—
Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that, under Standing Order No. 3(1)(b), power is given to the Chair to decide that, in view of the importance of the subject matter, there has been inadequate time for the debate and that it should be adjourned. As the issue is clearly important, as there was an alternative means of legislating, and as the Minister has not been able to reply to the debate, may I ask you to exercise your discretion in that regard?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am aware of the Standing Order and had it in my mind throughout the debate. However, I think that the House is ready to come to a decision, and I shall accordingly put the Question.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 107.

Division No. 36]

[12 midnight

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Amess, David

Bright, Graham

Ashby, David

Brinton, Tim

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bruinvels, Peter

Baldry, Anthony

Bulmer, Esmond

Batiste, Spencer

Burt, Alistair

Bellingham, Henry

Butterfill, John

Berry, Hon Anthony

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Chope, Christopher

Blackburn, John

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

Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Bottomley, Peter

Colvin, Michael

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Conway, Derek

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Coombs, Simon

499

Cope, John

Macfarlane, Neil

Couchman, James

MacGregor, John

Cranborne, Viscount

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

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Malins, Humfrey

Dicks, T.

Malone, Gerald

Dorrell, Stephen

Maples, John

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Marland, Paul

Dover, Denshore

Marlow, Antony

Dunn, Robert

Mates, Michael

Dykes, Hugh

Maude, Francis

Evennett, David

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Fallon, Michael

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Mellor, David

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Merchant, Piers

Forth, Eric

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Franks, Cecil

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Freeman, Roger

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Gale, Roger

Moate, Roger

Galley, Roy

Montgomery, Fergus

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moore, John

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Gorst, John

Morrison, hon P. (Chester)

Gower, Sir Raymond

Moynihan, Hon C.

Gregory, Conal

Mudd, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Murphy, Christopher

Ground, Patrick

Needham, Richard

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Nelson, Anthony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Neubert, Michael

Hampson, Dr Keith

Newton, Tony

Hanley, Jeremy

Nicholls, Patrick

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Norris, Steven

Harvey, Robert

Onslow, Cranley

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Osborn, Sir John

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Ottaway, Richard

Hawksley, Warren

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Hayward, Robert

Parris, Matthew

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Heddle, John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hickmet, Richard

Pollock, Alexander

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Powell, William (Corby)

Holt, Richard

Powley, John

Howard, Michael

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Raffan, Keith

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Rathbone, Tim

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rhodes James, Robert

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Hunter, Andrew

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Jessel, Toby

Roe, Mrs Marion

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Rossi, Hugh

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Rowe, Andrew

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Ryder, Richard

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Sackville, Hon Thomas

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Knowles, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Lang, Ian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Latham, Michael

Skeet, T. H. H,

Lawler, Geoffrey

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Stern, Michael

Lester, Jim

Stradling Thomas, J.

Lightbown, David

Terlezki, Stefan

Lilley, Peter

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Lord, Michael

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Luce, Richard

Warren, Kenneth

500

Watts, John

Mr. David Hunt and

Mr. John Major.

Tellers for the Ayes:

NOES

Ashdown, Paddy

Litherland, Robert

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Loyden, Edward

Barron, Kevin

McCrea, Rev William

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

McCusker, Harold

Beith, A. J.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

McKelvey, William

Boyes, Roland

Maclennan, Robert

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

McNamara, Kevin

Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

Madden, Max

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Maginnis, Ken

Caborn, Richard

Marek, Dr John

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Michie, William

Clay, Robert

Mikardo, Ian

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Cohen, Harry

Molyneaux, James

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Nellist, David

Corbyn, Jeremy

Nicholson, J.

Cowans, Harry

O'Neill, Martin

Craigen, J. M.

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Dalyell, Tam

Paisley, Rev Ian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Parry, Robert

Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

Penhaligon, David

Deakins, Eric

Pike, Peter

Dixon, Donald

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

Dobson, Frank

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Dormand, Jack

Prescott, John

Duffy, A. E. P.

Redmond, M.

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Richardson, Ms Jo

Eadie, Alex

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Eastham, Ken

Robertson, George

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Rogers, Allan

Ewing, Harry

Rooker, J. W.

Fatchett, Derek

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Favell, Anthony

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Fisher, Mark

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Flannery, Martin

Rowlands, Ted

Freud, Clement

Sedgemore, Brian

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Godman, Dr Norman

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Gould, Bryan

Skinner, Dennis

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Hardy, Peter

Soley, Clive

Harman, Ms Harriet

Spearing, Nigel

Haynes, Frank

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Wareing, Robert

Hughes, Simon (Southward)

Welsh, Michael

Hume, John

Winnick, David

Janner, Hon Greville

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfedder, James A.

Mr. Walter Harrison and

Kirkwood, Archibald

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 6th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing Benefits)
12.11 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The order would enable the housing benefits schemes in Northern Ireland to be broadly aligned with the corresponding Great Britain schemes from November 1983 to coincide with the annual uprating of social security benefits. The underlying reasons for the reform are the same as they were in Great Britain and can be briefly summarised as follows.
At present there are two separate systems for assisting people on low income with their rent and rates. The first is supplementary benefit and the second is the rebate and allowance schemes. That means that a householder must claim from one body—the Department of Health and Social Services — if he is entitled to supplementary benefit, but from a different body, either his local rates office or the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, if he is not receiving supplementary benefit. It has been recognised for some time that that dual system is unsatisfactory. It means that a claimant can be better off under one scheme rather than the other and it can be difficult even for experts to decide which scheme would be more advantageous in particular cases.
The present arrangements also mean that the DHSS is spending time recording, verifying and paying supplementary benefit for rent and rates claimants who in turn are required to hand the amounts involved over to the rates office or the housing executive. That is not a sensible or efficient way of administering public money, particularly when one compares it with the long-standing practice of rebating at source the rent and rates of people not on supplementary benefit.
Another problem is that a considerable number of people who receive supplementary benefit for their rent and rates fail to pay them. That in turn leads to costly administrative procedures for deducting and paying benefits direct to the landlord or rates office.
Lastly, as the House will recognise, one of the main causes of complexity in the supplementary benefit scheme lies in its provisions for assistance with housing costs. It is highly desirable to simplify that scheme by extending the scope of the existing rebate and allowance schemes to include supplementary benefit recipients.
The proposed reform tackles those issues and I draw the attention of hon. Members to some of its advantages. The main cause of the better-off problem will disappear because claimants will not longer have to choose between receiving either a rebate or a supplementary benefit rent addition. The reform will also result in greater efficiency in the use of limited administrative resources.
Mr. Clive Soley: I cannot let that statement slip through without comment. Surely the Minister is not claiming that the better-off problem will disappear. Or is he? It will not. However, that was one of the aims of the original idea.
Mr. Patten: People will no longer be faced with the problem of not knowing whether they would be better off under one scheme than the other. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to argue that proposition, I look forward to his doing so in his speech.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): Move along, Chris.
Mr. Patten: I shall move along as rapidly as the quondam Patronage Secretary will allow me.
The reform will also result in greater efficiency in the use of limited administrative resources, although I should not wish to argue that point too strongly. In future, householders will look to only one body for help with their rent and rates regardless of whether they are in work or unemployed. The reform should also result in more householders taking up their entitlement to housing benefits and supplementary benefit, an objective of successive Governments over the years.
Finally, there is expected to be a substantial reduction —well over £600,000 a year—in rent and rates default. Some concern has been voiced, particularly by the Northern Ireland Assembly, that rebating will leave people on supplementary benefit with less flexibility in budgeting. The other side to this, however, is that most of them will no longer run the risk of getting into debt. This is one area in which prevention seems to be much better than cure.
There are, therefore, sound reasons for this reform. In recommending its introduction in Northern Ireland, the Government have had regard to experience in Great Britain and I am glad to be able to suggest certain improvements. I shall come to those in a moment. The order which we are debating is an enabling provision and at this point it may be useful to summarise its main articles.
Article 3 provides regulation-making powers for rebate and allowance schemes. The regulations will be made by the DHSS, but the schemes themselves will be operated by the Department of the Environment and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. The proposed regulations were described in considerable detail in the explanatory document which accompanied the proposal and will be modified in the light of constructive representations received during the consultative period.
Article 4 provides for uprating, and Article 5 requires the bodies administering the schemes to publicise them fully. Articles 6 to 8 deal mainly with financial and regulatory matters as well as providing for the exchange of essential information between the bodies concerned.
I fully recognise that some aspects of the reform have led to expressions of genuine concern by Members of this House and others who, while accepting the need for change, would have preferred that no existing beneficiary should receive less than he does at present. This view came across very clearly in the detailed and cogently presented report of the Health and Social Services Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, I pay tribute to that Committte of the Assembly for thevery thorough way in which it examined the original proposals. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) knows, similar concern was voiced by the housing executive and other interested bodies.
It has not been possible for the Government to accept all of the recommendations put forward on the proposed reform. In particular, the principle of rebating rent and rates at source which caused so much debate in the Assembly is a tried and tested feature of the existing rebate and allowance schemes and is fundamental to the proposed

503
reform. It should be more convenient for claimants and, as I have already said, will lead to a saving in public funds of more than £600,000 a year.
Nor can the Government accept the recommendation that there should be no losers under the reform. This would be too costly an option and would entail pumping additional resources into benefits for claimants many of whom have incomes considerably above supplementary benefit level or have non-dependants living with them who can reasonably be expected to contribute towards the householder's rent and rates.
Careful consideration has nevertheless been given to the problem of losers and I am glad to tell the House of two significant modifications which the Government intend to make to the Northern Ireland scheme. First, it is proposed to allow more generous protection against losses arising from changes in the taper percentages which, as hon. Members will know, are used to calculate housing benefit awards. Originally, it was intended to limit such losses to 60p per week for roughly four months and to £1·20 per week for the remainder of the first year of the reformed schemes. Instead, the Government now propose to protect beneficiaries against losses in excess of 50p per week from November 1983 to November 1984 and in excess of £1 per week from November 1984 to November 1985. Secondly, the housing benefit child's needs allowance will be increased by £1·50 from November 1983. That is £1 more than will apply under the Great Britain schemes from November 1983 to April 1984.
The net result of those changes is that some 32,000 beneficiaries will gain from the reform, the number of losers will be reduced to about 20,000 and the amount of individual losses will be substantially reduced in about 5,000 cases. I believe that we have shown a proper sense of priorities in the changes. Those who will gain will be pensioners at the lower end of the income scale and families with children. I am sure the House will acknowledge that it is right to concentrate the limited resources available on those groups of claimants.
The extra cost of the two improvements will be upwards of £500,000 over the next three financial years and this will he found from within existing Northern Ireland resources. About one half of this amount will fall in the current financial year. It was these improvements which, I imagine, led the NIHE to say that our scheme provided
"generous treatment for NI Householders in comparison with those in the rest of the United Kingdom."
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) may wish to bear that in mind.
I also note that in his own comments on our modified proposals the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth), chairman of the DHSS Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, while quite reasonably reiterating some of his Committee's original criticisms, argued nevertheless that the
"reformed scheme … will be fairer to claimants",
that it will
"reduce the risk of claimants being lost in a mass of bureaucracy",
that it will
"result in less financial hardship than the one originally proposed"
and
"that it will reduce the impact on hard pressed parents".
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman's fairminded observations. We have been able to
504
accomplish those objectives not least because of the assistance and thoughtful criticism that we received from the hon. Gentleman and his Committee.
In response to further recommendations by the Assembly and others it is proposed to make additional improvements in the Northern Ireland scheme designed to provide greater equity between different categories of claimant and to ensure prompt payment of rebates and allowances. These detailed changes are explained fully in the Government's response to the Assembly report, copies of which are available to hon. Members.
In addition to those improvements, we should not lose sight of other beneficial changes which will flow from the reform. For example, boarders will become eligible for housing benefits for the first time and, in certain circumstances, including cases in which a wife is forced to leave home because of domestic violence, housing benefits will be payable for two homes and not just one as at present.
A major innovation to which I draw the attention of the House is the introduction of appellate machinery. In future, people claiming rebates and allowances who are dissatisfied with their awards will be able to have their cases considered by review boards. These will comprise a chairman and two members and they will operate independently of the bodies administering the schemes. This is different from the position in Great Britain where the local authorities operate the schemes and provide the appellate machinery. Because of the different administrative structures in Northern Ireland, the Government have decided that the review boards should be independent of the bodies operating the schemes. I am sure that the House will acknowledge that this is an important provision.
I also emphasise that the Government are fully aware of the need to publicise the proposed changes in the schemes so that claimants will know how they will be affected. As well as publicising the reform in the mass media, all existing beneficiaries will receive individual notifications before the reform is due to be implemented. Arrangements will also be made to explain the effects of the reform to voluntary bodies involved in giving advice to the public.
To sum up briefly, it has long been recognised that the existing schemes of assistance with housing costs are flawed and in need of reform. It was for those reasons that the House approved legislation in 1982 providing for reform of the corresponding schemes in Great Britain. The Government consider it essential that similar measures be implemented in Northern Ireland from November 1983, thus ensuring that the advantages to be derived from the reform are realised at the earliest possible date. I am grateful, however, to all those, particularly members of the Assembly and the housing executive, whose comments have resulted in worthwhile modifications to the original proposal, producing what I consider to be a much improved scheme.
The concept of unifying the present dual system has received general support, including the approval of the Social Security Advisory committee. The later start in Northern Ireland and the much smaller scale of the exercise there as compared with Great Britain should facilitate a smooth transition to the new system. The reform is a genuine attempt to tackle difficult problems, and will bring material benefits to those in greatest need.

505
Its operation will be closely monitored, not least by myself in view of my dual responsibility for housing and for income support in Northern Ireland.
I strongly commend the order to the House.
12.26 am
Mr. Clive Soley: The order is for Northern Ireland what it always was for the rest of the United Kingdom—a squalid and sordid attempt to cut back on public expenditure at the expense of some of the most low-paid groups of people, and the Minister knows it. Having listened to his speech, I am convinced that he will get some form of honorary qualification in creative literature. For phrases such as "significant improvements" he should substitute "insignificant improvements". The order is unsatisfactory for many reasons.
I should like to congratulate the Northern Ireland assembly. I do not always do that so readily, but its report and recommendations are clear, fair and well stated. It is significant that the main recommendation was that the order should not be extended to Northern Ireland. I can understand why.
The Government's objective was that the order should make it easier to understand and, therefore, to obtain benefit. Secondly, it was supposed to be fair to the employed and the unemployed alike. Thirdly, it was supposed to minimise losses to individuals. Fourthly, it was supposed to make the system easier to operate and to reduce the work load on the public sector. Fifthly, there was to be no increase in expenditure on housing assistance. That is significant. Sixthly, it was supposed to be uniform throughout the United Kingdom. I dare say that Democratic Unionist and Official Unionist Members will be aware of the way in which it has been changed for Northern Ireland. Finally, it was supposed to ensure that extra local government costs were met by the Government.
In the United Kingdom, the order has been a disastrous failure. It has been bungled here, and I suspect that it will be bungled in Northern Ireland, too. I do not say that lightly. In my constituency, within about four weeks, 4,000 people still had not had their benefit. Hon. Members have had letters, especially from old age pensioners, saying that they have never been in rent arrears but are now because they no longer have the right to pay their rent as they used to pay it. The Minister and Conservative Members know that that is happening. A significant example is Birmingham.
The application form is supposed to be simplified. I have one here. It involves answering complex and detailed questions. The scheme has never been easy, yet it was supposed not to be complex. Moreover, there are too many losers. We do not have figures for Northern Ireland yet, but on the mainland we know that one in eight households in Britain is losing. Yet the Minister glossed over that fact in his creative literature. The speed with which it was implemented caused acute problems for local authorities and claimants, which is why so many people are in difficulties now. The same thing will happen in Northern Ireland unless the Minister slows down the implementation, or makes available more resources quickly. I do not expect him to do the latter. Some slight modifications have been beneficial, but they are not significant.
After the assembly failed to obtain rejection of the proposals, it got some anodyne concessions. That is no
506
insult to the Members of the Northern Ireland assembly, who worked very hard. They examined much evidence and questioned people with knowledge and experience of the working of the scheme in Great Britain. However, the Government rejected a relatively cheap no loser scheme that would have cost about £1·9 million, or about 3 per cent. of the total housing benefit costs in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Chris Patten indicated dissent.
Mr. Soley: The Minister denies that. Perhaps he can give us alternative figures. The Government put forward a complex and traditional protection scheme. Although the Minister talked about improvements, what we are discussing is a little cushioning over a period so that people can get used to the idea that the amounts available to them have been reduced.
The "better off" problem has not been solved, yet the Government made it clear that their main aim was to get rid of it. Both the present Minister and his predecessor made it clear that they were genuinely worried about the problem, but they have done little to resolve it. Claimants will still have difficulty in determining which scheme is best for them. The Government conceded the point, but rejected the assembly's sensible recommendations. First, the assembly said that the housing executive has a duty to make an assessment for housing benefit supplement. The Minister rejected that. Secondly, the assembly recommended that benefits should be payable from the date of the claimant's initial application to either agency, but that, too, was rejected. Thirdly, it said that power should be given to backdate entitlement to the date of the original application, but again that was rejected.
I do not call those significant improvements. At best, it is a shabby deal to try to keep down overall costs. I have acknowledged at the Dispatch Box on several occasions that in Northern Ireland we have a gallant band of slightly liberal Tories trying to do a bit better for the people there, and that the Secretary of State is gathering round him a few of his protected species of left-wing Tories before the Prime Minister rounds them all up. However, despite that, the improvements are marginal. The Government have not kept to the aims that they so explicitly stated. It is no accident that the guidelines were not reproduced in Northern Ireland. When the Government saw that the scheme introduced here did not deliver the goods in the way that they had claimed, they did not produce similar guidelines for Northern Ireland, because it was too embarrassing.
The assembly asked the Government to ensure that the proposed scheme was thoroughly publicised, and to consider the advantages of a well-publicised leaflet drop. In reply, the Government stated:
"The Government welcomes the Assembly's interest in this important aspect of the proposed reform and accepts its recommendation that the new schemes should be thoroughly publicised."
When one translates that into the Minister's creative literature, it means, "Is this not a dangerously good idea, and might it not cost us some money unless we lose it quickly?"
So we come to the final phrase in the Government's response to the assembly report:
"In formulating these plans consideration will be given to the Assembly's recommendation for a selective leaflet drop."
I predict that the Government may consider it but that they will not do it. They will not do it because they know that they will create a precedent for the rest of the United

507
Kingdom and that the costs will go up as more people claim. That is what it is all about. I challenge the Minister to prove that I am wrong. I shall be happy to withdraw what I said if he produces a well-targeted leaflet drop scheme for Northern Ireland.
The increased housing benefit needs allowance for children in Northern Ireland is now to be £1·50 per child from November 1983. The Minister says that it is another significant improvement. What does he mean by "significant improvement"? In Britain, the scheme produces 50p from November, and goes up to £1·50 from April of next year. The Minister is bringing it up to £1·50 from November. People will not get the money in their hands. If people think from the way that the Minister put his case that everyone who has a child or two children or more will get £1·50 per child, they are wrong. They will get only a small percentage of it, depending on where they are on the claimants' scale. Indeed, some people will probably get only a few pounds more, and the Minister knows that. To describe that as significantly better is an insult not only to the intelligence of this House, but to the Members of the Northern Ireland assembly and the people of Northern Ireland.
The Government have introduced a scheme which takes away people's right to manage their own finances, although only a few months ago the Prime Minister talked about the importance of increasing the responsibility of the family and going back to Victorian vanes when everyone managed their own affairs. What do we have now? People cannot pay their own rent because the Minister has introduced a scheme which takes away that choice. The scheme is grossly unfair to many people.
Worse still, the scheme is designed to save money at the expense of the poorer sections of the community. That matters a great deal in Northern Ireland, because people there face increased rates, fuel and other living costs, compared with people in the rest of the United Kingdom. All the evidence shows that in the long run it will not only cut back people's benefits and rights, but increase public expenditure. It is essentially a bureaucratic scheme which has not worked in Britain. As a result, people who have never done so before will get into rent arrears. The Minister has achieved the small advantage of one or two improvements, which I welcome and which we shall ask the House to extend, because such benefits should be availabe here, too. It is nevertheless a sordid and squalid scheme which will not save public money and will hit some of the most vulnerable people in the United Kingdom.
12.38 am
Rev. William McCrea: I am glad to take part in this important debate. This is my first Northern Ireland debate, and at 12.38 it is sad that so many hon. Members are absent from the Chamber.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is a very good attendance.
Rev. William McCrea: If this is a good attendance I would not like to be here on the bad occasions, because it is deplorable that the Benches are so empty, particularly after last night. We are now debating a subject affecting benefits for those at the bottom rung of the ladder in this kingdom. Yet last night the House was alive until 4 o'clock in the morning when Members were discussing
508
their salaries. So great was the activity here last night that one could have been forgiven for thinking that some great national crisis deserved everyone's great attention.
Whenever the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order was discussed, as the Minister rightly said, there was a great divergence of opinion, not only in the Committee but also in the Assembly. Indeed, the views that were expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) were not the genuine feelings of the majority of the Committee. They were rather an expression of his own views and those of some of his colleagues. However, there was general agreement that the Government had missed a valuable opportunity to introduce a much-needed reform, having learned from the experience of necessary improvements required in the light of similar legislation already operating in Britain for the best part of a year.
The Government's policy of a nil additional net cost basis for the order will result in a scheme in Northern Ireland, and I am sure in the rest of the United Kingdom, which will cause great hardship and difficulty. It was the genuine belief of many Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly that the new scheme and that which is presented to the House tonight will operate with many disadvantages to the recipients.
The Northern Ireland Assembly recommended that
"the Government do not introduce its proposed reformed housing benefit scheme in Northern Ireland".
That was the recommendation of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not that which has been suggested by the Minister.
It must be clearly stated that although the Assembly made its request to the Government to leave the path that they were treading, the Committee realised, as did the Assembly, that the then Minister and the present Minister would carry on along their jolly old road and go ahead with the proposals whether the people of Northern Ireland wanted them or not. Bearing that in mind, the Committee and the Assembly realised that they had better make recommendations and they hoped that some of the suggestions that were tabled would overcome the blunders of the Minister's recommendations.
The Government are of the opinion that the proposed scheme is simpler. With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not know where he has got that idea from. Many of those that have discussed it in the light of the legislation here have not found it to be simpler and I do not think that it is right that the Minister should make bland statements about the scheme being simpler. Most of the schemes that I have known have baffled even solicitors. It would take solicitors to answer some of the forms that claimants are supposed to answer.
It was said that the order would make matters simpler in that it would take away the choice that has to be made; it would no longer be between the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the Department of Health and Social Services. I have a sneaky suspicion that there is more in the Minister's mind than just a desire to make it simpler. There is, perhaps, another undercurrent. I shall come to that in a moment.
It is said that some benefits can be lost by making the wrong choice. That is true—I would be the first to accept that some benefits can be lost if the wrong choice is made—but I do not feel that the right answer is to adopt the proposed scheme; the choice should still be left in the hands of the claimants.

509
It was suggested to the Northern Ireland Assembly that the scheme would save about £100,000 on administration, which would be ploughed back into the whole scheme and improve it. It was to be achieved by saving eight jobs. We should be cautious about such promises. Having learned from some of the sad experiences in the past, I know that many intended job losses can turn out to be job gains. Indeed, instead of only £100,000 being saved on administration, the Minister could find that the administrative costs were greater.
Mr. Chris Patten: At what point in my speech did I refer to the administrative costs?
Rev. William McCrea: The Minister must realise that in taking office he is only following the legislation brought forward by the previous Minister. I am referring to the evidence that the previous Minister in a Conservative Government gave to the Northern Ireland Assembly. I do not think that he was misleading the Assembly. Therefore, if the Minister now wants to sidestep that evidence, and realise that it is best to forget about the £100,000 saving, that is up to the Minister. I would have to refer him to the evidence of the Minister to the people in Northern Ireland —evidence which was presented to the Assembly. The Minister may want to contradict that evidence and to say that it was completely wrong and misled the Assembly. I shall await the Minister's reply. If the Minister wishes to refer to the Official Report of the proceedings of the Assembly Committee, I am sure that will be available to him.
A scheme with nil net cost is one involving no extra money. There will be a resultant redistribution of benefit. That sounds pretty good, but that redistribution of benefit is from the rather poor to the very poor. That will be so if the public expenditure on housing benefit is not increased.
There is a transfer of money from those already deemed, even by this Government, to be poor to those who are deemed to be even poorer. Surely that is not a redistribution of wealth; it is a redistribution of poverty. To me and to my colleagues that kind of policy is obnoxious.
The Department tells us about the gainers from the scheme, but it does not point out properly in its statement that those who are giving—
Mr. Harold McCusker rose—
Rev. William McCrea: The gainers in the scheme do not point out, as they should, that they are gaining at the expense of people who, according to the Government's own criteria, are in need of help. Surely the Government should heed genuine argument and introduce a "no losers" scheme in Northern Ireland, preferably in the context of a "no losers" scheme in the whole of the United Kingdom.
I was interested in the challenge from the Minister to the hon. Member for Hemmersmith (Mr. Soley). He mentioned £1·9 million. If my memory serves me right, that sum was mentioned by the Minister's predecessor in the Assembly Committee and appeared in the Hansard report of the proceedings.
Mr. Chris Patten: I was objecting to the hon. Gentleman's reference to the percentage of the total cost of the scheme that £1·9 million represented.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the Minister for that clarification.
Mr. Soley: We have been told in the documentation that £1·9 million represents about 3 per cent. of the total annual cost of housing benefits in Northern Ireland.
Rev. William McCrea: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response.
Some people have been told that they will benefit from the scheme. They may find that they are slightly better off, but they may also find that they are disqualified for benefits which turn on the receipt of supplementary benefit. The Minister knows that supplementary benefit is a passport to many other benefits and that the majority of Assembly Members felt that the scheme was designed in part to stop the passport benefit and to restrict, for example, the take-up of the exceptional needs grant. Many will find themselves caught in a poverty trap instead of being better off. They could find themselves worse off in real terms.
Another problem to be faced is the increased number of trained staff of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I am an ex-member of the executive and I make no apology for saying that I believe that it is too large. It is too insensitive to the needs of those in public housing and it has little accountability. The sooner that it returns to the proper public life of Northern Ireland, the better it will be for the people. It is now suggested that the giant should be allowed to grow larger with a view to ensuring that it will not be dismantled. I welcome the publicity for the scheme, but I ask the Minister to be more specific about the appropriate steps to be taken
"for the purpose of securing that the provisions of the schemes come to the notice of any persons who may be entitled to a rebate or allowance under the schemes".
My colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly suggested that a small but well-targeted leaflet drop should take place in addition to television publicity. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's response. That issue was taken up by the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the Assembly Committee was in full agreement.
It is worth noting that, contrary to public opinion and to the view expressed a short while ago by a member of the Northern Ireland Office, the people of Northern Ireland are not over-eager to claim benefits. The member of the Northern Ireland Office said, "You never saw people like them for putting their hands out to get benefits," but the Assembly was told that there was a problem because the people were not taking their benefits. It ill becomes any Minister to cross the sea to Ulster to tell us that he has never met people like the people of Northern Ireland to reach out their hands for benefits. Indeed, someone who is no longer in this place said that they were spongers. I can assure the Minister and the House that, although some in Northern Ireland take more than their rightful benefits, they have no allegiance to the British paymaster or even to the British way of life.
I object to the proposed changes for those in receipt of state benefit. I know of people all over the United Kingdom who have never been unemployed before. They always knew what it was to have a job. But because of circumstances not of their making they now receive state benefit. They have always paid their way. They are

511
responsible and respectable citizens but under this order they are being regarded as completely irresponsible and unable to look after their own budgeting.
I reject what the Minister said earlier. We are referring to those who use for other things the money that was given to them for housing. I condemn unreservedly anyone who does that, but the vast majority used their benefit for housing and were never in debt to the housing executive. Now that has been taken away from them and they alone are being treated as second-class citizens.
At the moment, such recipients of benefit receive the money for their rent allowance in pounds and pence. I object to the fact that the new system stigmatises all supplementary benefit recipients as untrustworthy in the Department's eyes. I do not believe that this group should be singled out for differential treatment. Is this the thin edge of the wedge? Will the pensioner have the rent taken from his pension before he gets his benefit? Will not the pensioner be allowed to pay his housing costs and have the dignity of so doing? Are we on the edge of a bigger precipice? Many people on supplementary benefit are dignified, honourable citizens of the United Kingdom. If the problem is the debt of £600,000, there is already legislation to take it. That debt is caused not by lack of legislation but by lack of will. I do not believe that, because some people in Northern Ireland are irresponsible, everyone in receipt of state benefit should be branded in this fashion.
There are some concessions and I appreciate the concessions that the Minister has mentioned, but I must agree with the hon. Member for Hammersmith that those concessions are minimal. Therefore, my colleague and I will vote against the order.
12.58 am
Rev. Martin Smyth: I was happy to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who signified disagreement with me, arising out of the Minister's comments and those of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Until that moment I was a shade worried, because I remembered a verse in scripture:
"Woe to you when all men speak well of you."
I was happy to realise that some Members did not see eye to eye with me.
Rev. William McCrea: The majority of the Assembly did not.
Rev. Martin Smyth: A majority of one vote.
Rev. William McCrea: Two votes.
Rev. Martin Smyth: That is a large majority when one considers the absentees.
Rev. William McCrea: That is correct.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I should like to put the record straight, because the Division in the Assembly was to give Members an opportunity to express their minds. That is why several hon. Members who normally sit with the Conservatives will vote against the Government tonight. Of course, that is the principle of democracy and it is why the Assembly is in being—to try to assess the minds of the people — and I suggest that we have done a remarkably good job there, given the limitations imposed upon us.
In that Division we were striking at two aspects. One was whether, as part of the United Kingdom, we wanted
512
a different style of benefit. The second, and more important, was whether we wanted to continue to allow debts to mount up because people given housing benefit to pay their rents were using that money for other purposes, saying that they did not have enough money on which to live.
Three recommendations of the Assembly Committee were rejected by the Government. The first was that we should not introduce the reformed housing benefit scheme. The majority in the Assembly believed, in the light of the information available, that it was not working in Great Britain and that we were not ready to introduce it in Northern Ireland. In the Assembly, on receiving the Secretary of State's answer, I regretted the Government's decision to turn it down.
The Government turned down the second recommendation, which was that there should be no losers. Reference has been made to the begging bowl mentality. Earlier tonight the House was dealing with equal rights, especially in the context of sex discrimination. I wish to make it plain that the Assembly was not asking for more than we would expect all people in Britain to have. Our recommendation was that the no losers scheme should be introduced in the context of a similar scheme for Great Britain as a whole, but the Government turned that down, apparently because of the cost.
When we in Northern Ireland speak of the better off, we tend to think of those who live in the west end rather than the east end, or the well-to-do, whereas the discussion document uses the term referring simply to poor people who happen, in the Government's opinion, to have a little more than some other poor people. The very use of the term "better-off" is, in our view, a misnomer, and therefore we should have prefered to see the no loser scheme introduced.
The third main recommendation rejected by the Government—I was surprised that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) did not mention it—referred to squatters. Although the Assembly was strong on that recommendation, it was rejected, and it seems that there are many people in public life, and a fair percentage in this House, who are joining the law breakers' protection society and allowing people wilfully to break the law, to jump queues and then to get benefit for doing so. With our experience in the north of Ireland we do not believe that that is a responsible position, even if it is excused as the traditional practice of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which has allowed use and occupation books and thereby allowed people to jump the queue and get houses before others with greater entitlement. There have been instances of people being allocated houses and discovering when they have tried to move in, that the squatters are already there. Instead of using their authority to take the squatters to court, evict them and repossess the house, the Government have allowed the squatters to keep the house. We hold that in any society it is wrong for the state to subsidise the law-breakers. We regret that the Government turned down that recommendation.
When the Assembly received the recommendation from the Secretary of State, we noted which points had been accepted. We appreciate that, in the light of experience in Great Britain, the Government were prepared to make some improvements in the order as it affected Northern Ireland. However, hon. Members representing other constituencies will be happy to know that the extra money involved will not be taken from the budgets for their areas.

513
It will have to be found from within the general budget set aside for Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland will not be getting more money than the rest of Great Britain. The Government will simply divide Northern Ireland's cake in a different way.
I was interested in the arguments about savings. The more I examine the question, the more I am convinced that the concept of saving will be only wistful longing. Yesterday I talked to some people involved with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I discovered that they are recruiting staff to deal with the problem. I mentioned that we were to debate the draft housing benefits order tonight. I was asked what I meant. I said that the order was to be debated and would come into operation on a date to be announced. I was told that staff were already being recruited to deal with it.
At one stage we understood that there would be a transfer of staff from the Department of Health and Social Services and that that would result in some savings. However, when we asked how great the saving would be, we were told that eight jobs would be involved. It will be interesting to see what has happened in a year's time. Some of us will not object to people being kept in work or taken off the dole queue. My point is that the scheme will not have the advantages that the Government or their advisers imagined would accrue from it.
In a previous debate, I think that it was the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) who described the language of the draft order in glowing terms. It amounted to a lawyer's paradise and was full of gobbledegook. I fear that those who draw up guidance leaflets for the general public are inclined to think that the average John citizen has been to Oxbridge or some other elite educational establishment. In that context, the Assembly was adamant that some effort should be made to provide simplified forms. I have not seen or heard about the form produced tonight by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, and I am not too sure whether the red link signified the area from which it came or the fact that there was a bank overdraft and the housing benefits were needed to help.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that such forms terrify old people. They will have to depend on civil servants to help them, and that will take up more man or woman power. Those hours could be used for more positive work. Indeed, I press the Minister on how far his advisers have guided him to say nothing more about a leaflet drop. We urged that workers in the health and social services or in the housing executive should do a leaflet drop in those areas where they suspected there should be a higher take-up of housing benefits. The leaflet would be simplified, would set out what housing benefit was, and would encourage people to apply.
Television and newspaper advertisements regularly draw attention to such benefits, but that is not enough because, first, one must see the programme at the right time, and secondly, because I suspect that the average person does not spend his time reading through the public notices. Those are the people whom we need to reach, and that is why we must go the second mile and make people aware of what is available if we are to reach out and serve the community for whom the draft order is designed.
At some stage, reference was made to the appeal position. Without taking up too much time, I should like
514
to consider that. Is this another quango? Is it providing jobs for those who may be due to retire from a trade union or from some other reputedly moderate body? Is it trying to find jobs for those who would not be elected by the people of Northern Ireland? I am not sure what the Government are after, and I should like a little more clarification.
I should like to press the Minister on the refusal to allow the date of application to be operative, whether the application is first made in the DHSS or in the housing executive. I rely on my experience over the years. The people of Ulster are not much different from the people in any other part of the United Kingdom, or of the world. When they apply to a Government office, they automatically assume that that is the Government. If people apply to a department that has some association with their claim, they cannot understand why it is not dated when it is received, instead of when it reaches the department responsible.
Will the Government think again about their decision not to accede to the Assembly's request? I rest the case at this point.
1.14 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not find myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) in rejecting the principle of housing benefits as a separate form of assessment. On the contrary, one of the problems associated with the administration of supplementary benefit has always been that, by its nature, it is unsuited to deal with a need so different in kind from the other needs which are assessed in the administration of supplementary benefit. It is a need the cost of which not only varies irrationally without rhyme or reason from one place to another and from one part of the country to another, but the satisfaction of which is of a particularly rigid character.
The other needs, and the means of meeting them, can be adapted with great flexibility, but there is a characteristic inflexibility in the housing accommodation that a family or a person occupies. That characteristic of this special need calls for distinctive treatment. It has been a correct approach, on both sides of the water, to single out housing need for administration and management in different ways.
Something has been said about the principle of allowing persons who are in receipt of social benefits to have control over the money that is placed in their hands. In general, that is an important principle. I believe that we have to be chary of replacing monetary benefits by real benefits. We have to be chary of that in the context of the pensioner, because, nearly always, the result is that it is a real benefit that one person chooses and another does not, or it is a real benefit that is available for enjoyment by one person but not by another, with resultant inequity between persons whose conditions are essentially the same.
I do not believe, however, that that criticism applies to the housing benefit system in so far as it is separate from the administration of supplementary benefit. I cannot see that where there is a universal need, such as housing, the provision for that need, either with a rebate or the full cost, is a withdrawal of an effective choice from the person to be benefited. There is an essential difference between reducing the cost of a universal item of need and

515
providing, free of charge or at a concessionary rate, something that some people need and others do not, or that some people choose and others do not.
I believe, therefore, that the principle underlying this scheme, and therefore this order, is right. Normally we are critical when we find that important aspects of legislation are left to be dealt with by regulations. But we are the beneficiaries in this case from the fact that so much of the detail of the scheme will be in the form of regulations. That means not only that it will be much easier for those administering the scheme to adjust it from time to time in the light of experience, but that tonight's debate can be more fruitful than the debates which we usually have upon Orders in Council. Normally when we debate an Order in Council, we know for certain that it will not be altered, whereas most of the points that have been made in the course of this debate from both sides o f the House can be met either at once or subsequently, if the Government decide to meet them, by a modification of the regulations.
Therefore, it is a practical observation to say to the Minister that one hopes that either immediately, or subsequently in the framing of the regulations, the points that have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) will be taken into account. The division, as it were, of the legislation between the order and the regulations has given the debate potential and the Government the freedom and flexibility that we do not generally enjoy.
I conclude by inviting the Minister, if he can, to supply two pieces of information for which one's curiosity is excited by the scheme. He referred to take-up and expressed the opinion, with which I agree, that the result of the housing benefits scheme will be that more people will be assisted in this way than under the alternative system, but it would be helpful if his Department had any estimate of the area that is yet to be covered. How far is the estimated 100 per cent. take-up of housing benefit already met under existing arrangements? How far does he think it will be met in the first 12 months of the operation of the scheme? It may be impossible to make an estimate, but at least in such a scheme there is an advantage in placing before oneself a target delineating the total possibilities and forming an initial estimate of the extent to which they can be realised.
On the basis of experience of constituency cases, I believe that many persons, who may be outside the supplementary benefit area, are entitled at present to housing benefits in their present form and will be entitled to them under the scheme. In my constituency there must be hundreds of families who simply are not securing the benefits to which they are already entitled and to which they will be entitled under the scheme. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will pay particular attention to the stress that has been placed both by the assembly and by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South upon the problem of enlightening the families and individuals who ought to benefit about the help with which they are now being provided.
My final inquiry relates to the observation made by the Minister in his explanatory letter of 6 July, that the improvements proposed in the tapering scheme compared with the original proposals
"will be funded from within existing Northern Ireland resources".
516
Such a remark prompts an inevitable query. If the money is being added here, from where is it being subtracted? I hope that it is not unfair to inquire from where the resources are being transferred to pay for this temporary alleviation, welcome though it is. The Minister may not have answers to those questions readily available. If not, can an estimate be made and will he supply the answer in the usual way?
1.25 am
Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful for the observations of hon. Members in this interesting, albeit short, debate. The opening speech by the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) contained some language which was arguably more suitable for a speech to his general management committee. He spoke about the scheme being squalid and said that he did not welcome it. If it is so bad, I am surprised that he wishes to extend to Great Britain the improvement that the Government have made for Northern Ireland. He seemed to quote what suited him, as has been done before. He did not quote remarks by several members of the Health and Social Services Committee of the Assembly. While members of that Committee perfectly properly stated their criticisms of the original proposals, they were prepared to accept that we had made several improvements. I referred to what the Northern Ireland Housing Executive said about the scheme, but the hon. Member for Hammersmith did not. He spoke about complexity, as did the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) in his—I use an adjective of the Prime Minister's—robust contribution to our discussions. Any scheme providing income support for people in varying circumstances must inevitably be detailed if it is to pinpoint need and provide help in an equitable manner. A less detailed scheme would be inadequate.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith thought that the purpose of our reform was to save public money. That seemed a curious observation, and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) alluded to it. I made it clear that the Government would spend extra money on the reform to pay for the improvements which we had discussed. The right hon. Gentleman asked me to specify where the money was coming from. I assure him that money will not be taken away from other schemes to which the Government attach great importance, such as improvement grants which we may be discussing later today, or certainly tomorrow. I hope that the funding will come from money which, from time to time, is underspent in even the best-managed Departments. A sum of £500,000 spread over three years should not be excessive.
Several hon. Members, quite properly, spoke about publicity and asked what steps the Government proposed to take to ensure that the schemes were thoroughly publicised. We accept that they must be thoroughly publicised. Our existing plans cater for those people already receiving assistance as well as for those who may be eligible but who have not yet made a claim. Individual notifications will be sent to all existing recipients of rebates and allowances and to all those receiving supplementary benefit, explaining how they will be affected by the reform. A Province-wide press campaign will take place in the weeks preceding 21 November and there will be a good deal of coverage on radio and television. In addition, officials will be available to

517
explain the details of the reform scheme to the voluntary bodies which give advice to the public. Seminars will also be arranged for this purpose.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) mentioned the possibility of a leaflet drop and I am perfectly content to consider that. All existing claimants will, of course, receive information about how the reform will affect them, but I am happy to consider how best to get information to non-claimants, perhaps by issuing a leaflet with rent increase notices. I hope that by such means, complemented by an advertising campaign on radio and television, we shall be able to increase the take-up.
As the right hon. Member for Down, South said, take-up is estimated at about 80 per cent., so about 20 per cent. —the proportion may be larger; it is always difficult to know exactly—of those entitled to the benefits have not taken them up. I hope that the kind of publicity that we have suggested will help to deal with that. I am certainly happy to consider also the useful suggestion of a leaflet drop.
The main burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith and a prominent theme in that of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster was the "no loser" option. As the practice of humility is a Christian virtue, I must confess at once that the hon. Gentleman was right about the 3 per cent. I was thinking of the percentage available under the Great Britain enhancements. I believe that the £1·9 million is about 12 per cent. of that. Having had to spend a good deal of time recently thinking about the comparison between what we were doing in Northern Ireland and the Great Britain enhancements, I am afraid that 3 per cent. was the figure that came to mind.
On the "no loser" option, my task today would have been much easier if I had been able to announce that no existing beneficiary would receive less help under the reformed scheme than he now receives. Unfortunately, the economic facts of life are such that it is not possible to achieve that result, however desirable it may be. Bringing the two separate schemes together in a unified scheme makes it unavoidable that some people will gain and others lose if the books are to be balanced.
I emphasise, however, that the general effect of the reform will be to improve significantly the position of householders at the lowest end of the income scale, including pensioners and claimants with dependent children. The new scheme will therefore be fairer, concentrating help on those likely to be in greatest need of assistance with their housing costs.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster referred to passporting benefits. The vast majority—more than 97 per cent.—of supplementary claimants will continue to receive supplementary benefit. Their entitlement to single payments and passported benefits will therefore be unaffected. That includes people who will become entitled to a housing benefit supplement.
The remaining 3,000 or so claimants who transfer completely to housing benefit will gain from the reform but lose their automatic entitlement to passported benefits. Many of them, however, will continue to qualify for welfare food, free prescriptions and so forth on age or low income grounds. In addition, as a special transitional measure, claimants with eligible children will retain their right to free school meals and school clothing grants, and
518
special steps will be taken to notify this group of claimants of the help that will continue to be available to them after the reform is implemented.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster talked a good deal about rebating of rent and rates at source. The principles involved in that were dealt with admirably, clearly and concisely by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I do not think that there is any evidence to suggest that beneficiaries under the existing rebate scheme dislike this method of payment. We are not, after all, talking about the establishment of a new principle. One advantage is that people who are entitled to full rebates do not suffer the inconveniences of having to make periodic payments to the housing executive and the rates offices. It is also a more efficient means of administering the schemes and it limits the scope for the abuse of public money. Any help that the House can give to prevent people getting into arrears should be strongly welcomed.
Rev. William McCrea: Will the Minister give the percentage of people who are getting benefit and are in arrears? Being in arrears has nothing to do with state benefits; some are in arrears although they are wage earners.
Mr. Patten: I could give such an answer if my manual dexterity were greater. I shall do my best to provide the hon. Gentleman with those figures in a letter, if I may. They might be immediately to hand but they cannot be grabbed immediately.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South raised the important matter of squatting which featured prominently in the Assembly's report and in his comments on our response to the Assembly. I share the view of those who condemn that deplorable practice which deprives families, who might have been on a waiting list for a long time, of a home. That is why I welcome the fact that the number of squatters has been reduced by roughly one half since the end of 1980.
Rev. Martin Smyth: Was not that reduction brought about by the introduction of the use and occupation book and, ultimately, by giving squatters a rent book? In other words, was not their success at squatting accepted by the housing executive?
Mr. Patten: I assure the hon. Gentleman that we intend to take further measures to deter squatting. That is one of our early objectives. I assure the House that there will be no slackening in our resolve to deal with squatting as effectively and quickly as is practical.
However, I do not believe that it would be right or productive to deny squatters assistance with their housing costs under the reformed housing benefit schemes. Under the existing system, they can claim a rate rebate or a supplementary benefit housing addition. There is no evidence to suggest that the availability of that help encourages squatting and I have no grounds for believing that withdrawal of that assistance would reduce the incidence of illegal occupation. For those reasons, it is right that squatters on low incomes in Northern Ireland should have access to housing benefits as do their counterparts in Great Britain. Nevertheless, I repeat that it is a deplorable practice that we must do everything to stamp out.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South mentioned the appellate machinery. Perhaps I should make clear what the

519
appeal rights consist of. The claimant will be able to ask for a written statement of how the decision on his claim for housing benefit was reached. If he is dissatisfied it will be open to him to ask the Housing Executive or the Department of the Environment to review that decision. If he remains dissatisfied with that review by officials, he will be able to have his case considered by an independent review board. He will also have the right to attend in person, to be represented by another person or to make representations in writing to the review board. That is a considerable improvement on what happens in Great Britain and I hope that it commends itself to the House. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about his comments to the Assembly on appeal board membership. That need not worry him. I am sure that we shall find willing and informed people to take their places on those committees. The hon. Gentleman said that our proposals would make the scheme more humane than might otherwise have been the case. That is absolutely right, and I hope that the House will agree with the reform and go ahead with the improvements as planned.
Question put:
The House divided: Ayes 103, Noes 7.

Division No. 37]

[1.40 am

AYES

Batiste, Spencer

Gale, Roger

Bellingham, Henry

Galley, Roy

Blackburn, John

Goodlad, Alastair

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Gregory, Conal

Bottomley, Peter

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Ground, Patrick

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Brinton, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Hanley, Jeremy

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bruinvels, Peter

Harvey, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Butterfill, John

Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

Chope, Christopher

Hawksley, Warren

Conway, Derek

Hayward, Robert

Coombs, Simon

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cope, John

Hickmet, Richard

Couchman, James

Holt, Richard

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Howard, Michael

Dorrell, Stephen

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Dover, Denshore

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Favell, Anthony

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Forth, Eric

Hunter, Andrew

Franks, Cecil

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Freeman, Roger

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

520

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Patten, Christopher (Bath)

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Knowles, Michael

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

Lang, Ian

Powell, William (Corby)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Powley, John

Lester, Jim

Raffan, Keith

Lightbown, David

Rathbone, Tim

Lilley, Peter

Rhodes James, Robert

Lord, Michael

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

McCusker, Harold

Roe, Mrs Marion

MacGregor, John

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Maginnis, Ken

Rowe, Andrew

Major, John

Ryder, Richard

Malins, Humfrey

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Malone, Gerald

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Maples, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Merchant, Piers

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Stern, Michael

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Stradling Thomas, J.

Molyneaux, James

Terlezki, Stefan

Moynihan, Hon C.

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Needham, Richard

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Newton, Tony

Nicholls, Patrick

Tellers for the Ayes:

Nicholson, J.

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

Norris, Steven

Mr. Michael Neubert.

Osborn, Sir John

NOES

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Flannery, Martin

Hume, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Kilfedder, James A.

Rev. Ian Paisley and

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Rev. William McCrea.

Soley, Clive

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I understand that it will be for the convenience of the House to take the next two motions together.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I submit that, as the limited point which arises on the second order is quite distinct from the matters to be debated on the first, it would be to the greater convenience of the House if they could be taken separately. I do not think that there will be any loss of time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case I shall call only the first motion.

Northern Ireland (Housing)
1.51 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
The Conservative Government, elected in 1979, were committed to wide-ranging reforms of housing policy, designed principally to encourage home-ownership, give new rights to tenants and liberalise the housing market. Those reforms were carried through for England and Wales in the Housing Act 1980 and in Scotland in legislation the same year.
The Government have, of course, been equally committed to the development of the same policies in Northern Ireland. That was my predecessor's job. He carried it out in his customary fair-minded and conscientious way and was, I know, greatly helped in the task by many hon. Members. I have read the reports of the Northern Ireland Committee debates in June 1981 and February of this year and I thank hon. Members for their help in improving this legislation.
The draft order was also fully debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I know how prominent a part in that work was taken by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who, unfortunately, cannot be with us, and by other hon. Members.
The report of the Northern Ireland Assembly approving the proposal, subject to a number of specific amendments, was laid before this House on 16 March 1983. Arising out of the comments and recommendations made in the Northern Ireland Committee, by the Assembly and by 38 other bodies and individuals, a number of substantive changes have been incorporated in the draft order which is now before the House. All those changes have been set out in detail in the Government's response to the assembly's report. Copies of that response have been placed in the Library.
Hon. Members will, I am sure, be interested to know that the Government's response was generally welcomed by the assembly. We have throughout done our best to meet reasonable suggestions put to us.
This is—I state the obvious for those hon. Members who are not wholly familiar with the order—a very long one. There are 108 articles and 12 schedules. I attach particular importance to part II, chapter 1, which provides the right for secure tenants of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive to buy their own homes. The housing executive has co-operated fully since 1979 in implementing the Government's policy of enhancing opportunities for home ownership.
I must go further and say that Labour Ministers in Northern Ireland before 1979 were reasonably relaxed about the sale of public sector housing. In terms of Labour party policy, they were to that extent ahead of the game. I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) will welcome as much as the rest of us the signs of adjustment in Labour policy on the issue. I hope that those shifts will be reflected in his speech, to which we all look forward with great enthusiasm.
Mr. Clive Soley: Will the Minister tell us when he intends to extend the same right to private tenants?
Mr. Patten: That is not a difficult question, but it raises rather different principles, which I shall be happy to debate. However, I do not think that they are particularly germane to the questions that we are discussing in the order.
The housing executive has been to the fore in encouraging its tenants to purchase their homes. It is only now that housing authorities in Great Britain — this applies by no means to all of them—are beginning to achieve the kind of success rate that the housing executive has enjoyed since 1980.
There is no better justification for a policy of encouraging home ownership among sector tenants than the fact that almost 45,000 housing executive tenants have already expressed an interest in purchasing their homes. I had the great privilege yesterday of handing over to Mrs. Archer of Lurgan—the 15,000th tenant to purchase her home—the keys of her front door. I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate Mrs. Archer and others who have done the same.
The proceeds from the sales have been of major assistance in carrying through the enhanced programmes of new house building and improvement which are so necessary if inroads are to be made into the Province's serious housing problems.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not a fact that, whenever a house is sold, someone on the housing list is deprived of the opportunity of getting a house? Does that not mean that the waiting list will get longer, and that no keys will be handed to the people on that list for many years to come?
Mr. Patten: No. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), in the debate in February in the Northern Ireland Committee, said:
"Perhaps more in Northern Ireland than in any other part of the Kingdom it is untrue to say that the transfer of houses to private ownership represents a loss of housing; often there is a gain in real terms." — [Official Report, Northern Ireland Committee, 23 February 1983; c. 15.]
If the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) knew a little more about the subject, his remarks might be a little more informed.
Given the continuing success of the housing executive's voluntary sales policy, hon. Members may ask why it is necessary to provide in statute a right that tenants seem to enjoy already. There are two reasons.
First, the Government have endeavoured, since they came to office, to provide a national statutory code of rights for public sector tenant. I believe that there is great merit in setting down clearly in law rights for public sector tenants in Northern Ireland similar to those enjoyed elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, there is, of course, the practical reason. Until now the housing executive has preferred, for its own good reasons, to restrict its sales policy to houses. Tenants living in flats and maisonettes do not yet have the opportunity of buying their homes. While I accept that that may have been a necessary restriction if the housing executive were to cope with the initial flood of applications for purchase, and while I acknowledge that sales of flats and maisonettes present more practical difficulties in conveyancing and management than sales of houses, nevertheless, I cannot accept that administrative difficulties should be allowed to override fundamental

523
rights. Therefore, the draft order will extend the right to buy to all secure tenants of the housing executive, with some specific exceptions which I shall describe later.
Before turning to the detail of the right-to-buy provisions, there is another general po tilt that I should like to clarify. Hon. Members will have noticed that many of the rights extended to public sector tenants by the draft order apply equally to tenants of the housing executive and of registered housing associations.
The major exception is that tenants of registered housing associations will not have the right to buy their homes. The view put to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), by the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations was that the voluntary lousing movement was still at an early stage of development, as it is, and that the extension of the right to buy to its tenants would have a detrimental rather than an advantageous effect. The major fear expressed was that the housing stocks of individual associations would be so seriously depleted as to threaten their viability. We accept that argument, and I am glad to have the fleeting endorsement of the hon. Member for Hammersmith. We agree that registered housing associations should be able to sell their properties to sitting tenants on a voluntary basis. Some sales have already taken place, and a code of practice for voluntry sales is being drawn up by my Department in consultation with the federation.
This policy will enable associations to sell to sitting tenants where they are satisfied that they can do so without damaging their viability or potential for further development. I shall, however, expect housing associations to continue to be willing to sell voluntarily and I shall be monitoring their performance. If it appears to me that associations are being unduly restricive in their attitude to tenants' sales, I shall be prepared to look at the matter again.
In brief, the right to buy under the draft order will operate in much the same way as in England, Wales and Scotland. Article 4 gives a secure tenant of the housing executive an unequivocal right to acquire the fee simple of his house or the leasehold of his flat, provided that he has been a secure tenant of at least three years. The limited exceptions to the right to buy are set out in article 5 and schedule 1.
Articles 8, 9 and 10 deal with the calculation of the purchase price under the right to buy. The purchaser will be entitled to a discount on market value of between 33 per cent. and 50 per cent., depending on the length of tenancy.
I referred earlier to the extent to which tenant sales have until now been financed from private sources and the advantages that this creates. Nevertheless, there may be tenants who wish to buy their homes but are unable to obtain a building society mortgage. Article 13 enables tenants in this position to obtain a mortgage from the housing executive.
Finally, we are also making provision in article 17 for tenants who wish to purchase their homes but find themselves financially unable to do so immediately. The article enables tenants to receive a two-year option on payment of a returnable deposit of £100 to purchase at a valuation determined at the time of the original application.
524
I firmly believe that the proposals that I have described represent an important advance that will give many more people the opportunity of obtaining a stake in the community.
Part II, chapter II, of the draft order contains a code of rights for public sector tenants. The tenants' charter, as it is commonly known, is a vital complement to the right-to-buy. There will always be those tenants who cannot buy their homes or do not wish to do so. For them this chapter will introduce important new freedoms and responsibilities. They will be able to exercise their own personal preferences in the use of their homes. They will have a new framework of statutory rights and will be entitled to be informed about them and about their other rights and duties under the conditions of their tenancies.
I recognise, of course, that the housing executive and registered housing associations already adopt an enlightened approach to the relationship with their tenants. Many of the rights under the tenants' charter are already available to tenants through existing tenancy agreements. However, I see nothing to be lost and much to be gained in giving statutory force to existing good practice.
Article 25 provides security of tenure for tenants of the housing executive and registered housing associations who occupy the dwellings as their only or principal homes. The exceptions to the provisions are set out in schedule 2 and basically include tenancies that could not be construed as normal lettings. Later in the draft order, article 45 provides that security of tenure applies to tenants who hold their dwellings under a licence which is in all other respects similar to a tenancy, but this will not, of course, extend security of tenure to squatters.
Articles 26 to 29 give a minimum right to one succession to a secure tenant and lay down the procedure for possession of a dwelling let under a secure tenancy. Articles 30 and 31 provide new rights for secure tenants to take in lodgers or, with the landlord's consent, to sublet part of the dwelling. This should help single people.
Articles 34 to 36 give tenants the right to carry out improvements; prohibit rent increases on account of a tenant's own improvements; and provide at the end of the tenancy for the reimbursement of tenants for improvements affecting the value of the house.
Part III of the draft order deals with house renovation grants. The repair and improvement of the existing housing stock is an increasingly important element of our overall strategy to improve housing conditions. Expenditure in Northern Ireland has risen from about £1 million only in 1974 to an estimated £40 million in the current financial year. These grants have enabled owner-occupiers and private landlords to make a significant contribution towards the improvement of inner urban areas in Belfast and provincial towns; but, equally important, they help us with individual substandard dwellings in rural areas, as hon. Members will know.
I realise that there has been concern about the rationing scheme that the executive has had to introduce because the demand for grants has outstripped the considerable increase in the supply of cash. I understand that the board of the housing executive discussed improvement grants yesterday afternoon and that the chairman is writing to me urgently about the position. As soon as I receive the chairman's letter, I shall arrange an early meeting with him. I intend that it should be next week, so that we can review what action needs to be taken.

525
For convenience, part III replaces in whole the grants provisions of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 and subsequent subordinate legislation. Much of the existing grants system remains unchanged. There are one or two changes, to which I should like to refer.
Under articles 63 to 66 special grants are to be introduced for the first time in Northern Ireland towards the cost of providing standard amenities and means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation. This new grant will complement the housing executive's revised powers under part IV, chapter I, to deal with overcrowding and means of escape from fire in houses in multiple occupation.
Chapter II of part IV deals with housing associations. Housing associations are making an increasing and indispensable contribution towards tackling the Province's housing problems. Article 76 extends the powers of my Department to grant-aid advisory services for housing associations. The other changes proposed are basically twofold.
First, article 77 ensures that there can be no obstacles in the rules of registered housing associations which might inhibit voluntary sales of dwellings to sitting tenants. This chapter also empowers my Department to pay grant to registered housing associations to improve dwellings for sale.
The second set of provisions in this chapter is intended mainly to strengthen the financial regimes of registered housing associations which will receive this year more than £38 million from the public purse.
I should emphasise that these changes should not be taken as indicative of any widespread malpractice by associations in Northern Ireland. They are preventive measures intended to satisfy Parliament and the public that these independent bodies are fully accountable for the large sums of public money they receive and, indeed, have been welcomed by the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations.
Finally, in this part there are a number of miscellaneous provisions. For instance, article 89 increases the size of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive board from nine to 10. This recognises the heavy work load faced by the board in recent years about which I am sure the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) would be able to inform the House.
I come now to the part of the draft order dealing with the private rented sector. Hon. Members will recall that in March 1981 the Government published a statement setting out the findings and recommendations of the review group which had been established to carry out a review of policy in relation to the private rented sector in the light of the operation of the Rent (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The Government's statement identified certain areas where legislative change to achieve minor adjustments and improvements would be appropriate and the majority of the provisions in this part meet the commitment to introduce these changes at the earliest opportunity.
One of the more important conclusions of the review was that further consideration should be given to the question of shorthold tenancies in the private sector in Northern Ireland. The 1981 Act in Great Britain introduced the concept of the shorthold tenancy, and articles 91 to 95 make similar provision for Northern
526
Ireland. Under these new arrangements, landlords, on obtaining vacant possession of a dwelling previously let under a protected tenancy, will be able to relet the dwelling for fixed terms of between one and five years, at the end of which the landlord will have the right to regain possession. During the terms of letting, tenants will have security of tenure. For the present, these new lettings will be at registered rents, although my Department is given a discretion to remove this provision by order should circumstances warrant it.
By allowing landlords to let in this way, without running the risk of taking on a sitting tenant for life, I believe that we are removing a major disincentive to new lettings. There are many groups of people, such as the young and the mobile, who are not yet seeking long-term security, and these provisions will play their part in meeting that type of housing.
Mr. William Ross: What will be the position of the tenant at the end of the stated tenancy period in relation to the housing executive selection scheme and housing scheme if he applies to the housing executive for housing?
Mr. Patten: I shall endeavour to give the hon. Gentleman the answer to that question later in the debate.
As a corollary to the shorthold provision, articles 103 and 104 are also designed to encourage lettings by facilitating repossession of dwellings let by temporarily absent owner-occupiers, by owners of retirement homes and by service men pending release from the armed forces.
The draft order could affect directly the lives of up to a quarter of a million tenants in the public and private sectors in Northern Ireland. It changes fundamentally the traditional relationship that has existed between landlord and tenant; it raises the status of tenants to a higher level than ever before; and it confers on tenants, particularly in the public sector, the freedom to enjoy their homes in a way best suited to their requirements and ultimately to take the steps towards ownership if they wish. It is a thoroughly sensible and desirable measure, and I commend it to the House.
2.13 am
Mr. Clive Soley: Conservative Members always make a great deal of the right-to-buy issue. They believe that it is a factor that helped them in the election, and I have no doubt that it did, but I have always said that winning an election does not necessarily prove that a policy is right. We need time to see how it works out.
The Labour party has nothing to be ashamed of in terms of home ownership. We have one of the best records of any British Government. We introduced the option mortgage scheme, rights for first-time home buyers and many other benefits for people wishing to buy their homes. What is so important about the right to buy? It is that sales in housing stress areas cause problems for tenants and are good neither for local democracy—because the policy is imposed on the local authority, or on the housing executive in this case — and it is bad for those on housing waiting lists. I do not mind what local authorities do in non-housing stress areas—whether they sell, do not sell or whatever—but let us consider the factors which operate in housing stress areas, because they are extremely important.

527
First, we know from bitter experience that the best properties— those with gardens and so on·go first. That means that, increasingly, people on housing waiting lists cannot get a transfer to a better property, no matter how long they wait. In certain circumstances—I shall define them shortly — it leads to a deterioration in standards of public housing.
Secondly, the policy leads to a decline in the housing stock available in the public sector. When the Minister quoted from the proceedings in Committee upstairs, he left out that vital aspect of the scheme. Unless new build, renovation or repair equals or surpasses the number sold, there must be fewer houses available to let. There is no way in which one can sell off house, build, renovate or repair fewer than have been sold off, and still have more than enough to let to those on the waiting list. If there is no waiting list, there is no problem, but where there is a waiting list, there is a major problem. Shelter in Northern Ireland estimates that the loss could amount to 40,000 homes. That estimate is, of course, based on the Minister's estimate of the number of people who may buy.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: if 40,000 dwellings were sold, how many fewer tenants would need to be housed? Would not that figure be 40,000 too?
Mr. Soley: That would depend in the circumstances. If there is a waiting list, or a transfer list, there would not be 40,000 fewer people whom one had a responsibility to house, or to rehouse in better conditions. One can honestly claim—as hon. Members have rightly done—that there would be 40,000 fewer tenants of the housing executive, but that will not help those on the housing waiting list or waiting for a transfer. It will not help the family with young children who are living in a high-rise block and want a ground floor property.
The other problem which the Government and the Tory party always duck is that local authorities—or, in this case, the housing executive — will have a greater problem of mismatch. There will be aging properties in bad repair and much newer stock with a high annual interest rate, and nothing in between. Those on the waiting list, however, will tend to want two or three-bedroom family houses. As long as the best are sold off first, they will not get what they want.
If this is such a marvellous basic right, why do we not extend it to the private sector? We could leave out the one-off landlord and give a right to buy from any landlord with, let us say, 50 housing units. If the Minister would like to tell me why the right is not extended to the private sector, I shall happily give way to him.
Mr. Chris Patten: It is extraordinary—although it may explain much that has happenec in recent months —that the hon. Gentleman and his party do not seem to understand the difference between private and public ownership. There is a difference, and we on this side of the House understand it.
Mr. John Hume: Nonsense.
Mr. Patten: Despite that urbane contribution, what I say is true. I am surprised that, even after some expensive lessons, the hon. Gentleman does not understand the distinction.
Mr. Soley: If the Minister really believes that there is any significant difference between, for example, renting from Freshwater and renting from a local authority, I
528
should like him to explain that difference to the tenants. Most people know that there is no essential difference between a large private landlord and a large public landlord.
If I am renting from someone down the road with only one property to let, the situation is indeed different. There is a philosophical point which the Conservative party always ducks. Conservatives believe that in some way large corporate bodies with a lot of capital are in some way better than large public bodies. They are not. They have the same bureaucratic problems as large public bodies, and they have other problems in common. It is nonsense to pretend that there is any significant philosophical difference between the right to buy from a large private landlord and the right to buy from a large public landlord.
The way to extend home ownership is to make grants available to help people to buy at a reasonable rate. The Minister may find it difficult to face arguments that he does not like, but that is not a new experience. If we want to help people to buy, we should make the same assistance available to those who want to live in the public sector and want to buy as is available to those in the private sector. There is nothing wrong with that. The Minister can insist on their being able to buy their own houses in the public sector so long as he offers to replace that property so that housing is available to others who want to rent.
The Government are cutting back overall on renovations, repairs and building, but I accept that things are better in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the country. At the same time, the Government are insisting on the right to buy. Therefore, in housing stress areas people have less and less choice, not more choice. As rents have been dramatically increased in Northern Ireland, the difference between renting and buying is minimal. In a sense people are being forced to buy, because it is nonsense for them not to do so. What they pay in rent over a long period is equal to what they would pay if they were purchasing. The reason for that lies in the discounts.
If the Government were genuine in their attempts to help those in rented property—whether in the private or public sector—they would ensure that the subsidies available to them were as good as, and certainly not worse than, those given to purchasers. Hon. Members and the public know that the subsidies to owner-occupiers are way above those given to the people who rent in either the public or private sector. The Government have constantly refused to face that.
Mr. Chris Patten: It may have escaped the hon. Gentleman's notice that we give considerable help to people on group A of the housing executive's list. Thanks to the efforts of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), we give them help to become home owners. Presumably that is precisely the sort of thing that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, but perhaps he has not heard of that.
Mr. Soley: Obviously the Minister is not listening. I am saying that the subsidies go to those who buy, but not to those who rent, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector. It is no good the Minister looking puzzled. If he does not understand, he will have to go away and do his homework. The Minister will not understand my point—right or wrong— if he does not listen. If someone buys his house from the public or private sector,

529
he receives much greater subsidies from the state in the form of mortgage relief or grants than are given to those who rent. Nobody seriously questions that.
The Government constantly put all the burden on the rent payers—whether public or private—and much less of a burden on those who buy, because of tax subsidies. That is what is wrong. I have no objection to those who purchase receiving subsidies, but I object to the fact that one standard applies to those who buy and another to those who rent. That is fundamentally wrong.
In Northern Ireland in particular, rents have been forced up significantly and many people are being forced into debt for the first time. The Minister knows that debts have been increasing very rapidly because of that increase in rents. The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland and the DHSS have issued a draft joint code of guidance on homelessness. I asked the Minister's predecessor the same question as I put to the Minister now. Is it not time that we gave responsibility for the homeless to the housing executive? We do that in the rest of the United Kingdom, but not in Northern Ireland. When Shelter in Northern Ireland pleaded that case and suggested also that the housing executive should be responsible for providing temporary accommodation, it was on to a fair point. At the very least, the Minister should consider it sympathetically.
I deal next with the tenants' charter. I do not see why the rights available to tenants in Northern Ireland should be any less than those in the rest of the United Kingdom. Article 40(3) denies consultation with tenants or their representatives on rents. How does the Minister justify that? We should not restrict the matters on which tenants or tenants' groups can have consultations to those which the housing executive believes to be relevant. We should go beyond that.
I believe also that there is a strong case for including a right of repair provision which could be waived by court order only.
There should be protection from summary eviction for tenants in the public sector similar to that enjoyed by private sector tenants.
My final point relates to the Government's attitude to those who have to rent or choose to rent. However one looks at it, the Government seem anxious to punish them and, if necessary, push them into home ownership so as to lose their responsibility for public and private sector tenants.
The Government recently relaxed rent controls in the private sector because they thought that it would enable landlords to do up their properties. There is no evidence that that has happened, and it does not surprise me that there is no evidence. Although the rent increases are significant and heavy for those who are renting, overall they do not bring small landlords much money.
All of us in the House who have studied the background to the Rent Acts and the development of housing since the turn of the century know that the amount of private rented accommodation has been declining steadily since about 1903. It has nothing to do with the Rent Act, as is sometimes claimed by the Conservative party. It has happened because it is uneconomic to rent property, and has been becoming increasingly so for many years. Yet the Government fall back on the old idea that if they allow
530
landlords to increase rents as much as they like that will result in the property being renovated and repaired and brought up to a higher standard. It will not.
The only way in which the Government will achieve that is by intervening effectively and ensuring that grants are available to landlords to enable them to do up the houses, and, if necessary, the housing executive should have the power and resources to step in to do it in the absense of the landlord or if he, for any reason, is shirking his responsibilities.
The order, in the same way as the original Housing Act 1980, does little to help public or private sector tenants. They are left out because the Government are not and never have been interested in people who choose to rent or find that they have to rent because they cannot afford to buy. Until the Government adopt a housing strategy for Northern Ireland, or the rest of the United Kingdom, which responds to the needs of the people in the public or private rented areas of housing, they will be letting down those people badly. They will be introducing punitive rent levels and causing other problems which they do not impose on those who have the ability and who choose to buy their houses. In the buying sector that choice is being encouraged by large subsidies.
2.27 am
Rev. William McCrea: This draft order is rather lengthy and technical, and I assure the House that I shall endeavour to mention only some aspects of it and allow other hon. Members to cover the rest. The draft order is to be welcomed in many respects. First, public sector tenants in Northern Ireland for the first time are to be given the statutory rights which are available to their counterparts in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the proposed legislation would embody the right of public sector tenants to purchase their own dwellings in certain circumstances. I have listened to the arguments which have been advanced on that point and the interventions in the Minister's speech. I know that some hon. Members argue that such a policy will dangerously deplete the public housing stock, but it is also correct to say that the finance made available from the sale of such houses has increased the overall housing stock in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it is to be welcomed.
I said in the previous debate that I was a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I was one of those who campaigned for the right of people to buy their own homes. I was also a member of the Northern Ireland Housing Council, and extreme pressure was put on the Government. If I remember correctly, parties on both sides of the House were happy to yield on the principle of house sales in Northern Ireland. I agree that in many ways it is nonsense not to buy, with the present level of rents in Northern Ireland. Some people try to tell us that rents there are lower than in the rest of the United Kingdom, but that is not so. The figures for Scotland have been hidden and are never mentioned, as if Scotland were not part of the United Kingdom. I assure the House that it is, and so are we.
I accept the Minister's statement and the document giving people the right to purchase their own house. I do not believe that the one opportunity that the working man has of gaining a capital asset should be taken from him. Therefore, it is vital to establish that right. I am delighted that it is in the order.

531
Following representations at the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Secretary of State revealed that the percentage of Housing Executive tenants excluded from the right to buy under article 5 would be only approximately 10 per cent. He said that even that would be considered in the light of overall United Kingdom policy.
The increase in the net annual valuation limit for repair grants to £225 is to be welcomed. That will be of great benefit to people who own their own houses, and the change will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. The Assembly gave it a warm welcome and I have great pleasure in doing so now. I appreciate the Government's movement on that matter.
I draw the House's attention to article 12. I welcome the provision under which the tenant would have the right to have the value of his house redetermined, but I feel that that should not be done by the valuer or one of his colleagues. If a house is to be revalued that should be done by an independent body. That was drawn to the Minister's attention by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am led to believe that the Secretary of State also mentioned to the Assembly that he and the Minister will consider the matter in the light of experience if the present system is not working. I appreciate that consideration.
I also appreciate the change recommended in article 67(2)(a) on the repair grant. Again the Secretary of State informed the Assembly that the Department would alter the cut-off date for eligibility for repair grants from 28 February 1946 to 31 December 1956. The view of the Assembly's Environment Committee, and that of the Assembly, was that the 1946 date excluded a great number of houses which could be of suspect quality as they were constructed in the year after the war. I am pleased that the order that was presented to the House has taken that representation into account. Indeed, 31 December 1956 is the actual date stated in the order.
Of the 28 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Assembly's Environment Committee, 16 were accepted by the Government. I appreciate that movement. Now that the draft order has been substantially improved, I should be deeply indebted to the Minister if he would move on the remaining 12. The legislation would then be most enlightened and perhaps a model to be followed throughout the United Kingdom.
I express my thanks to the Minister for the concern that he has shown about the delay in grant is being paid owing to lack of finance. I am delighted that the Minister and the chairman of the board of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive are to have an urgent meeting. I trust that the position will improve in the near future and that the problem will be alleviated in the best interest of all concerned.
Although we have not got all that we asked for, it would be wrong not to say that the Government have moved quite a distance with the legislation. I trust that the Minister will consider further the points still outstanding.
2.37 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: This substantial order is in itself a housing code. Indeed, it is several housing codes in one, as each of the main chapters is a code in its own right.
This is the moment to say a word of appreciation to the captive audience at this debate, whose appearance of somnolence belies, I am sure, the great attentiveness with
532
which they are following the speeches. I hope that the captive audience understands the importance function that it is called upon to perform.
That function will be performed the more speedily and efficiently as the Whips contrive a shift system whereby the entire Conservative party, after a certain lapse of time, has the privilege of attending these debates. They are to convert the Conservative party to the conviction that Northern Ireland should enjoy the privilege available to the rest of the United Kingdom of being legislated for in Great Britain or United Kingdom Acts. With one exception, the codes enacted in the order are identical with those already enacted for England and Wales and, I believe, for the northern kingdom as well.
The peculiar desire of successive Administrations, not excepting the present one, to maintain Northern Ireland in a state of artificial legislative isolation has meant that we have not had a debate in which all hon. Members could participate and in which these matters could be settled for the country as a whole. As the Minister pointed out, and as has been recognised, considerable work has been done on these proposals at earlier stages. Two sittings of the Northern Ireland Committee have been devoted to them and traces of what was argued in that Committee and agreed to by Ministers on those occasions are to be found in the order.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) has already mentioned one of the two major improvements to which I intended to refer — the extension of eligibility for repair grants to houses built before 1956, instead of 1946 as heretofore. I remember the debate on that in the Northern Ireland Committee and the agreement that was secured from the Minister on that occasion.
I refer with particular satisfaction to the extension of the right to buy to dwellings designed for occupation by physically disabled persons. This is my opportunity to try to alleviate the anxieties of the hon. Members for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) and for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) by assuring them, from direct personal experience as a Northern Ireland Member, that it is extremely rare for houses sold to sitting tenants to be in any natural sense of the term removed from the total housing stock available to the housing authority. It is perhaps difficult to convey to Members representing constituencies in other parts of the kingdom the passion, nay the ferocity, of the desire of the people of Northern Ireland to own their own homes.
The homes that are bought by sitting tenants are homes which in no circumstances and in no foreseeable future would have fallen back into the mobile pool available to the housing executive. They are houses in which-a family has lived and been brought up and in which another family and perhaps even a successive family will live and be brought up. The house will remain in continuous occupation in that way, the only difference being that as a result of exercising the facility, later to become the right to purchase, that house will be the possession of that family and not merely tenanted. The availability of housing stock is not in the least impaired thereby.
I assure the hon. Member for Hillsborough that I attach great importance to flexibility in the transfer of families from less to more suitable accommodation by the housing executive. I have stressed this in previous debates and said that I believe the Housing Executive should pay more attention to that, so I, at any rate, cannot be accused of

533
being insensitive to the desirability of having available a pool of tenancies frequently or at least occasionally falling in, so as to allow for the matcing of family size and needs to accommodation. I must tell the hon. Members for Hammersmith and for Hillsborough, however, that those are not the houses involved in the context of sales to tenants.
The extension of the right to purchase to houses that have been adapted for occupation by disabled persons is a particularly striking instance of the case that I am making. It is a remarkable fact, but it is none the less a fact, that the people occupying houses, in some cases very elaborately improved and modified to suit the needs of one or more disabled occupants, are extremely anxious that those houses should become their possessions.
Indeed, I know of cases where, because the modifications available through the advice of health and social service authorities and the work of the housing executive did not fully meet the ambitions and wishes of a particular family, the family purchases the house first so that the modifications needed to adapt it for occupation by handicapped people could be carried out afterwards. I assure the House that it is not merely common, but normal, for there to be an expectation that houses that have been adapted for families containing one or more handicapped person should pass into the ownership of those families.
Mr. Soley: I understand the right hon. Gentleman's argument. Although there is considerable stability in the special houses to which he is referring and in the general population, there is no way in which, especially under the numbers about which the Minister is talking, a significant number of houses will not be lost in time. What happens to a house when the occupant dies? the house is left to someone else in the family and sold. The right hon. Gentleman faces an acid choice. Does he prefer to sell the house at a maximum discount of 50 per cent., in which case the house never returns to the housing executive, or does he prefer the tenant to be offered up to 50 per cent. of a house of similar value on the private market, in which case the house would return to the housing executive and another of his constituents could be housed?
Mr. Powell: I have further consolation for the hon. Gentleman. The latter process is what is happening under our noses, in one of the principal towns in my constituency —Downpatrick. There is a steady movement out of the housing execuive estate into a neighbouring private enterprise estate, thus creating and maintaining the very flexibility which the hon. Gentleman and I desire.
The hon. Gentleman referred to houses which eventually fall back into the pool following the death of the tenant. It would be interesting to have a statistical survey on that mattter. It would be a useful exercise for the housing executive to carry out. I believe that the houses that fall vacant because of the death of the occupier are usually those which are still tenanted. Moreover, they are usually those which are occupied by elderly individuals or couples. When such a house is acquired, it is and will continue to be a family house of which the date of falling in would be remote.
I am afraid that, between us, the hon. Member for Hammersmith and I have somewhat over-laboured that point, but it is extremely important. In Northern Ireland, one sees home ownership in an especially intense and
534
beneficent form. Perhaps, therefore I have not entirely wasted the time of the House by placing that emphasis on it.
I want to deal exclusively with that part of the code which deals with grants for repairs and improvements, because there has been changes in circumstances in this respect since the order was last considered. That change in circumstances has been unfortunate, though not unprecedented. Some of us remember the consequences for the scheme for the improvement of rural cottages of a sudden imposition of a £50 million cut in the housing executive's budget two years ago. Expectations and undertakings that hon. Members had given their constituencies were defeated and delays were interposed which are only now being caught up.
This is not the first time that we have experienced what we are experiencing this year—the sudden cessation, the sudden seizing up of that process of grant-aided repairs and improvements, money for which the Minister pointed out had so dramatically increased from £1 million to £40 million per annum. I hope that the Minister will not take refuge in saying that we should be satisfied with so dramatic an acceleration and not be surprised if, with the peristent demand, a brake had to be applied.
The code provides a duty that is reciprocal to a right. The key sentence from article 49 is:
"Grants shall be payable by the Executive in accordance with this Part."
The order holds to the people of Northern Ireland a right to improvement and repair grants. However, the right is qualified by conditions. Article 50 states:
"No grant shall be paid by the Executive unless an application is made to it in accordance with this Part."
The "may" appears in some cases.
Article 50(5) states:
"The Executive may pay a grant to any person in whom the estate in a house of an applicant for a grant becomes vested by assignment."
The wording of subsection (8) of the article, which states that
"the Executive may not entertain an application for a grant if the relevant works"
is curious and rather ambiguous. I can understand the statement, "The Executive may", as an alternative to "The Executive shall", there being an option in the former case and an obligation in the latter. I do not understand the relationship between
"no grant shall be paid by the Executive"
and
"The Executive may not entertain an application for a grant."
The expression "entertaining an application" brings me to a matter that has caused great bitterness in my constituency. When the brake was put on a few weeks ago and the finance was suddenly tightened, initially demand was equated with supply by lengthening the process of approving the applications. Without explanation, applicants had to wait for months for their grants, which they had the greatest reason to expect would be forthcoming, only to be told eventually, after an inquiry was made on their behalf, that there had been a change in the financial background.
We are now informed that a system of priorities has been established and set out in documents issued by the housing executive. With the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster, I was relieved to learn what the Minister said about his transactions with the chairman of the housing executive and the urgency that he attached to putting this matter on a rational and explicable footing. At present we are

535
defeating a right that has been created, destroying legitimately entertained expectations, and creating massive between tenants and house occupiers and the housing executive.
There must have been lack of foresight or a sudden change imposed upon the housing executive by the Treasury to account for the sudden application of the brake which occurred when the expansion of applications for improvement and repair were in full flight. However, it happened, and the consequences must he dealt with rationally. The House should be told as soon as possible about the modification that has been introduced into the availability of capital for this purpose. What was the estimated capital for the current financial year, and what is the revised estimate for the current financial year? What shortfall will result from the possibility of giving grants? How are the applicants to be marshalled in the queue which will inevitably form? I hope that it is the Minister's intention, in his transactions with the housing executive, to secure that information and make it public as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend and I must warn the Government of the severe disappointment—almost disaffection—which the sudden change that is observable is creating. If we are to avoid a long backlog, contracts being frustrated, and plans broken up, there must be rationalisation at the earliest possible moment of the consequences of whatever has unfortunately occurred to interfere with the remarkable course of the improvement and repair of the Northern Ireland housing stock.
On that more cheerful note, I conclude by saying—
Mr. William Ross: Will my right hon. Fried reflect on the fact that the number of houses that need major improvement is known and that it world be possible to have them all completed quickly if the grants were made available? Thus, over a short period, the need for such grants would greatly diminish, if not disappear entirely.
Mr. Powell: I follow my hon. Friend's argument, but I am not entirely sure that I agree with it. My impression is that in this matter, and very happily, the appetite comes with eating. The observation of the possibilities of improvement and the feeling that deficiencies can be removed represent a progressive and continuing process. I do not think that we shall soon exhaust the reservoir of improvable, recoverable and repairable houses in Northern Ireland. I stress that, because over the past five years in Northern Ireland the emphasis has tilted from the creation of new houses to the maintenance of the existing stock, and I believe that that tilt will go further. That makes it all the more important that the progress that has been maintained in improvement and repair should be interrupted as little as possible and that its future course should be as rational as may be.
Those who visit Northern Ireland are commonly astonished, above everything else, at the excellence of the houses, particularly in country districts. They are struck not only by the number and quality of the new houses but by the older houses which have been rehabilitated and improved. That is one of the hopeful aspects of the Ulster scene, and I am sure that the Government will therefore readily understand the sensitiveness and anxiety that have been expressed in this debate.
2.58 am
Mr. William Ross: The first sentence of article 5 says:
"The right to buy does not arise unless the Executive is the fee simple owner of the dwelling-house."
The next few sentences set out all the circumstances in which the right to buy does not arise.
At first sight, that seems to be simply a bar on the sale of a privately owned house, and it may well act in that way. However, I wonder what will happen in the unfortunately not too rare circumstances where the deeds of a dwelling cannot be found and there is a long delay in establishing title by the housing executive to a house which is plainly in its ownership.
I am sure that the Minister will already have come across a number of cases of undue delay because rural cottages have been built in the wrong corner of a field, on land not purchased for that at all. I hope to have an assurance that the sentence that I quoted will not be used to slow up or act as a bar to the sale of any house, because it could be so used. Certainly those who take an interest in this matter would be very annoyed if that were the case.
There are a vast number of points in the order which I should like to discuss and which have already been discussed in many other places. As the hour is moving on, for the second night in succession, I shall try to restrict my remarks to one or two things that are troubling me a little.
Article 17 says that
"the Executive shall be bound, subject to the foLowing provisions … to make to the tenant—
(a) if the dwelling-house is a house, a grant of the dwelling-house for an estate in fee simple".
In English terms, that is freehold. I understand that hitherto or at least until lately it was the case that it was an estate in fee simple. But I have been told — I am curious whether it is true — that the present sale document being prepared for the housing executive is not a grant of the estate in fee simple but is a 999-year lease. If that is so, can we have an assurance that is written here will be the course followed and can we be told why there has been a change from the freehold system to the long-term leasehold system?
I have recently come across a case in which the housing executive, in selling a dwelling, sold the right of way to a house next door and has not been able to get it back. I am sure that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) is also aware of that strange case of ineptness on behalf of the sales managers. It was a mistake, but, as the individual bought his dwelling freehold, the housing executive is in severe difficulty. Perhaps the Minister can clear up that point for me.
Article 50 deals with a reassessment two years after the previous application for grant was approved. That disappeared in 1978 and has had to be reintroduced. We pressed for it early on and I am pleased to see that it has come back. I hope that the order will come into operation as soon as possible so that the constituents who have suffered will now be able to resolve problems caused by rising costs.
The one difficulty that I see now lies in the fact that inflation seems for the moment to have run its course. If it does not continue at the high levels which persisted in earlier years, there will be less need for the improvement in article 50.
One could say a great deal more on the order, but enough has been said, I hope, to give the Minister room

537
for reply. I hope that we shall shortly return to the housing problems of Northern Ireland because many things need to be said and done.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs took a great deal of evidence on dampness in houses in Scotland. I hope that it will be required reading for the officials of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive who have to deal with damp housing. There is much interesting information in it and the sooner the officials read it the better. I hope that in future there will be an absolute ban on the installation of flat roofs, the one cause above all others of dampness and condensation in houses. It has led to endless problems for tenants and endless frustrations for their representatives.
3.5 am
Mr. Chris Patten: I shall refer the commendation of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) of the Scottish Affairs Committee's document on dampness—a subject with which I am perhaps not as familiar as I should be — to the officers of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
There were some Neanderthal views on housing policy from the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) which, I trust, do not reflect the policy of the Labour party. It is curious that the hon. Gentleman finds it difficult to understand the distinction between what is privately owned and what is a public asset.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) made the reasonable point that for many working men the only chance of acquiring a capital asset is through the purchase of their home.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) argued cogently about the particular problems in Northern Ireland and the effect of the sale of housing executive property on the housing market.
I hope that the hon. Member for Hammersmith will not be too scandalised if I tell him that no housing policy will be pursued more vigorously in Northern Ireland than the encouragement of home ownership.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the sale of housing executive property. He should recognise that, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said, the sale of a public sector house to a tenant does not remove it from the total housing stock. The hon. Gentleman should be prepared to recognise that the potential loss of a relet does not arise in the short term, since the tenant, were he not given the right to buy, would continue to live in the house as a tenant. It is worth mentioning that in recent years, when the Government's house sales policy has been in operation, the housing executive's waiting list has been falling. The advantages in social and economic terms of permitting tenants to buy their homes, and of encouraging the spread of home ownership, far outweigh the theoretical disadvantages to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Mr. Soley: The waiting list has been falling because for many years, as the Minister knows, there was no good policy of house building, renovation and repair in Northern Ireland. It was not until direct rule was introduced—[Interruption.] It was not until direct rule was introduced—Official Unionist Members may not like it, but it is true—that there was a major effort to expand building. We all know that in areas where sales have taken place the housing waiting list has increased.
Mr. Patten: I detect a difference of view on that matter between the hon. Gentleman and some Official Unionist Members. I fancy that the major reason for the difference between the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members is that the Official Unionist Members know rather more about Northern Ireland than he does.
Mr. Flannery: They made a mess of governing Northern Ireland from Stormont.
Rev. William McCrea rose—
Mr. Patten: We welcome with scarcely disguised enthusiasm the return to our councils of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), but I think that we would be able to get through them more rapidly if he were a bit quieter.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith talked about homelessness. I know that Shelter in Northern Ireland has put pressure on the Department to introduce provisions in the draft order similar to those that are contained in the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act 1977. We considered that proposal but rejected it because in practice we do not believe that that legislation would confer any greater protection on the homeless than is already provided by the housing executive's selection scheme, under which homeless applicants receive priority. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is a regional housing authority, and that makes a difference.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith discussed consultation in the context of article 40 of the draft order. I do not believe that rents or service charges are suitable matters for consultation arrangements under the article. The executive and registered housing associations must raise sufficient rental income to make an appropriate contribution towards meeting their revenue expenditures. The provisions in the draft order mirror those that apply in the rest of the United Kingdom under both the Housing Act 1980 and the Tenants' Rights Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980, with which I am sure the hon. Gentleman is familiar.
The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster welcomed a number of the proposals in the draft order. He said that he wished that we had accepted the other 12 recommendations made by the Northern Ireland assembly. The reasons for not accepting those recommendations, which are fully set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his response to the assembly, are available in the Library.
The right hon. Member for Down, South, apart from his interesting remarks about the effect of the sale of housing executive homes on the rest of the housing market in Northern Ireland, spoke primarily of improvement grants, to which he refered during the debate on the Appropriation Order two weeks ago. I can only repeat that, as a result of the board's meeting yesterday, I am expecting a letter from the chairman. I shall respond to the letter straightaway and suggest a meeting next week at which we can go into these issues, which put in question the objectives of our housing strategy in Northern Ireland, the best way of securing the objectives and the precise balance to strike between new build and improvements and repairs. That is a fundamental matter that I look forward with the executive.
It is only fair to my distinguished predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), to stress that provision for improvement grants

539
agreed between my hon. Friend and the executive during last winter's public expenditure discussions was £40 million. That was the amount allocated to the executive for the present financial year.
The right hon. Gentleman's points on resources and policy will form the agenda for my discussions with the chairman and senior officers of the housing executive.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East asked about a tenant who seeks housing executive accommodation when his shorthold tenancy comes to an end. At that time I was not able to respond as accurately as I should have done. The information is now to hand. Such a person would be entitled to apply to the housing executive for accommodation and his application would be dealt with by the executive under its statutory housing selection scheme.
Mr. William Ross: Would it be dealt with as a priority case or as a normal application?
Mr. Patten: Perhaps I can let the hon. Gentleman know the precise answer to that question later as that information is not immediately to hand. I fear the answer was not as satisfactory as both of us would have liked.
The hon. Gentleman referred to title difficulties in house sales. I am aware that the housing executive faces difficulties in establishing title to some of the dwellings that it inherited from 65 housing authorities. However, I am happy to say that the delays caused by these difficulties have been substantially reduced through the procedures available through the Land Registry. I am also happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he sought that article 5 is not intended to avoid the right to buy in cases of title difficulty.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned completions under article 17. The executive has until now preferred to dispose of houses on a leasehold basis, even where it holds the freehold interest. The right-to-buy provides for the sale of the freehold, and the executive will consider bringing it voluntarily into line.
I hope that I have dealt with the substantive points that were raised in the debate. If I have not done so in my reply, I assure right hon. and hon. Members that I will take up any outstanding queries in correspondence at the earliest possible moment.
I hope that the House will approve the order, which I think will do a great deal to help those who wish to become home owners and those who wish to be tenants.
I commend the order to the House.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Northern Ireland (Housing) (Amendments)
3.18 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Chris Patten): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.
This order makes amendments to the Housing Act 1980 in consequence of article 87 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order which provides the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with a power to enter into indemnity agreements with building societies.
Section 3(8) of the Housing Act 1980 provides for the exclusion of certain recommendations made to building societies from the scope of section 16(3) and (5) of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976. This order amends section 3(8) to extend the exception to cover recommendations about indeminity agreements made by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive with the consent of my Department.
This order is to be made under section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which enables the law of any part of the United Kingdom to be amended in consequence of any provisions of Norther Ireland legislative measures.
I commend the order to the House.
3.19 am
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order earlier I undertook that I would raise only one point, and that briefly, on this order. Nevertheless, it is a point of constitutional and practical importance.
If hon. Members from other parts of the kingdom had happened to look at the order they would have been surprised not only that it was amending a United Kingdom statute to fit a Northern Ireland order, but that it was introducing into a United Kingdom statute, parallel with the words "Secretary of State", the term
"the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland".
Going no further and knowing no more, such hon. Members might have felt some offence and astonishment to see a Department treated as if it was a Minister.
The explanation is that we in Northern Ireland live under what we call direct rule. It is a state of affairs which is described as interim and is prolonged from year to year by an order which is annually made in June or July. We greatly resent this condition in which we are kept and we believe that the uncertainty and provisional character which it implies for our constitutional arrangements is itself a source of encouragement to the enemies of our Province.
When that annual order renews the Prevention of Terrorism (Interim Provisions) Act 1974 it renews a provision which says that wherever one reads the word "Department", it really means "Minister responsible for the Department". Thus, tonight at 3·22 am we are writing into a statute of the United Kingdom words which do not mean what they say but which mean what, by virtue of an annual renewal order, a temporary provisions Act says they mean.
We do not do it only on that occasion. We constantly provide for an order to be subject to affirmative or negative procedure when that is not true. The expression "subject

541
to affirmative procedure" is to be read to mean "subject to negative procedure"; and the expression "subject to negative procedure" is to be read as "subject to no parliamentary procedure at all" by virtue of the 1974 Act as annually renewed by the renewal of direct rule each year.
Such is the violence which is done to the statute book of the United Kingdom, as well as to all common sense and constitutional propriety, by the deliberate process of maintaining Northern Ireland on a 12-month lease, so to speak, whereby, in contrast with the rest of the United Kingdom, our arrangements are accorded only from year to year.
Those who sit on this Bench have come—it is a word commonly used nowadays— mandated by those who sent us here in such agreeably large numbers. It was with a mandate to put an end, so far as in us lay, to direct rule, and it is for that purpose that from time to time we trespass on the patience of our fellow Members of this House by drawing attention to the anomalies, absurdities and intolerable consequences of the unique form of government which is maintained in Northern Ireland and which we refer to as direct rule.
The early hours of the morning may not be suitable, from some points of view, for constitutional disquisitions, but for another reason they are highly suitable. It is this arrangement—it is the determination to treat Northern Ireland as something temporarily and specially dealt with — which creates the necessity for hon. Members, instead of dispatching the legislative business of the kingdom in the normal and proper way at normal times, to attend these seminars that we conduct for them with the assistance of Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office. That observation enables me to resume my seat on the agreeable note of thanking the Under-Secretary of State for the competence as well as the bonhomie of his contributions to our debate.
3.26 am
Mr. Chris Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I must attempt to respond in kind, although rather more briefly. It would be injudicious, and would require more courage than I can summon up without a little Dutch assistance, for me to follow the right hon. Gentleman into the arcana of the legislative process. Once again, he made his argument with eloquence and clarity. I find it difficult to believe that those who bomb, maim and murder are encouraged to bomb, murder and maim by our constitutional arguments and discussions, but that must be a difference of opinion between us. Tonight it would be foolhardy of me to do other than take the world as it is. In the right hon. Gentleman's view, our legislative processes are imperfect. The solution, in the Government's view—as the right hon. Gentleman knows, although he does not agree with us—is to dispense with the need for them by achieving a workable scheme of devolution. On that happy note—on which I assume that there will not be total consensus —I shall resume my seat.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 7th July, be approved.

Brynlliw Colliery
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
3.28 am
Mr. Gareth Wardell: I welcome this opportunity to inform the House about a vital matter that affects my constituents. On 14 June this year, the National Coal Board's south Wales area director announced to the NCB his recommendation that Brynlliw colliery be closed. Brynlliw is a colliery that I know well. I feel a strong empathy with the men who work there. It is my firm belief that the recommendation by Mr. Philip Weekes is premature as a decision and insensitive to the full implications of closure.
First, let us consider the potential of the colliery. On 21 March 1983 a joint investigation team was established which included representatives of management, unions and employees. It made an in-depth study of the mine, and the report was submitted for discussion on 3 May 1983. The conclusions in the report did not point to a bleak future. Indeed, the opposite was true. Fifteen positive recommendations were made, including the urgent need to develop the S31 coalface. Some of those recommendations have now been implemented, but the key question remains: how much investment has the National Coal Board made, apart from normal development? For example, what capital has been injected into a new haulage system for the main laterals in the 6 ft seam?
The NCB cannot sustain the view that Brynlliw's coal reserves are exhausted. Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the total workable coal reserves at Brynlliw amount to at least 4 million tones— 1–9 million tonnes in the 3 ft seam and 2–1 million tonnes in the 6 ft seam. Tapping those reserves does not require a major expenditure programme. In the 3 ft seam, two short headings of 1 ft each would lead directly into the seam. In the 6 ft seam, only headings are needed, as there is no area of barren ground to work through.
There is also a ready market for Brynlliw coal at the Aberthaw B power station. Indeed, that market has already been supplied successfully. For example, 191,500 tonnes of Brynlliw coal were burned at Aberthaw in 1979. In 1981, the figure was 126,000 tonnes. The existence of that market was confirmed on 12 April 1983, at a meeting at the headquarters of the Central Electricity Generating Board in London. Sir Walter Marshall, the CEGB chairman, gave me his assurance that every tonne of Brynlliw coal could be burned at Aberthaw. Thus, in view of the investigation team's report, the known availability of reserves, and the assured market, I conclude that prematurity of recommendation is a reasonable charge that can be levelled at the NCB's south Wales area director.
Secondly, my case rests on the insensitivity of the south Wales area director to the full implications of closure. The NCB states that 638 men will be found other jobs. However, if 638 jobs are available in other collieries in the area—which would be good news indeed—why have they not been advertised to date? The truth is that 638 jobs are not available in the surrounding pits. Men in other pits will be retired early, as will some of the men at present employed at Brynlliw.
The closure of Brynlliw will mean hundreds of lost job opportunities in a county that has experienced the fastest

543
rise in long-term unemployment of any county in Wales. Yet, on 22 January 1981, the Secretary of State for Wales, in a Welsh affairs debate, said:
"However, I believe that the NCB will find opportunity for additional investment to strengthen the position of many pits in Wales and to increase job opportunities within them." —[Official Report, 22 January 1981; Vol. 997, c. 448.]
Those words now seem to have a very hollow ring to them.
There are other implications, but I shall confine myself to the contribution of deep-mined relative to opencast-mined coal in Wales.
If Brynlliw colliery closes, the question of where the replacement capacity is to be found must be posed. The Royal Commission on energy and the environment argued powerfully that opencast operations should not exceed 15 million tonnes per annum.
The Government eventually — I emphasise "eventually"—responded on 22 May this year to the Royal Commission's report of July 1981. Page 25, paragraph 74, of the Government's response shows a difference in attitude between the Royal Commission and the Government, because the Government do not accept that the ceiling of 15 million tonnes should in any way be sacrosant.
I believe that opencast coal sites remain classic examples of the misallocation of resources whereby the people living near to them are not compensated fully for the ravaging of their environment and the intrusion into their lives of noise, dust and vibration. Often a whole generation has to endure the unintentional, negative side effects of such developments.
In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Dr. Thomas), the Department of Energy, in its folly, has said that the excavation area to be authorised at Glyn Teg should not approach a line nearer than 82 yards from the nearest occupied dwelling. What a concession!
If the Government give a free hand to the National Coal Board to substitute opencast for deep-mined coal without paying full compensation for loss of amenities to people living near those sites, they are engaged in a socially reprehensible policy.
I have sought to show that the closure of Brynlliw colliery is unnecessary, and that, if catried through, it will inflict another serious blow to the prospect of more job opportunities in Wales, while imposing more opencast operations on the lives of many more people.
On 17 February 1981, the then Secretary of State for Energy said:
"The Government will view with sympathy the social problems brought about by redundancies."—[Official Report, 17 February 1981; Vol. 999, c. 142.]
The people of Gower and Wales know only too well that sympathy will not protect their living standards. I hope that the Minister will offer the miners of Brynlliw more than sentiment this evening.
3.38 am
The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Giles Shaw): I congratulate the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell) on raising this issue, which is of such importance to his constituents. We are well aware of his assiduity in looking after constituency matters and raising them in the House. I feel certain that what he has said tonight will form an important part of the discussions about Brynlliw colliery.
544
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the decision, if it is confirmed after appeal—and the appeal is pending—on the colliery's future is taken in the context of what the National Coal Board views as the problems in o the area involved. It is an individual and a special matter, but the context in which the decisions are set is important. I remind the House that just over a week ago I brought before the House the draft Coal Industry (Borrowing Powers) Order 1983. It set out the facts fairly starkly on the National Coal Board's current financial position. I make no apologies for referring to that matter again, because despite the increasing levels of productivity and the huge investment of the past 10 years, the industry's finances continue to deteriorate.
In 1979–80 the board's loss before payment of deficit grant was £159 million. In 1980–81 the figure was £207 million, in 1981–82, £428 million, and in 1982–83 the figure had risen to about £485 million. The signs are that the 1983–84 loss before deficit grant could be not far short of £600 million. Those are the bare facts of the industry's global problem. I accept that it is not the precise problem of the location to which we are referring, but that is the global argument.
The cause of those increasing losses is than the board is producing more coal than it can sell, a portion at very heavy losses. As the board itself has said, 10 million tonnes of its deep-mined capacity gives rise to a net loss on revenue account of about £400 million a year, both in direct operating losses and in further losses that arise in disposing of or stocking the surplus production. That £400 million loss is not the fault of the managers and men involved. It arises largely from the geological conditions at the pits concerned. With more and more fine new capacity coming on stream, it no longer makes sense for men to scratch around at those pits, often in very poor working environments. As the report of the Select Committee on Energy pointed out last December, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission stated in its report, and as the Government's published objectives for the chairman of the board state, action to bring production into line with that demand which can be met profitably is now imperative.
In this context I think that it will help the House if I describe in detail the actions which I understand the board has taken over Brynlliw colliery, which lies in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman, is 78 years old, and currently employs about 640 men. My purpose is to show that the board has taken every opportunity to keep Brynlliw going in the hope that the situation would improve. If, following the forthcoming appeal, the board concludes that there is really no hope left, that will not be in any way an arbitrary or lightly considered decision. It will follow from discussions that have spread over many years, as the hon. Gentleman made clear.
The losses at Brynlliw are accelerating. In 1978–79 it was part of the Brynlliw—Morlais combined mine, which lost just under £10 per tonne of coal produced. The losses of the combined mine rose to nearly £16 per tonne in 1979–80, and over £27 per tonne in 1980–81. In May 1982 the Morlais section was closed, by local agreement with the unions, and in 1981–82 the losses fell to just under £20 per tonne. But even that modest improvement did not, unfortunately, last. In 1982–83 Brynlliw produced 122,000 tonnes of coal, only just over half the previous years' total. Output per manshift was 0·92 tonnes, well down on the previous year and not much over one third of

545
the national average of 2·44 tonnes. The financial loss was £6·8 million, nearly £56 per tonne of coal produced and over £10,000 for every man on the colliery books. The cumulative loss in the period 1979–80 to 1982–83 was no less than £22 million—money which could have been used more effectively in developing new capacity. Were operations to continue through 1983–84, the NCB would expect a further loss of at least £7 million.
The hon. Gentleman raised two questions about investment. The first was transportation on the new haulage systems in the 6ft seam. That is an extremely technical matter, but I am assured by the board that it has considered it carefully and discussed it with the unions. It was fully taken into account by the area director when he made his decision on the pit. It was not ignored in the board's assessment.
These losses, too, contribute to a deteriorating position within the board's south Wales area as a whole. The operating loss in south Wales was £69 million in 1980–81 and £96 million in 1981–82—some 40 per cent. of the board's total operating loss on deep-mined coal. I understand that the 1982–83 accounts of the board, to be published next week, will show the south Wales loss higher still, and a similar proportion of the national loss.
Despite that position, the NCB has maintained new investment in south Wales at about £30 million per year. Earlier this year it sanctioned investment of £12 million in further development work at the profitable Betws anthracite mine only about 10 miles from Brynlliw. This will lead to more jobs, some of which could be filled by men from the Brynlliw colliery.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the CEGB's acceptance of coal from Brynlliw. While the CEGB claims that it could accept Brynlliw coal if prepared to the required quality specification, there is the recognised need to safeguard other Welsh collieries which could also meet CEGB specifications, at much lower costs. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Brynlliw is not the only CEGB source of coal for Aberforth. It could be produced from other Welsh mines at much less cost. The board must consider factors such as that in making its decisions.
As the hon. Gentleman has so fairly set out, in view of that position it is not surprising that the history of the Brynlliw mine has led to a series of special meetings under the colliery review procedure. Under this procedure, introduced in 1973 by agreement between the board and the unions, each of the board's 12 area directors reviews the performance of every colliery in his area at regular intervals.
There was a reconvened meeting on Brynlliw/Morlais in May 1979 and in January 1981 at a general review meeting the position was noted as being extremely serious. On 13 February 1981 the area director told the unions that he proposed to close the combined pit, along with four others, as soon as possible. Following the tripartite meeting in February 1981, at which my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), who was then Secretary of State for Energy, agreed to review the finances of the board, the proposal was withdrawn and discussions continued under the review procedure. As a result of those discussions, the Morlais section closed in May 1981.
546
By December 1982 the operating results being obtained prompted the area director to ask for a further reconvened review meeting, which was held on 21 March 1983. This meeting decided to set up the joint investigation to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the results of that investigation were discussed at a review meeting on 3 May. At the end of that meeting the area director said that Brynlliw was one of the most serious problems facing the south Wales coalfield, although everyone involved had made every effort to improve results. He said that the area management would now make its own evaluation of the position and report back to a further reconvened meeting.
That further meeting was held on 14 June. The area director said that he had no alternative but to recommend closure. However, every man at Brynlliw who wished to transfer to another colliery would be offered a job. For those who did not wish to remain in the industry the terms financed by the Government under the redundant mineworkers payments scheme would be available. No one would become unemployed against his will.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the National Union of Mineworkers has appealed to the board at national level against that decision and I understand that the appeal will be heard on 16 August. If, following the appeal, the board confirms that the colliery must close, I think that the account that I have given shows that this will not be an arbitrary or capricious decision. I would emphasise, though, that the decision is the board's and not the Government' s.
I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the presence of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Welsh Office, on the Government Bench, despite the lateness of the hour, to show his Department's concern about this important matter. It is, of course, for the board to manage the industry. In present circumstances, that must mean taking action to deal with loss-making pits that can never return to viability. The Board has said, however, that it aims to deal with the problem in a humane manner, with proper respect for men who have perhaps spent a lifetime in the industry. As Sir Norman Siddall said last week, cooperation and not confrontation is the way to proceed.
The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped I would offer more than sympathy. I must inform him that my contribution to the debate has sought to set out the facts against which a difficult decision has to be taken. Decisions will inevitably involve, I trust, sympathetic judgment, because that is the correct way for management to proceed, but I think that even the hon. Gentleman will recognise that sometimes decisions are inevitable in view of the facts that the board has to face. That is a matter for the board, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that I personally will send to Norman Siddall, the chairman of the board, the Official Report of today's debate to emphasise the fact that the hon. Member for Gower has raised in detail the problem of Brynlliw and that I in my turn, as the Minister responsible at the Department of Energy, have put before the House the important considerations that ought to be taken into account before the decision is finally made.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Four o'clock am.

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

Message from the Queen
Lord Maclean: My Lords, I have the honour to present to your Lordships a Message from Her Majesty the Queen. signed by her own hand. The Message is as follows:
"I have received with great satisfaction the loyal and dutiful expression of your thanks for the Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament".

St. James's Street, SW1: Pedestrian Crossings
Lord Kilmany: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that, while motor-cars show commendable restraint at pedestrian crossings in St. James's Street. SW1, many riders of motor bicycles do not, much to the danger of pedestrians particularly at rush-hours; and whether they will cause action to be taken.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, enforcement of road traffic law in central London is the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. I know that he takes a serious view of infringements of the Pedestrian Crossings Regulations, whether committed by motor-cars motor-cycles or other vehicles. I understand that in 1982 some 4,131 police prosecutions were brought for moving traffic offences at zebra or pelican-type crossings in the metropolitan police district.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords. in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that not only the street I mention specifically in my Question but man other London streets have pedestrian crossings which motor-cyclists cross without any consideration for pedestrians? Is my noble friend not aware that if a crossing is supposed to be safe but is in fact not safe it constitutes a danger, and that something should therefore be done about it; and is he also aware that the figures which he mentioned do not look as if enough is being done at present?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government are aware of the dangers of being a pedestrian in any part of the street. In March 1982 the Government introduced a two-part driving test for motor-cyclists, whom the noble Lord considers to pose the greatest threat. The first part is conducted off the road and is designed to make riders safe and competent on the road. The second part of the test is conducted on the road and is very similar to the previous test. The Government also introduced. in October of last year, a two-year limit on the duration of provisional motor-cycle licences with the object of encouraging learner riders to take training and to pass both parts of their test early in their riding careers.
Lord Belhaven and Stenton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of my sympathy with my noble friend Lord Kilmany in so far as, on I think the crossing he has mentioned, about two years ago I was nearly killed for the reasons which he mentions in his Question, and that it is only by the grace of God that I am here to ask my noble friend this supplementary question?
Lord Elton: My Lords, your Lordships will all be thankful that my noble friend was spared. I might add that in the last two years there was one reported accident involving pedestrians on crossings. That was on 12th August 1982, when a minibus overtook a stationary vehicle at a pedestrian crossing and hit a 58 year-old man, causing slight injuries. I do not think that that could have been my noble friend.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not desirable to protect the pedestrian from the alternative of "the quick or the dead"?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the House is aware that the noble and learned Lord is always quick in every sense of the word.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords. has the noble Lord any idea of what it would cost to make all pedestrian crossings controlled by lights?
Lord Elton: Not without notice, my Lords—and probably not then, either.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, unless there is something special about St. James's Street, it is not only motor-cyclists who are discourteous; there is such an element in all road users whether they are in private cars or pedestrians, many of whom, do not know how to use the crossings properly; and that this can only be cured by the enforcement to which the Minister referred and also by education?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the police are diligent in enforcement and, as I have said, we are doing quite a lot to encourage education.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is my noble friend really wise to dismiss the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, in that way? Is there not an example between St. Margaret's Church and the St. Stephen's Entrance to the Houses of Parliament of a pedestrian crossing which is never

1153
without a pedestrian on it, and where the traffic is seriously held up? Could not a serious case be made out for saying that lights would be safer?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me what it would cost to convert all crossings to light-controlled ones. I think the answer is that it would cost a very great deal merely to discover the answer. If we are considering specific crossings, that is another matter. I will draw the concern of my noble friend to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, would the Government consider introducing road-crossing tests for pedestrians?
Lord Elton: My Lords, having been a pedestrian, a motor-cyclist and a motorist in my time, I can see great force in what the noble Lady has suggested, although whether it is practicable is another matter.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, will my noble friend consider advising the members of clubs in St. James's Street to exercise a degree of commendable restraint in approaching pedestrian crossings outside their clubs?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords who are members of clubs, and particularly those who are members of clubs in St. James's Street, always conduct themselves with very great decorum.

Armed Forces' Medical Officers: Recruitment
2.44 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is difficult to recruit medical doctors to the armed forces; and, if so, what steps they are taking to improve the situation.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): No. my Lords. Officer recruitment to the medical branches is good. In 1982–83 both the Royal Navy and the Army achieved their targets, and the Royal Air Force recruited 95 per cent. of its medical officer target. We do not anticipate serious difficulties in meeting our targets for this year.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that the Navy are short of 12 doctors at the present time, the Army are short of 72 and the RAF 27? Is he further aware that after the doctors have given 16 years' service they get a pension, and the problem could be retaining experienced doctors in the Services? Would he not agree with me that it is important that service personnel, their families and the public—the National Health Service patients whom they serve—get as good a medical service as possible?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right, more or less, in the numbers to which she referred. However, perhaps it is worthwhile getting this matter into perspective. The percentage shortfall is only 4, 12 and 7 respectively. We are for the moment having no difficulty in making up this shortfall by using civilian doctors and others.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is it not true that a vast number of doctors are unemployed? In these circumstances, is it not advisable to make some arrangements with the armed forces so that the unemployed doctors, who are anxious to carry on with their profession, should be made available to the armed forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. it is always open to such doctors to volunteer for service in the armed forces.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while there arc always some conditions and constraints attached to being within the organisation and discipline of the armed forces, is it not true that there are nonetheless considerable attractions for medical officers? Will the Government extend more widely information about the opportunities which are available for those who possess the necessary qualifications?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I was saying, we are really having no difficulty in meeting our recruitment targets in this area, and any doctor who is presently unemployed and wants to serve in the armed forces is of course able to volunteer. But I would not want to encourage a large increase in the number of applicants for places in the armed services which we could not meet.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend what percentage of the doctors in each of the services are women?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords. I am ashamed to say that I do not have that answer in front of me; but I will find out and I will write to my noble friend.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether it is still the custom on the part of Army doctors to prescribe No. 9s for whatever complaint?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I fancy that a wider range of cures is now available.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask one more question? Does the Minister think that it might be possible to have closer links with the National Health Service and perhaps some joint funding in areas where there are small populations near to a military hospital?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, there are already some links between military hospitals and the local populations, and between military units and National Health Service hospitals. However, the essential difference between civilian and service doctors is that service doctors must be ready to serve abroad—sometimes at very short notice.

The Electoral System: Representation
2.47 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the present House of Commons fairly represents the opinions of the electorate; and what proposals they have for electoral reform.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government have no plans to abandon the simple majority system which is well understood by the electorate, provides close and direct constituency representation and contributes to stable government.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, will the noble Lords answer the first part of the Question? Do the Government reject the widespread view that the election result was unfair to the Alliance parties?
Lord Elton: My Lords. in this country we elect a Government. Under the system, or the variety of systems, which the noble Lord suggests, what is produced is a group of politicians who decide between themselves who shall be the Government. That is an answer which the electorate themselves have not given.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that anyone who played any part in the last election would recognise that the nation was satisfied that the present membership of the House of Commons truly represents the antipathy that they felt to the alternative policies offered by the Government in which the noble Lord served as a Minister and which his present party supported and sustained during a difficult period, and that this has to be in the real interests of this country?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I would add that when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, implies that a majority voted against the present Government, a very much greater majority voted against the Alliance.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are now 81 Peers on the SDP Liberal Alliance Benches and that this makes this House much more representative of the will of the people than the other place, with the distorted electoral system?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I shall not engage with the noble Lord on mathematics. But it is certainly the case that we are very glad to see the noble Lord where he is, although we think it is the wrong part of the House.
Lord Sudeley: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what his view may be of the relationship between the recent vote in the House of Commons on hanging and the opinion of the public at large on this question, bearing in mind the very pertinent article on this problem which appeared in The Times yesterday?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I think that that is another and very large question.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me what proportion of the total vote must the Alliance get for it to be sensible for them to abandon PR and rally to our single constituency Members?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume it is that which gives them a seat on the Front Bench of another place.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, would the noble Lord regard stability as a virtue if there were a Left-wing Labour Government elected on a minority vote?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always regard stability as a virtue, provided that it is democratically arrived at, and it is my view that the system we now have is a practical, effective, popular and well-tried democratic system.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is not only consideration of any possible change in the electoral system that is so important to us, but whether or not such a change would interfere with our political system? Would he also agree that the political system is just as important as any electoral reform?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the political system is indeed important and I share the noble Lord's perception of it, though I do not necessarily share his view as to which party ought to come out on top. But there are other issues, since every variation of proportional representation weakens the link between the representative and his constituents, and we regard that as a fundamental and beneficial aspect of our system.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he agrees that to complain about the rules of the game in defeat is almost as unattractive as to wallow in invective?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords. perhaps I may press the Minister on this Question. Will he give a straight reply and say whether the Government share the view, which is very widely held in this country, that the election result was unfair to the Alliance party?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we always sympathise with virtuous people in misfortune, But we believe that the misfortune was necessary as a result of the system. and that the system is an essential part of the democratic government of this country.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the Minister agree that, if the electoral system were to be altered in the way that the Alliance wish, it might paradoxically lead to an even greater split than exists at present between the House of Commons on the one hand, and the majority of public opinion on the other hand, over such deeply felt issues as the right punishment for the worst forms of murder, and would not such a development pose a threat to democracy?
Lord Elton: My Lords, as I said earlier, a principal feature of the present system which would be weakened by any form of PR is the closeness of the link between the constituency Member and his constituents who are able to know him individually. On a multi-seat constituency basis, or on any of the other

1157
systems put forward, that link is not only weakened; it is often totally obscured. That provides a very dangerous barrier between the electorate and the elected.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is another element for which the British public appear to have shown complete contempt and that is where people enter either House under one banner and one political colour and then, when they are there, change that banner and that political colour because they do not have the courage to submit themselves to the electorate which sent them there in the first place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I can only consider the Members of this House, of course, and I have generally supposed—and it has been borne out by experience—that changes in position in the Chamber are born out of wisdom resulting from experience.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is only since the Liberal Party were pushed out of second place into third place by the Labour Party that they have been objecting to the system?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is so long ago that I have really forgotten.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is not the position that the present electoral system is widely disliked, as the public opinion polls show—
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is widely disliked, as the public opinion polls show, except by the majority of sitting MPs, who owe their power to it and are determined to cling to it?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I disagree with the noble Lord's premises and thus, also, with his conclusion. I am not aware that it is generally disliked. I am aware that if the public are asked, "Would you like a fairer system of election?" they not unnaturally answer, "Yes". But they have not been asked which sort they would prefer, and if they were to examine them they would discover all the weaknesses to which I have referred, and would be entirely of a mind with the majority of Members of both Houses of Parliament in this.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that trying to control the eccentricity of an electorate by involving it mathematically is as impossible as it can possibly be? An example par excellence is Italy, which has had 40 different Governments since the war as a result of this folly of proportional representation.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should be very reluctant to pass comment on any other country's system of government from these Benches. But I suggest to the noble Lord that it is not, in any case, the function of a system of election to control the eccentricities of the electorate. In fact, it is usually the electorate which has the function of controlling the eccentricities of the Parliament House.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that this Question has gone for some time and that your Lordships would feel it right to move on. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that he will have a chance to joust—if that is the right word—with me tomorrow on a similar subject, and I am looking forward to it.

Nationalised Industries: Codes of Practice
2.56 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, as legislation would not be involved, they will accept the suggestion that codes of practice governing the relationship between consumers and nationalised industries should be formulated in each industry in consultation with the responsible consumer council; and that these should be given adequate publicity.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, our published proposals for NICC reform explicitly recognise the value of codes of practice in the nationalised industries, and the scope for action by the consumer councils in relation to them.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say how many of the nationalised industries have a recognised code of practice which has been agreed with the consumer council concerned?
Lord Lyell: Certainly, my Lords—two. I have one here—gas and electricity. I have another one for telecommunications and a third for the Post Office. If there are any more I shall ascertain which they are and inform the noble Baroness.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: Yes, my Lords, but surely it is the Minister's job to know whether there are any more, and I am asking him a question. May I ask him whether he would tell the House which nationalised industries do not yet have an agreed code of practice with the consumer council concerned?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I could not do that without notice, because, as the noble Baroness and your Lordships will be aware, there are 43 different consumer councils covering all the sectors of the nationalised industries. But I shall ascertain the answer to the noble Baroness's question as to the ones which have not yet agreed a code of practice and will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, may I, as someone who has been on the other side of the fence so far as consumer councils are concerned, put it to the noble Lord the Minister that it is highly desirable that we should take this question of consumer representation very seriously, because I believe that the enterprises themselves can gain a great deal by having a responsible, well-organised consumer organisation to help them run their affairs effectively?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord puts the case much better than I could. Indeed, the Government take this question of consumer representation very seriously, as has been borne out by frequent Answers to the noble Baroness, and indeed by Answers to other Questions in your Lordships' House.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise that this Question began way back, about 10 or 12 years ago, when I was chairman of the first consumer council and that it has been kept on the Order Paper for a very long time, notably by the noble Baroness? It would be a great advantage both to industry and to the public if this matter were dealt with far more swiftly. There is no suggestion that it is easy to do, but it can be done and, on the whole, I think that the Government are in favour of it. Can the noble Lord speed this thing up?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, indeed the Government take this question very seriously and, as I am sure my noble friend is aware, my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Trade and Industry is hoping very shortly to receive proposals from the various NICCs—that particular term was explained by my noble friend Lord Belstead about a fortnight ago.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say that there are some 42 or 43 consumer councils for the nationalised industries? That seems to be rather a lot. Can the Minister state whether that is what he said? And may I ask him to answer the second part of my question, as to whether the Government will give adequate publicity to those codes of practice which are already in existence?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I can confirm to the noble Baroness that my instructions are that there are 43 nationalised industry consumer councils for which the Department of Trade and Industry has responsibility. As for the second point which the noble Baroness raised, the Government believe that the best form of publicity for these councils should be agreed between the nationalised industries and the relevant consumer council in each particular sector. The best examples I believe are the three which have already been mentioned today.

EC Foreign Affairs Council
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon, my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on the European Communities Foreign Affairs Council held on 18th July.

Mr. Peter Sutcliffe: Press Council Report
3.2 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich Lord Harris of Greenwich rose to call attention to the report of the Press Council on the case of Mr. Peter Sutcliffe; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. This afternoon I propose to raise two issues. First, and by far the most significant, is the behaviour of the press in the Sutcliffe case and the judgment of the Press Council on that conduct. Secondly, I want to touch on some of the wider issues involving the Press Council: its general reputation, the attitude of proprietors and editors towards it, and its resources.
First, then, the Sutcliffe case itself. Peter William Sutcliffe was, on 22nd May 1981, convicted at the Central Criminal Court on 13 counts of murder. All had taken place in Yorkshire and Lancashire and had been committed over a period of six years. In the course of this series of attacks, several other women were severely injured but survived. Many of the women concerned were prostitutes, but others included a shop assistant, a civil servant and a building society clerk. The last was Miss Jacqueline Hill, a 20-year old student at Leeds University.
During the period of this murderous series of attacks, many hundreds of thousands of women in the areas concerned had been put in terror of leaving their homes alone at night. Inevitably, as fears mounted, a great deal of media attention was concentrated on these crimes and on the skill—or lack of it—so far as the local police investigations were concerned. Ultimately, in January 1981, Sutcliffe was arrested in Sheffield by two South Yorkshire police officers who were on routine anti-vice patrol. They noticed false number plates on a car and arrested the two occupants, one of whom was Mr. Sutcliffe. Just under 48 hours later, the West Yorkshire police press officer announced that a man was helping the ripper squad detectives with their inquiries. Soon there were television teams stationed outside Mr. Sutcliffe's home, and journalists were pouring into Bradford and Dewsbury from all parts of Europe—and indeed from the United States.
As a result of what happened then—a wave of highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity—the then Solicitor-General, Sir Ian Percival, made a statement warning editors that a person accused of any crime, however serious, must be presumed to be innocent and was of course entitled to a fair trial. However, by this time, or shortly afterwards, bids for the story of Mr. Sutcliffe's wife, Sonia, were being pushed through the letterbox of her home, and Mr. Sutcliffe's father and members of his family were guests of a newspaper in a hotel in Lancashire. As the Press Council indicates in its report, public concern about the conduct of some sections of the media had reached such a point that within three days of Mr. Sutcliffe's arrest the Press Council announced that they would be conducting an inquiry into the behaviour of the media.
Thirteen days after this, following a story in Private Eye making allegations against the conduct of the Daily Mail, the mother of Mr. Sutcliffe's last victim, Mrs. Doreen Hill, gave a press conference in which she condemned the payments made by the media to people connected with the man charged with murdering her daughter. However, the Press Council pointed out in its report that Mrs. Hill's statement, unlike many of the other statements which were made at that time, was made on the very clear understanding

1161
that what was said would not be published until after Mr. Sutcliffe's trial had taken place.
Finally, following the opening of Mr. Sutcliffe's trial—at which of course the facts were not disputed; the only dispute was his state of mind—a letter was published on 6th May 1981, addressed to Mr. and Mrs. Hill from the Queen's Deputy Private Secretary, expressing Her Majesty's "sense of distaste" if substantial sums of money were indeed being paid to the family of Mr. Sutcliffe for their story. The next day the Press Council announced that their inquiry would be extended to include all press conduct in the case, including the allegations of blood money paid to the accused man's relatives and friends.
I turn now to the way in which the Press Council conducted its inquiry. It invited the views of all concerned—the police, the Attorney-General, and of course all the editors who were involved. It says that it received a very considerable degree of co-operation from many. But in paragraph 2.12 of its report it said this:
"Regrettably the same cannot be said of the reaction of all the editors. While some editors were forthcoming, it required a prolonged and detailed correspondence to obtain from others information, often given unwillingly, about their own newspaper's attempts to buy the stories of people connected with the case".
It is fair to say at the outset that the Press Council had already made its views clear on the abuses of cheque book journalism. Nearly 17 years ago, after the trial judge in the moors murder case, Mr. Justice Fenton Atkinson, made his anxieties known to the then Attorney-General (the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones) the Press Council said in a statement:
"No payment or offer of payment should be made by a newspaper to any person known or reasonably expected to be a witness in criminal proceedings already begun, in exchange for any story or information in connection with the proceedings until they have been concluded".
This rule was of course breached coldly and quite deliberately by the Sunday Telegraph in 1979 when it entered into a contract with a prosecution witness in the Thorpe trial. It was breached just as deliberately by a number of newspapers in the Sutcliffe case. It was done by the Sun and the Daily Star, but other newspapers were involved as well. Three days after Mr. Sutcliffe's arrest, the Daily Express made an offer of £80,000 to Mr. Sutcliffe's wife—clearly, as the Press Council says, a potential witness and therefore covered by this rule. The Press Council commented:
"The Press Council censures the Daily Express for its breach of the declaration of principle and deplores the attempt it made to mislead the council".
Likewise, the Sunday People was condemned severely, and the Daily Mail even more so. Not only, as the council reported, did the Daily Mail fail to disclose material clearly germane to the inquiry but, with the newspaper repeatedly being in contact with Mr. Sutcliffe's wife for over three months, they deliberately allowed her to imagine that they intended to agree to a lucrative contract, when they had no intention whatever of signing any such contract. The council said in its findings,
"that a group of senior editorial executives including the editor not only set out to deceive Mrs. Sutcliffe, but their conduct had the effect of artificially creating and sustaining a cheque book journalism market in her story".
1162
The explanation of the Daily Mail, the council said, amounted to a confession of gross misconduct.
I think three questions arise immediately from the findings of the Press Council. The first is the question whether Mr. Sutcliffe could have received a fair trial if he had denied his responsibility for these crimes. As I have indicated, the only issue before the jury was whether the verdict should be murder or manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility. But what would have happened if Mr. Sutcliffe had said that all the allegations of the police were entirely baseless? In view of the pre-trial publicity, I do not think anyone could possibly persuade themselves that a fair trial would have been possible in those circumstances. Of course, I am well aware that the new Contempt of Court Act came into effect after the reporting of the Sutcliffe case, but in the limited period it has been on the statute book it has resolved few of the major issues which were involved in that case. Indeed, in a letter I received from one of the Law Officers since it came into operation, following another piece of highly prejudicial reporting of a case awaiting trial, the then Solicitor-General accepted that the new Act had not by any means found an entirely satisfactory answer to the problem.
I certainly do not favour the introduction of new repressive legislation on the law of contempt, but, just as clearly, what I and I believe many others want is an end to the catalogue of grossly irresponsible conduct chronicled by the Press Council in its report on the Sutcliffe case—conduct which has been repeated, I am afraid, in some less notorious cases since then. I hope that on this issue we shall he able to hear something from the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on the views of the Government. So much for the position of the law of contempt.
I turn now to the second issue which arises from the findings: the question of cheque book journalism. No one, I believe, can read this report, with its stories of scribbled notes from journalists promising huge sums of money being thrust through the letterboxes of the homes of Mrs. Sutcliffe's relatives and friends, without experiencing a deep sense of revulsion at what was done on that occasion. No one, I believe, can read of the remorseless harassment of the bereaved mother of the last of Mr. Sutcliffe's victims without being shocked by the almost indecent conduct of sections of the press.
In the face of the council's fierce criticism of that conduct, one would have expected at least some expressions of regret from the newspapers which were condemned so severely. There were, indeed, a number, but nearly all came from newspapers that had not themselves been involved. There was no significant complaint—indeed, no complaint whatever—against The Times, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Express, the Daily Telegraph and several others; but the editor of the Daily Mail—one of the newspapers censured most severely—was entirely unrepentant. The editor's response to the report of the Press Council was that it was,
"short-term. short-sighted and smug".
He added that the criticism proved,
"Yet again that the Press Council still does not truly understand the concept of a free press".

1163
That, I think, is one of the most disturbing features of the response to the Press Council's report: the fact that newspapers so severely censured—the Daily Mail was not by any means the only one—rejected the findings of a tribunal financed almost exclusively by newspaper proprietors, with half its members representing the newspaper industry.
Third, I turn to what is in some respects one of the most difficult issues of all, and that is the calculated deceit practised by a number of newspapers in their responses to inquiries from the Press Council. For instance, in June 1981 the then editor of the Daily Express told the council that no money was offered by his newspaper to Mrs. Sonia Sutcliffe. A month later he repeated that statement, but seven months earlier one Daily Express reporter joined in an offer to Mrs. Sutcliffe of £50,000 for an interview. A few months later another Express man offered her £80,000, and the following day the deputy news editor confirmed in writing the offer of £80,000, saying:
"This does not represent our final offer".
Two days later the editor himself—the man, of course, who had denied ever making any offer at all—wrote to Mrs. Sutcliffe saying:
"We will be happy to discuss any arrangement you may wish to make".
The House may be interested to know the editor's response when, armed with copies of the correspondence supplied by Mrs. Sutcliffe's solicitors, the Press Council invited him to explain the inconsistency between his repeated denials of having offered Mrs. Sutcliffe money and their own incriminating letters. The editor replied, some months later, that he had forgotten about these dealings. The council said that they found his lapse of memory "astonishing", and so, I suspect, does everybody else.
There was then the case of the News of the World. Their legal manager, a Mr. Douglas, himself a former member of the Press Council, denied that his newspaper had paid, or would pay, any money to Mrs. Sutcliffe. In fact, the correspondence supplied again by Mrs. Sutcliffe's solicitor showed that there had been a series of letters from this newspaper, one mentioning a fee of £110,000. Taxed with these inconsistencies, Mr. Douglas took refuge in bluster. He said that the lawyer of the News of the World had advised him not to enter into any further correspondence with the Press Council, and, indeed, that he had been told that the Press Council had no business reading the correspondence with Mrs. Sutcliffe in the first instance.
To demonstrate that it was not just the national press that was involved, the editor of the Yorkshire Post denied making payments to Mrs. Sutcliffe. The file of correspondence supplied by Mrs. Sutcliffe's solicitor revealed several letters making implicit offers, one estimating that the price could be as high as £1 million.
If any of these newspapers had caught a politician making such wholly untruthful statements, they would have demanded his instant resignation. They seem to apply rather different standards to their own conduct. I think we would be interested, again, in any observations the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will find it appropriate to make on these, I repeat, wholly
1164
deceitful statements made by a number of newspapers to the Press Council.
I think that the issues I have raised themselves raise a number of important matters relating not only to the press itself but to the Press Council. The council was established just about 30 years ago. following the report of the first Royal Commission in 1949. At first, it had not a single lay representative. Following severe criticism from the second Royal Commission on the Press in 1962, headed by my noble friend Lord Shawcross, the newspaper industry agreed that 20 per cent. of members of the council should be appointed from outside the newspaper industry. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Devlin, became its chairman and the council began to acquire, for the first time, a rather more impressive reputation.
In the third Royal Commission report in 1977, which was presided over by my noble friend Lord McGregor of Durris—who I am glad to learn will be speaking later in this debate—the council was sharply criticised for a number of failings. I fear that many of these failings remain to the present day—but another important change was made: now. 50 per cent. of the council's members come from outside the newspaper industry. But the council's resources, despite the strictures of the Royal Commission, remain severely inadequate to the present day. That is why there are interminable delays before the Press Council is able to publish its own findings, and that is an extremely important matter. Up to the present time, there has been no indication that the proprietors are prepared to make available to the Press Council the resources it clearly needs.
I am well aware, of course, that the press fear statutory regulations. I must make it clear at the outset that I do as well. I do not favour a statutory Press Council. I dislike press laws in principle—whether they provide for so-called communications councils, statutory rights of reply, or a general right of privacy. I am sure that many who favour such an approach are themselves sincere civil libertarians: but a number of the people who favour that approach can certainly not be described in such terms.
It is just because so many of us, in both Houses of Parliament, have opposed statutory regulation of any kind—and, to take just a single example, viewed with the utmost suspicion and doubt the special rights accorded to journalists in the last Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—that we find the conduct of the press so disquieting. The blunt reality is that some sections of the press regard the Press Council with scarcely-veiled contempt. While some newspapers undoubtedly take the views of the council seriously—and that is true of a number of newspaper offices and not simply of the quality press, because they include a number of tabloid newspapers—there is now a minority who care little for the council's views and are, as we have seen in the Sutcliffe case, prepared to say so in the most unambiguous language.
In the circulation war now raging in Fleet Street between the tabloids in particular, in which the defeated will face extinction, a boost in circulation is regarded by some newspapers as far more important than a rap over the knuckles, whether it relates to the Sutcliffe case or to an act of wholly indefensible

1165
intrusion directed against a member of the Royal Family or against a private citizen. If this process continues—if there are more Sutcliffe cases and more examples of indefensible intrusion into privacy—I believe that there will be increasing demands that Parliament should take a hand.
As I have made absolutely clear, I—and many others, I know—would deeply regret such a development. But it is now time that the newspaper industry—and particularly its three principal proprietors—put its own house in order. If it fails to do so, the industry itself will do great damage to the cause of a free press. I beg to move for Papers.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving the House an opportunity to debate this important report of the Press Council on the conduct of the press in respect of the Sutcliffe case. I hope the press will take note that the people taking part in this debate are not aristocratic backwoodsmen with a feeble regard for the freedom of the press. The noble Lord, Lord Harrris of Greenwich, served his time as a journalist and retuned to the old "black art" between political engagements. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, was chairman of the last Royal Commission on the press and under his leadership it produced a sensible, shrewd and liberal report. My noble friend Lord Jacobson and I have spent a lifetime in newspapers—some of it at the rough end of the trade. We know well the difficulty of reconciling high ethical standards with a need to stay in business when faced with less scrupulous competitors.
We have a pretty good turnout for this debate, but there are some regrettable absences. I am most disappointed that no newspaper proprietors who are Members of this House are taking part in this debate. Nobody wishes to stifle newpaper editors—and nobody wants them stifled by their proprietors—but the proprietors must recognise that they and their editors have a joint responsibility to the public, and the proprietors should take care that their editors conform to the general views of the Press Council in respect of that which constitutes decent press conduct.
I am aware, too, that many people who criticise cheque book journalism dislike not only the dubious cash element but also the kind of information that cash elicits; stories of national betrayal, of violent crime and of sexual depravity in which unregenerate man takes a fervent and indeed legitimate interest. Those of us who are old defenders of press freedom are deeply concerned that a few national newspapers—just four of five—have gone beyond the pale in their search for information about the Sutcliffe case. They have aroused such public indignation that there is a danger of restraining information, which would restrict the freedom of all media. I hope that this debate will serve as a warning of that danger.
The safeguard of newspaper standards is the Press Council, which has produced this excellent and salutary report. I am afraid that the council is being kicked around a little these days, and I am quite sure that in this debate there will be some constructive criticisms suggesting the way in which the council
1166
could be strengthened. It is said, for example, that the council takes so long to reach some of its decisions on complaints made by individuals that the offence has passed from the public mind before it is redressed. It is also complained that offending newspapers have diminishing respect for the council's judgments against them—indeed, that they are contemptuous of all public criticism—and sometimes fail to give judgments of the Press Council against them sufficient prominence.
If that complaint is justified, as I am sure it is, the only sanction that the council possesses—which is to require the offending newspaper to print the council's condemnation—is eroded, and that is a matter for some public concern. The Economist has suggested that the council should be given legal power not only to compel an offending newspaper to print the council's judgment but also to prescribe the display it should be given. I am a little tempted by this because it is the only legal sanction ever suggested for the council which is barely tolerable. I remember, however, that during the 30 years of the life of the council only one national newspaper has refused to print the council's judgment—and that was the late and unlamented Daily Sketch. A legal sanction of this kind could easily be a first step to less acceptable legal restraints, to totally unacceptable legal restraints. The problem of display could easily be overcome if newspapers would simply accept the convention that judgments should be put at the top of a column on a right hand page in the front half of the newspaper. There they would not escape being read by all their readers.
The Press Council was created 30 years ago by newspapers which were most reluctant, and which agreed only when there was a threat of legislation, to set up a council. This was four years after the recommendation of the first Royal Commission on the Press. I remember well the reluctance—I shared it—because none of us could see how there could be a council unless it was equipped with punitive sanctions; and the idea of control was abhorrent to us after three centuries of struggle for press freedom. In any event, under threat the voluntary press council without legal sanctions was set up with the duty of preserving the freedom of the press and its character in accordance with the highest professional and commercial standards.
Years later, inquiries into the Vassall and Profumo affairs left the press with a tarnished image. "The lesson was clear", wrote Cecil King, then chairman of the Newspaper Publishers Association, "We had to put our house in order. If we did not somebody else might do it for us and that could be crippling and unpleasant". That is the situation again today. If the press do not put their house in order somebody else will do it for them and it could be crippling and unpleasant. So in Cecil King's day it was decided to appoint, at last, a lay chairman and some lay members, because a council consisting entirely of the press could be suspected of forgiving one another's trespasses.
Lord Devlin, the first lay chairman, won a good deal of confidence among the press and the public. If the Press Council has failed, as I am afraid it has, to keep up that reputation, it is partly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said, the newspapers have not over

1167
the years provided enough money and staff to enable it to operate with sufficient speed. However, the newspapers have opened their famous cheque books a little more widely recently; they have increased the council's income by 40 per cent. This has made it possible to provide a fast process for certain cases; but I imagine that the criticism is right that the Press Council has need of much more ample funds to run a much more important operation.
But there can be no complaints about the report that we are discussing this afternoon. Sutcliffe was arrested on 2nd January and brought before the court on 5th January. The unprecedented amount of information printed around these events, and the indiscreet press conferences arranged by the police, aroused fears that the media collectively could well be accused of appearing to make a fair trial impossible. At that stage. only two days later, the council announced that it would make an inquiry after the trial. After Sutcliffe's appearance at the Old Bailey a few months later, the council decided to broaden its inquiry into all aspects of the case, including money payments to relations of witnesses. The account in the report therefore deals with three main issues: fair trial, cheque book journalism and harassment.
Of course, publication of the report could not be considered until an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal had failed and it later became known that there would be no appeal to the House of Lords. The report was published in February this year, and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would have called our attention to it earlier but for the hiatus of the general election.
The report must disturb anybody who reads it, and particularly journalists with a pride in their craft; it must disturb them by its documented account of the cavalier attitude of the media to the rules of contempt, of the cruel harassment of the accused man's wife and of the parents of the last victim, of the hypocrisies of the newspapers flashing their cheque books, and of their subsequent evasions when the council asked them for details.
The council has been wrestling with the problem of cheque book journalism ever since 1963, when Vassall profited from publishing his memoirs in a newspaper. Two years later the council issued a long statement in which it condemned as immoral.
"the practice of financially rewarding criminals for disclosure of their nefarious practices by way of public entertainment"
Then during the terrible Moors murder trial the chief witness for the prosecution said he had been receiving weekly payments from a newspaper under a contract which involved providing information.
The then Attorney-General, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, said he hoped that,
"even before any Government action is taken Fleet Street will put its house in order."
A few months later the Press Council, after consultation with the editors, made a declaration of principle. The declaration said that no offer of payment should be made by a newspaper to anyone known, or even reasonably expected, to be a witness in criminal proceedings already begun until those proceedings had been concluded. The declaration
1168
further stated that no payment should be made for articles to people who engaged in crime or notorious misbehaviour,
"where the public interest does not warrant it".
There obviously are such cases, but it could be an escape clause for almost any article of this kind.
Nevertheless, the principle was pretty well observed until this case, and although it is impossible to justify the behaviour—which was outrageous—one can see that the temptation was enormously strong. But that does not excuse it in the slightest degree. This was the murder case of the century. The murderer had gone for five years undetected, in which he had killed 13 people. and it was a state of affairs in which the women of Lancashire and Yorkshire were afraid to leave their homes at night. The justification cannot be sensation. This is not the last sensational case which is going to come before us. One wonders what will happen when the next sensational case comes along. How will the press behave?
The Press Council, contemplating the evidence they had unearthed, could hardly just sit still and publicly lament. I understand the pressures they were under to take some action. They decided to extend their declaration of principle, and they reached their decision this time without any consultation of the kind they had undertaken in 1966. I can understand that, too, in view of the attitude of some of the newspapers; it might have taken years before they could arrive at a publicly acceptable consensus. The council believe that their original declaration about payments to potential witnesses is strong and embracing and does not require amendment. But they give warning that the earlier in the criminal proceedings the question is asked whether this or that person is likely to be a witness, the more unreliable the answer is likely to be.
In this case the editors were taking the decision that the person would not be a witness within a few days of the charge being levelled, in the week after the first charging of Sutcliffe. An editor. the council says, must do his best to assess the ways a case may develop when it comes to trial, and therefore the possibility of particular people being required to give evidence.
The council shares the general public abhorrence for press conduct which enables people to profit from their connection with a criminal. And now I quote:
"It has considered whether the incidence of such offers and the abhorrence and distate there is for them justify the suggestion that chequebook journalism or some forms of it should be banned by law.
The Press Council does not favour further statutory restrictions on the press. It believes a legal prohibition of payments to people for their stories is neither wholly desirable nor likely to prove practicable.
The Council is satisfied, however, that unless the press itself regulates its conduct, calls for such legislation are likely to continue and eventually to prevail. Indeed, unless newspapers demonstrate more effectively than several have done in this case their support for the spirit of the Council's Declaration of Principle the Council itself would find it difficult to argue against statutory restriction of the payments they make for stories or information.".
This very strong point has been supported by some of the newspapers. For example, the Daily Telegraph said:
"The Council is reflecting the public mood about what should be proper behaviour by newspapers. Editors would be foolish to strike attitudes of defiance"—

1169
which, of course, they have done.
"If voluntary restraint is ignored. they will be playing into the hands of politicians, some only too happy to go along with statutory controls on the Press."
The point The Times made was similar:
"What is worrying is that there appears to be less common acceptance in Fleet Street that codes, more often preached than observed. soon lose any value. Yet every Editor must prefer to operate and compete in a voluntary collaborative climate which imposes certain restraints and responsibilities than one in which the law itself makes most of the Editor's decisions for him.
"This not only concerns contempt and cheque book journalism, but the whole hysteria of Press coverage about some members of the Royal Family and other personalities in the public eye.".
The point was put in even stronger language in the Observer:
"Newspaper Editors will do no good to their cause… if they show bland disregard of the Press Council's findings. Papers which cavalierly invent stories, which hound members of the Royal Family and regard both decency and truth as commercially inconvenient have no right to complain if others seek to clip their ragged wings.".
Finally, I come to the controversial extension of the declaration of principle. The declaration originally did not bar payments to people related to or associated with those engaged in crime. I quote:
"The Press Council has now come to the conclusion that such payments are wrong. It believes that a large body of public opinion shares that view, however common such payments may have been".
So in future the council will judge cases on these lines:
"Just as it is wrong that the evildoer should benefit from his crime, so it is wrong that persons associated with the criminal should derive financial benefit from trading on that association".
The council adds:
"In effect, the stories and pictures are sold on the back of crime. Associates include family, friends, neighbours and colleagues".
It is this extension of the principle which has upset some most reputable journalists. Mr. Charles Wintour believes the council has moved too fast. The Observer has "grave misgivings" about the new guidelines, both in principle and in practice, and recommends that the council should meet editors and discuss how to make its guidelines more workable.
The Daily Mirror, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, mentioned has escaped criticism in the report. believes that the Press Council has gone too far, that its changes are wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.
As I have said before, I think the Press Council was right to take some action to bring itself and the newspapers into line with public opinion. Yet I have a certain sympathy with the critics I have quoted. The Press Council is shortly to have a new chairman and I suggest that he should have a series of individual meetings with editors to discuss ways in which the extension of the principle could be made workable and, because it is made workable, could gain respect.
Editors live curiously cloistered lives. They arrive at their offices before luncheon and often leave towards midnight. Most of their time is spent with other newspaper men. They learn from their messengers a great deal about public opinion on almost every subject. But they seldom have direct experience of how people view the media. There is today among ordinary people a growing general ambivalence towards the media. The media are a Jekyll and Hyde. People are gripped by them and sometimes resent their own enslavement. They often feel that the papers, on
1170
the one side, and television, on the other, have become a two-headed monster with excessive power. Newspapers may have devoted readers. but the press as an institution has few friends and it might have few defenders if the conduct of several newspapers inspired proposals for repressive legislation.

EC Foreign Affairs Council
3.45 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the outcome of the Foreign Affairs Council held in Brussels on 18th July at which I represented the United Kingdom and at which my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development was also present. I will also take this opportunity to say a few words about the Special Council which met on 19th July to discuss the future financing of the Community.
"I shall deal first with the discussion about the decision of the United States Administration to impose import curbs on certain special steel products. Coming so soon after the Williamsburg commitment against protectionism this decision has caused great dissatisfaction within the Community. I made this quite clear both to President Reagan and to Secretary of State Shultz during my visit to the United States last week. The European Commission has already taken this up with the United States Administration on behalf of the Community. but there has been no sign of American willingness to reconsider or amend the decision. The Commission therefore proposed to seek consultation in the GATT and also to raise the issue in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
"The Council strongly supported the Commission's proposals and agreed to issue a statement of conclusions setting out the Community's position. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.
"The Council made satisfactory progress towards agreeing its position on negotiations with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on a successor to the Lomé Convention, which are due to open in October. There will be further discussions on the outstanding points of the Commission's negotiating mandate at the September meeting of the Council.
"The annual report of the Committee of Permanent Representatives on relations between the Community and the countries of EFTA was accepted by Ministers, who expressed their support for the strengthening of the relationship.
"The Council reviewed progress on Greenland's application to withdraw from the Community. Ministers agreed the need to make progress in the negotiations and, in particular, the desirability of an agreement which satisfactorily balanced the

1171
development of Greenland's fisheries with the proper needs of the Community.
"In informal discussion of United Kingdom refunds in respect of 1982 and 1983, decisions on which are for the Budget Council which is meeting today and tomorrow. I underlined the need for full and correct implementation of what was agreed in October 1982 and at Stuttgart.
"In the context of political co-operation Ministers of the Ten also briefly discussed progress at the Madrid meeting on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the situation in Central America and in Poland.
"Finally, the ministerial meeting with the Portuguese, held in the margins of the Council, reviewed progress in Portugal's accession negotiations.
"Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I took part in a meeting of the Special Council to discuss the future financing of the Community and other issues covered in the Stuttgart Declaration. I explained our views on a number of issues, particularly on a safety net scheme for limiting net contributions to the Community budget and on strict financial guidelines for controlling agricultural expenditure".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. We shall need to study the council's full statement, which we note has been placed in the Library. I note that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made a number of new proposals in the special council meeting referred to in the Statement, related especially to the common agricultural policy and the Community budget. In view of the fact that unemployment is the biggest single problem in this country and in the Community, can the noble Baronesss say how the proposals of the Foreign Secretary will help to reduce unemployment in this country and elsewhere in the near future?
We accept the need to reform the common agricultural policy, but can the noble Baroness confirm that the Government agree with the Commission's proposals to cut CAP spending by 20 per cent.? Do the Government agree that tough quota levels should be imposed on surplus products, especially on cereals, and that a supertax of 75 per cent. should be imposed for all milk produced in excess of 1981 levels? As I understand it, although it is not in the Statement, that is what the Commission is proposing. I think it is very important that the House should be aware of the Government's attitude to what the Commission is in fact saying.
We regard the safety net proposal as very important. Does the noble Baroness think that this has any prospect of success? In what sort of time-scale are the Government thinking? How long does the noble Baroness think that the negotiations will go on?
Again, on the question of the Lomé Convention successor. is it true that a new clause in the EEC aid rules formally linking aid with human rights is to be introduced? I ask that question not because the matter
1172
is in the Statement but because I read it in The Times this morning. If it is the case, it is something which we on this side of the House, in all parts, would welcome very warmly indeed. Can the noble Baroness say when the council will decide which countries will be suspended from Lome deals? One assumes that direct food aid in conditions of crisis will be exempted from this.
Finally, the Statement refers to progress at the Madrid Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Government are satisfied with the progress which is being made in these talks?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords. I think we shall all welcome the reaction of the Ministers, and indeed of the Community. to the most unfortunate United States curbs on imports of certain types of steel and wish them well in their efforts to change or indeed discard these altogether. Likewise, we welcome progress towards Lomé 2. I shall be most interested to hear the reply of the noble Baroness to the specific question put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn.
The Statement reveals very little about what happened on the major and considerably more important issues of our contribution to the budget and the future budget of the whole organisation. We have read much more in the press this morning than is in the Statement. In principle I feel that most of your Lordships would be in favour—certainly on these Benches—in the first place, of our duly receiving our agreed refund and, secondly, of our pressing for some reform of the common agricultural policy, without which it looks as if the Community will run out of funds before the end of the present year.
Would not the Government agree to make it clear at once, and here and now, on the assumption that we reach a reasonable solution of both these important problems, that we should favour a considerable increase in the own resources of the Community, thus enabling progress to be made on such highly important matters as a common industrial and indeed a common social policy, designed to place the Community in the forefront of the world's trading blocs, thus contributing greatly to recovery from the present world recession. and indeed, as the noble Lord has suggested, to the diminution of unemployment in this country?
3.54 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank both the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and Lord Gladwyn, for their reception of this Statement. If I may deal with the questions they have asked in the order in which they have put them, the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked a question about unemployment. As he recognises, this is not specifically covered in the Statement, but, as he will know, one of our concerns about the whole question of denying steel imports to the United States is that it affects our steel industry and has an indirect effect on employment in this country. All aspects of our discussions about the budget—Britain's contribution to it, the amount of money that we might receive back from it and of course the regional funds—affect

1173
employment in this country and are therefore indirectly a part of it.
The noble Lord asked me a number of other specific questions, particularly about the safety net proposal of my right honourable friend and what success this might achieve. It is very early days to comment on how it might eventually be received, but we hope that other member states will accept the basic principle, which is that the more prosperous should bear a larger net budgetary burden than the less prosperous, provided there is an appropriate upper limit on the net budgetary burden which any member state would be expected to bear.
Both noble Lords asked about the renegotiation of the Lome Convention and quite specifically about human rights. The Community agreed to reserve, in the case of extreme violation of human rights, the possibility of ensuring that aid could not be used for purposes of a repressive regime by freezing all aid which did not directly serve the needs of local populations. I think that that is a very helpful conclusion to have reached.
On the CSCE proposals, which I was also asked about, there is at present provisional agreement among 34 of the 35 participants on the text of the concluding document. We hope that a consensus may soon be reached so that the meeting may be brought to a conclusion.
On the last point that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, raised about an increase in our own resources, at the moment we are too involved in the question of trying to resolve our own budget problems without increasing our own resources.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would deal with the question that I asked about the common agricultural policy.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for not answering his question. The Stuttgart declaration includes a remit to the Commission to examine "the need for strict financial guidelines", and the review of the common agricultural policy over the autumn is to result in concrete steps "to ensure effective control of agricultural expenditure". We believe that a guideline of some kind is essential if this objective is to be achieved.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Baroness did not quite understand my question. I asked whether the Government would say here and now that, in principle, provided we got agreement on the major outstanding issues, we should favour an increase in the general resources of the Community—not our own resources—in order to finance an industrial and regional policy.
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; but I do not wish this afternoon to get drawn into a great discussion about favouring an increase in the Community's own resources. As I have indicated from the Statement that we made, although the Community's own resources may in fact increase, what we have been discussing is the proportion of the common agricultural policy,
1174
which should not increase as fast as the Community's own resources.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend's last reply to the noble Lord that she did not want to be dragged into talking about increasing own resources does not reflect any weakening on the necessity of not agreeing to the increase in own resources until greater efficiency relating to the common agricultural policy has come into operation. The Statement today is in general terms, but in the reports one has read in the newspapers one sees a couple of sentences from the Foreign Secretary which could give the impression that the Government would agree to increasing own resources before the actual efficiency has been brought into operation. A mere promise to do something is not good enough, in view of the absolute necessity to clear away the wasteful surpluses which flow from the present way that the system is being worked.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am in general agreement with what my noble friend has said on this matter, but I think that it is very difficult to make a hard and fast rule that one will absolutely resolve the matter of the surpluses before there is any question of looking at the Community's resources.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that all of us on these Benches would support the Government to the utmost—I repeat, to the utmost—in their pursuit of the avoidance of protectionism, especially when—or should I say, even though?—the country involved is the United States and is our close ally, having regard to the fact that the United States so recently expressed its determination to do exactly that? Is it not quite incomprehensible that in those circumstances the United States should submit to short-term pressure and should apparently commit a breach of the undertakings given through GATT and the policy expressed so recently by its own Government? Has the noble Baroness any explanation to give us from the United States as to this extraordinary conduct? Since I regard this as so much more important than the other matters that are disclosed in the Statement, I will limit my questions to that single point.
Baroness Young: My Lords, as the Statement makes clear, it was a matter of regret to those meeting at the council that the United States Administration took the decision that it did so soon after the commitment which was given at Williamsburg against protectionism, and, naturally enough, it has caused great concern and dissatisfaction within the Community. We have noted the President's offer to negotiate orderly marketing arrangements for some of the steel products, but there is no disposition on the part of the Community to move ahead on this at this particular stage. I do not think that I should at all like to speculate on what has led the United States Administration to take this view. I believe that overall one must regard this as one question which is a matter for regret, but it does not of course alter our basic alliance with the United States and the importance of that alliance in our general foreign policy.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord opposite, would he not think that it is the ordinary steel worker in Bethlehem. in the United States, who, rightly or wrongly—I do not know—considers that subsidised Common Market special steel is imported into his country? I assure the noble Lord opposite, and I should like to make it clear to the noble Baroness, that very many people in the agricultural industry here would consider that own resource subsidies from Common Market countries would be most unfair to our agricultural industry, which is reasonably efficient, I hope—I think—if no own resources are put in by the taxpayer of this country. I think that the situation would be exactly the same for the steel worker in the United States and the agricultural worker or the farmer in this country if own resource subsidies apply in the Common Market without some kind of, shall I say, protection—not a very good word—or some kind of arrangement to see that subsidised products do not come in unfairly.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that what may well have provoked the American Administration to act has been concern about the workers in the steel industry in America. Nevertheless our concern has been about the very serious effect on United Kingdom industry: the stainless steel plate which accounts for the bulk of the British Steel Corporation's exports of special steel to the United States has been subject to the double penalty of an 8 per cent. tariff on top of the 19.3 per cent. countervailing duty, and that would effectively shut them out of the market for this product. Even the new tariffs on sheet and strip metals, which are not subject to countervailing duties, would be very hard to surmount. The effect of this has been very serious on some private producers, in particular those concentrated in Sheffield, who have already contracted to a fraction of their size 10 years ago. So, in effect, we have made ourselves efficient, but we are paying a double penalty as a result of that.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe): My Lords, I should like to follow up with the noble Baroness the Minister the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Is the noble Baroness aware—I am sure she is—that the House welcomes the Foreign Secretary's attempt to grasp the nettle of the crucial financial difficulties of the EEC, and the fact that it appears that the Government are not limiting their proposals only to the simple issue of the United Kingdom refund, but are continuing discussions on lasting solutions for the whole Community? I think that it would clear up the matter of the Community's new own resources if the noble Baroness could say whether the Government are considering the draft decision of the Commission, and whether the report in The Times today that the Commission's proposals are along the same lines as the Government's thinking is correct.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think that on these matters I cannot go further than I have already gone in the Statement. Negotiations are continuing, and it would not he the practice to table papers, or any such documents, while negotiations are going on. I have tried to indicate that my right honourable and learned
1176
friend has in fact made a proposal about a safety net scheme, and that we will be tabling a paper on the common agricultural policy in about two weeks' time. So we are seeking to deal with both the budget question and the common agricultural policy.
However, in making these remarks, I should make it plain that we support the objectives of the common agricultural policy, and we recognise the benefits that it has brought to British and European agriculture. At the same time. we recognise that as it is currently operated it is wasteful and can cause frictions in the Community's relations with its major trading partners, including those in the third world. If we are to secure the achievements of the common agricultural policy and build on them. we must both control expenditure under the policy and adapt the operation of the policy to reduce its structural surpluses.

Mr. Peter Sutcliffe: Press Council Report
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I, too, am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hams of Greenwich, for initiating this short debate which we are now resuming. I speak as a layman, and that will become increasingly clear as I proceed. In May 1981 I expressed concern about cheque book journalism and I then referred to the Sutcliffe case. On various occasions since then I have expressed concern and have received great support in this House. But since the Press Council report could not be published until after the appeal was heard and dismissed, there was no way that we could really discuss it in full.
It takes a sensational series of crimes—horrible crimes—to bring to the surface the extremely unattractive habit of offering blood money, as it is called (perhaps that is a very appropriate expression) to relatives, associates and friends of violent criminals, whether before a trial or afterwards, as we have seen. I can understand the greed—perhaps it may be want, for they may be in dire circumstances: they may indeed be very poor—shown by these individuals when they are approached and offered large, very tempting sums of money to sell their stories for us to read, if we wish.
However, perhaps one of the most unattractive aspects is that absolutely no thought was given to the hurt, misery and disgust felt by the families of the victims. As both noble Lords have said, Mrs. Hill, the mother of the last victim, who may have been the only articulate person among the families—there were a great number of people involved in the killings—showed herself remarkably courageous and has done a great deal to help the Press Council to come to its findings. Another unattractive aspect is that none of the families of the victims was approached because their stories were not worth buying.
As both the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and the noble Lord. Lord Harris, have said, the Press Council has changed its declaration of principle to cover such payments to relatives and associates of violent criminals. I wonder myself whether this will result in

1177
better journalism. I hope so. I feel that we should give the Press Council all the backing it needs, which might mean extra finance to help it to produce some reports more quickly. As the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has remarked, there was no delay in publishing this report.
The Press Council has not asked for legislation. If that is its feeling, I think that we should abide by its decision until the press have been given another chance to put their house in order. We live in a very violent world. But we, as individuals, must do all that we can to see that crimes as appalling as those committed by Sutcliffe and other criminals are not rewarded by certain sections of Fleet Street which can afford to pay. When they pay, their main reason is to raise the circulation of their newspapers. The Press Council report is a comprehensive and excellent document into which a great deal of time and trouble has gone. I hope that many noble Lords will read it. I have read it a number of times. It lays down guidelines for the future of the press. I can only pray that the press pay heed to them.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I feel that, following an admirably brief speech by my noble friend Baroness Sharples, I should not make this statement. I believe, however, that it is customary to do so, and I remind future speakers in this debate that, as a result of the 20 minutes' injury time spent on the Statement, the time limits now mean that the debate must end by 5.54 p.m. and that my noble friend Lord Elton must begin his speech at 5.34 p.m.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I have no doubt that the announcement of the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, will give me more than enough time to develop the few remarks that I want to make on this extremely important report. It is important because it deals primarily with the administration of justice and with the effects on the administration of justice of certain activities in a particular case, first, by the police, secondly, by the press, and, thirdly, by the Law Officers of the Crown. It also leads us to reflect on the role that the Press Council has played to date and the role that it should play in the future.
In the course of the conflict of interest that arose during the early stages of the Sutcliffe investigation, arrest and committal proceedings, I start out from the fundamental premise that the most important factor by far was that the administration of justice should be pure and totally unprejudiced. I regard this as far more important even than the other important factors that arose in this case, such as the desirability of putting to rest at the earliest possible moment the fears of a large number of women in Yorkshire.
That the administration of justice was grossly impaired as a result of the various activities disclosed in this report is not, I think, in any doubt. But I am sorry to have to say that the first and main responsibility for that arose with the police themselves. I can, of course, understand the feelings of the police force about investigations over many years, painstaking and, as we now know, not extremely competent, and the relief that they must have felt when finally the suspect was caught. But none of those
1178
feelings justifies the extraordinary steps that the police took at the very beginning of these proceedings. These included the calling of various press conferences—totally unprecedented—and the parading of prosecution witnesses before the press—totally unprecedented. All were understandable in human terms but all gave rise to a feeling among the press generally that the normal standards of restraint were to be abandoned in this case. I believe that the police themselves, in many of the activities that started this matter off, were in contempt of court. It is hardly surprising, when the police began in that way, that the press should have followed suit, as they did. It is clear from the report that the press themselves, on many occasions, involving many newspapers, were in gross and, indeed, grotesque contempt of court, whether defined under the old law as it was at that time or under the new law as it now is under the Contempt of Court Act.
There was a sort of mass irresponsibility that overwhelmed the press. It was due partly, I believe, to a feeling among many editors that is shared by the leaders of the flying pickets—that if enough of them break the law, the law will be helpless. A great many of them, one after the other, deliberately proceeded to break all the rules and regulations concerning the proper treatment of a person who was a suspect. There was comment before the proceedings began in the magistrates' court that went far beyond the accepted norm. There were photographs printed of the suspect at a time when identity might have been an issue for all that anyone knew, and a rather pathetic justification afterwards by one of the newspapers that the photographs that they had printed were not very clear and that the contempt was therefore perhaps not very great. There was reporting of the magistrates' court proceedings in breach of the law at that time. All this went on unchecked over a period of some days.
The press, undoubtedly, were exercising their freedom. There have been occasions when I have been tempted to regard the freedom of the press and the responsibility of the press as being two sides of the same coin. I am not sure that that view is really tenable. I think that, in a sense, they are two quite separate coins and that we should not waste words in indulging ourselves in clichés about how freedom should be matched by responsibility. I have no doubt that all Members of your Lordships' House will agree when I reiterate that we support the freedom of the press, warts and all, because we regard it as the essential prerequisite of any form of free society. But I do not think that it is proper or appropriate to go on to say that therefore that freedom can only be exercised on certain terms or conditions. It does not accord with our own experience. I think our own experience is that the press is always responsible unless there is financial advantage to be gained out of being irresponsible.
I do not say that from any unduly cynical point of view. One must accept that the press consists of a series of commercial organisations operating in a very highly competitive atmosphere, desperately anxious to increase their circulation and to increase their revenue, particularly their advertising revenue. Of course, if a situation arises, as it did in the Sutcliffe case in the very early stages, in which there is increased circulation to

1179
be gained by flouting all the proprieties, then it is not entirely surprising that many newspapers will succumb to that temptation. Where that is the situation—and it clearly was the situation; that is abundantly apparent from reading the report—it is more than ever important that the law should be enforced. That is why I had to say when I began my remarks that this report raises queries not only about the behaviour of the police and about the reactions of the press, but also about the reactions of the Law Officers of the Crown.
It was right, proper and appropriate that the Solicitor-General should warn the press at a very early stage of the dangers into which it was running. What I must confess I find a little difficult to understand is why, in due course, the Attorney-General decided not to take any steps to deal with any of the newspapers where such obviously flagrant contempts had been committed. Indeed, in due course the Attorney-General replied to the Press Council's inquiry about that matter in a letter that is set out on page 51 of the report. I do not need to read it; I need only say that I find it entirely unconvincing. The Attorney-General's reply was to the effect that as in due course—months later—it so happened that Sutcliffe pleaded guilty, at any rate to manslaughter, and did not dispute the facts of the various killings, it may well be that in fact there was no prejudice and, therefore, the Attorney-General was not going to prosecute for the original contempts. As I have said, I find that unpersuasive and I am bound to say that I find it more than a little unfortunate.
The Attorney-General's view was criticised by the Press Council; and, indeed, one or two responsible newspapers, particularly The Times, indicated how undesirable they thought the conduct of their fellow journalists had been. Unless steps are going to be taken to enforce the law where contempt is as flagrant as this, it will go on, and it has gone on. It is not so long ago since we had another notorious case of a man called Fagan. and once again, no doubt because no steps had been taken in the Sutcliffe case, the newspapers set out on a field-day of prejudicial comment before the trial. In those circumstances it is quite clear that it is only if the law is going to be enforced in relation to contempt that the activities of the press can be held in check. It is idle to regard it as possible that the press can be held in check either by reports of the Press Council or by debates in your Lordships' House.
It was not only contempt of court that arose from the activities of the press in this case: the whole issue of chequebook journalism arose as well. Much has been said about that matter, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharpies. Let me suggest that the expression "chequebook journalism" requires a little thinking about. Chequebook journalism is in itself a perfectly normal and natural process in the sense that most of us who contribute an article to the press or give an interview on television expect to receive a very small cheque at the end of it. It is not the cheque book journalism in itself, or the payment for contributions, that is being criticised. It seems to me that the criticism of chequebook journalism comes under three quite distinct and separate headings.
1180
First, there is the approach to people who are witnesses, or are likely to be witnesses, for their stories. That is in itself, in almost all circumstances, likely to be a contempt of court. It is made worse if there is payment to the witness. It is made even worse if the payments are contingent upon the result of the proceedings, as happened in one well-known case during the Thorpe inquiry. That is one type of cheque book journalism about which the Press Council has perfectly properly issued its guidelines.
The second form of chequebook journalism, which is also undesirable—and again the noble Baroness referred to it—is where substantial payments are made either to the criminal or to members of his family for disclosures which do not in themselves (they may not be published until after the trial) prejudice the proceedings but which nevertheless arouse a natural distaste in the community as a whole. That, again, is something that the Press Council has now decreed should cease.
Thirdly, there is a series of other circumstances, very difficult to define, that do not come under either of those two headings, in which, again, cheque book journalism would be regarded by most people as being undesirable. An obvious example of that is a police officer's disclosures recently published in one of the papers for which he has received, it appears, a very substantial payment. That type of activity is regarded by the whole community as being distasteful although it cannot come under any very clear category of improper behaviour.
The only other observation I want to make before I cease to weary your Lordships is as follows. We ought perhaps to reflect for a moment, in the light of this report, on the role of the Press Council itself. It has produced an admirable report. The Press Council's reports are always admirable reports. It makes its strictures about contempt of court, which, as we have seen, have been totally ignored since, because exactly the same type of behaviour took place in the Fagan case subsequently. It makes its strictures about cheque book journalism, as it has done in the past and as it no doubt will have to do again in the future, because there is no real probability that the press will comply completely with the recommendations which the Press Council has put forward—a matter which was referred to in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
It has also become clear that not only are the Press Council's guidelines ineffective to a very large extent but the Press Council itself is treated with contempt by many of the newspapers. It is quite clear from the account given in the report that over and over again the council's inquiries about, in particular, cheque book journalism were being hindered and impeded by the lack of frankness of various newspapers and their editors. In those circumstances, I do not think it is sufficient for us to say today that we can leave it all to the Press Council because it will sort it all out or it is sorting it all out.
I do not want to suggest that the Press Council should be given statutory powers. On reflection, there are, perhaps overwhelming arguments against that. But I do want to suggest that the law of the land should be used more extensively than it has been used to

1181
enforce the protection that we ought to have against the various evils that arose in the course of these proceedings. The law of contempt should be enforced. There should be laws against the worst types of cheque book journalism. Only a year or two ago I tried to introduce a short Bill into your Lordships' House. I was met with the objection from the Woolsack by the noble and learned Lord that the Bill was quite unnecessary and that we could leave it all to the Press Council and voluntary regulation. I do not believe that we can do so. I think that the Press Council itself could perhaps take the lead by helping to devise suitable legislation to deal with that evil.
Similarly, as regards the third aspect of the matter—namely, harassment, which I do not want to go into this afternoon—not only are there guidelines that the Press Council can lay down, which we can be confident will be ignored, but there is also useful legislation that could be enacted. The Press Council should play a constructive part in seeing that it produces not only various guidelines but legislation that will ensure that in future the type of evils that took place in this case are not repeated.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Hale: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, opened this debate with a very striking and forthright speech, with every word of which I am tempted to agree. I am also tempted to look just a little further and ask, "Where are we going?" The story as told by the Press Council is an appalling one. Perhaps we have not paid enough attention to the part played by the proprietors of the papers and to the part played by reporters who were receiving orders by telegrams every few minutes to obtain more information and to press for it and who, indeed, very often were working with the police either to get information from them or to give what information was available.
I remember this matter being canvassed in the report of the Royal Commission on the Police in 1962, when we had a long discussion (which, at the end, was more or less dropped), in particular about the practice of newspapers—mostly sabbatarian—which contracted with Detective Sergeant Blank and Inspector Blank to publish their reminiscences the moment they retired and to pay a very handsome sum for them, and who thus, in that connection appeared to have acquired an authority which might be dubious.
Most of my colleagues took the view that, on the whole, the evidence went to the point—and this has been pressed quite a number of times—that the association between the police and the press was frequently productive and had excellent results, and that in a system in which Sherlock Holmes has never notably been seen to perform, the evidence in so many cases was supplied by the informer and provided the main source of convictions.
I know it will be said—indeed, I will say it myself—"Yes, the standards of cheque book journalism as shown in this Press Council report are such that this has nothing to do with the normal association with the police". On the other hand, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has pointed out, there were some strange circumstances in connection with this matter which suggested more than a degree of co-operation. I
1182
believe that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, touched on the gentleman who has just been writing about the matter. I agree that it is not in the report; it is rather outside the sphere of the report.
The noble Lord suggests—and I agree with him—that when the press arrived on the scene the position of the police was already one of confusion. That that appears to be so is evidence for the fact that people attacked the management of the affair by the police, including I believe a very distinguished officer of this House. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, also said that he mainly attributed the troubles that had arisen to the action of the police. The monthly police journal, Police, dismissed this somewhat cavalierly and said that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, knew very well that all the editors of newspapers have lawyers to advise them on the law of libel, on the rights to publicity, and so on.
But I notice that in this month's issue of Police a somewhat different view has been taken which I think might appeal a little to the dubieties of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The magazine says:
"Ronald Gregory, if his career as chief constable of West Yorkshire had not included the Ripper saga. might have retired with the knighthood that normally goes with the job, but his memoirs, would hardly have been worth a bottle of Yorkshire Relish to the editor of the Heckmondwike Herald.
Yet because he was the man in charge, and therefore personally responsible for the biggest foul-up in police history, he is to get £50,000 for telling his version of events in The Mail on Sunday."
So in the midst of the biggest foul-up in police history, there may very well be temptations for many members of the press to take such duties on themselves and perhaps to go a very great deal further in doing that than they have ever gone before.
It is only a few days since the press reported the death of Dr. Bodkin Adams. Dr. Bodkin Adams was charged with one or two murders, the press saying that there were others in reserve. He was tried on charges of murder on the proposition of the Attorney-General of the day, the late Lord Dilhorne, that it was murder if death was accelerated by even a minute. That is a very frightening theory for doctors who, in hospitals, are known to be willing to ease the painful passage of a distressed patient who is willing for them to do so.
Dr. Bodkin Adams had to face the united press of the country, with the exception of the reporter from the Daily Express, Percy Hoskins, who is a very old, valued and respected friend of mine, who was threatened with the sack by Lord Beaverbrook for his obstinacy in saying that this case was being grossly exaggerated; that people went to Eastbourne to die, and they have died in the ordinary course and there is no evidence to the contrary. The case of the century was one in which Mr. Geoffrey Lawrence refused to put his client in the box to respond to the allegations, saying just what Percy had said, that there was no evidence at all on which a jury could convict. In the end Dr. Bodkin Adams was acquitted, and already we see the press announcing that "the greatest murderer of the century has just died". I suppose you are entitled to libel dead people, because we have no law against it.
Appreciating the importance of what my noble friend has said and the case he has put, I hesitate. I think that this case is a bad choice to take if you are going to try to enforce the law and the rules of the Press

1183
Council. I think the words quoted in the Press Council by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, are magnificent words on the rules of British justice and of the necessity of having access to free courts uninhibited and without pressure. That is a magnificent statement of the law. I am quite sure that the limited time available means that I ought to close my remarks at this moment, and I am grateful for the hearing that I have had.
4.41 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the squalid episode which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has enabled us to discuss—and I thank him, as have all other speakers, for giving us the opportunity—highlights once again a recurring theme of anxiety about the conduct of the press. Subsequent speakers can only echo my noble friend's compelling opening speech. In particular, nothing further need be said about the appalling irresponsibility displayed in that instance by some newspapers.
It is true that if newspapers are free to be responsible they must also be free to be irresponsible. That is a price which has to be paid for a free press. But with the Sutcliffe case, as documented in detail in the admirably cogent and matter of fact report of the Press Council, a point was reached at which irresponsibility became intolerable. In theory the ethical standards which the press should observe are laid down and enforced by the Press Council. a self-regulatory body set up in 1953 following, as has been said, a recommendation of the first Royal Commission of 1949. That recommendation was not implemented until the Government of the day threatened the press with legislation.
The severe criticisms and recommendations of the second Royal Commission resulted in the introduction of lay members, and a few of the recommendations of the third Royal Commission which reported in 1977 were implemented, although several—and not the least important—have been ignored. During most of its 30 years the response of the Press Council to criticism of the press and of its own role in respect of the press has contained more than a touch of petulance, self-righteousness, and arrogance. Unhappily, my observation is that those who spend their working lives assessing and criticising others themselves lack political judgment when their own affairs are at stake.
In the past 30 years the British press has been reluctant to make concessions to public opinion in proper time and in a becoming spirit. I am certain that in the atmosphere of Britain today only a convincing determination on the part of the press to accept and conform to the rulings of a strong and respected council, which the knowledgeable public see as acting independently of press interests, will prevent the introduction of a law of privacy and a statutory body which can deploy legal sanctions against misconduct by the press. A more critical and better informed public will now insist that the press be responsible, and will see that it is made so.
A fundamental question arising in this debate is: are the objections to a statutory body sustainable? Should democrats fear the use of legal sanctions to impose
1184
responsibility upon the press? I believe that a recourse to law, however superficially attractive it may appear, would be a dangerous innovation. I am very happy that all other noble Lords who have spoken feel the same way.
The experience of the last Royal Commission may help to demonstrate in a little detail what would have to be involved in legal intervention. At the outset of its deliberations, most members of that commission sympathised with proposals for radical reorganistaion of the Press Council. Some witnesses proposed a press ombudsman modelled on the Swedish experience. Others proposed that it should be replaced by a statutory body appointed by the Government with legally enforceable sanctions for use against delinquent journalists. But, the more we tried to frame concrete recommendations along these lines, the greater the difficulties we encountered and the greater our anxiety at the Frankenstein that we were creating.
What would these sanctions be? Suspension from work? Or fines? If the former, there would have to be a register of journalists. How would they be defined? How would the register be compiled? It is worth remembering that in the past 12 months it has been the policy of our Government firmly to oppose at UNESCO attempts which have there been made to compile registers of journalists in order that they may be protected and given special privileges for which, if they break them and then if they break a code, they can be removed from their occupations.
If we were to proceed by fines what would be the tariff, and against whom would the fines be levied? Against editors? Publishers? Newspapers? Would there be a different tariff for newspapers in heavy debt as compared with those making ample profits? Would someone aggrieved by a decision of the new body have an appeal to the courts? At the end of the day we became so anxious about the potentially dangerous consequences of a council with legal powers and penal authority that we concluded that it would be better to tolerate the objectionable behaviour of a very small minority of newspapers and journalists than to fashion a strong instrument ready to the hand of a Government which might wish to exercise control over the press. Accordingly, the Commission recommended no essential change in the organisation, functions and powers of the Press council, because it was compelled to recognise, however dissatisfied it was with the council's performance, that only a voluntary, self-regulatory body is compatible with the maintenance of a free press. That has been the experience of nearly every other democratic country.
What, then, can be done in circumstances in which, on the one hand, the public will not and ought not to go on tolerating intolerable irresponsibilities on the part of some newspapers, while, on the other hand, the obvious remedy might bring intolerable consequences in its train? It is to be remembered, first, that the problem is chiefly a Fleet Street problem and even there it arises only from the conduct of a small number of newspapers. Do not let us forget that outside London there are something like 70-odd evening newspapers, 17 morning newspapers, 5 Sundays and over 1,000 weeklies, to say nothing of the 5,000-odd periodicals; and from these publications trouble very rarely, in statistical terms, arises at all. What we are

1185
talking about is a disease of Fleet Street. There is in fact strong resentment, which has been expressed to me, among editors and journalists in the provinces that they are tarred with the Fleet Street brush.
What is needed is obvious. It is a respected and voluntary Press Council supported by the industry, manifestly independent of the industry in policy and action but capable also, because it is sufficiently professional, of securing the confidence of journalists and editors. How can this be secured? There is only one possibility short of direct governmental intervention. The great majority of publishers must isolate and discipline the tiny minority of trouble-makers among publishers and editors. We must not forget to include the editors in circumstances in which the trend of the last 15 years has been running very strongly in favour of securing editorial independence.
If it be said that the Sutcliffe and similar cases are the products of intense competition among newspapers, the answer is that the market is the same for all competitors provided that the same ethical standards are observed by all. Therefore, what I think we must expect from publishers is a series of public commitments. There would be a longish list but I shall mention only two.
The first is that there should be a public commitment to providing adequate funding for the Press Council, in order, among other things, that it may have a staff adequate to deal efficiently with its work. At the moment, the Press Council lives from hand to mouth from year to year, its senior members having to go round the Fleet Street houses and the trade associations with a begging bowl. I think that 1983 was the first year in which the council was given an undertaking that it would be given next year the same income as it had received this year. Adequate regular funding is essential. It must be raised not as a matter of goodwill on the part of the publishers, but by some such means as an automatic levy on circulations; it must be raised by a body separate from the Press Council so that the council, as a self-regulatory agency, has no concern in raising its own money. Those I think are some of the essential features on the side of funding. I do not think that they would be difficult to achieve. They would certainly be difficult to negotiate, but other industries have negotiated similar arrangements and there is no reason why the press should not do so.
The second public commitment that I think must be entered into is an agreement on the part of all publishers to support the Press Council, to undertake to ensure—and this would be on the part of the publishers—that in all their publications editors will be required to observe the Press Council standards. There could be other agreements, too. One important agreement would be to publish, invariably publish, the adjudications of the Press Council. The publishers must act in this way or adopt a similar procedure to achieve the desired result, or we must have legislative action with all the risks thereby entailed.
The final question is this. How can the publishers be persuaded to act in this way? I should like to remind the noble Lord, Lord Elton, of the statement made by his right honourable friend when replying to a debate on the right of reply in another place on 18th February
1186
1983 (at column 632). He stated that he shared and expressed the widespread dissatisfaction over the Press Council and the conduct of the press and hoped that the debate would be noted by the media and by the Press Council. He then referred to the duty—and I am not paraphrasing the word "duty", for that was the word that was used—of those rejecting statutory rights and obligations to ensure that other remedies were effective.
When the noble Lord replies, will he relieve the anxieties which many feel by confirming that the Government remain opposed to legislative intervention to secure better conduct on the part of the press or, at least, on the part of some newspapers? Will he also ask his right honourable friend to consider whether the Government might now express their earlier dissatisfaction to the small handful of publishers of national newspapers who are in regular breach of standards? Would he consider whether the Government might express this to those publishers in a private but vigorous manner? After all, it was only by such action that the Press Council was set up in 1953 in the first place.
5.p.m.
Lord Jacobson: My Lords, I will join in the gratitude of journalists in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for having initiated this debate. I also must declare certain interests. I am a life member of the NUJ which, to my mind very regrettably, has withdrawn from the Press Council. I receive a pension from the Daily Mirror group of newspapers and for a number of years I was a member of the Press Council and its Complaints Committee under the noble Lords, Lord Devlin, Lord Pearce and Lord Shawcross. That was about 10 years ago and at that time we thought that, despite under-funding and a very small staff, we were doing a reasonably good job. The adjudications of the Press Council were faithfully reported in most newspapers—they still are—and most newspapers provided the Press Council with the information they needed to come to a decision.
But what had not happened then, of course, was the circulation war, particularly at the tabloid end of the press. That war has now reached a height of ferocity which we did not encounter in my time on the Press Council and it has presented the Press Council with a vast increase in complaints. It has also presented the reading public with a great decline in the standards of popular journalism among some papers. Noble Lords are quite right to point out that this is not a general disease, but is confined to a relatively small number of newspapers in Fleet Street and is hardly applicable to the large number of papers in the provinces.
But we have to be realistic about this. The circulation war is not going to go away and readers are not going to give up reading newspapers because of unfavourable adjudications against those newspapers by the Press Council. Therefore, we have to ask: What are the alternatives? What can be done?Is the press Council, even if it got a big increase in its funds as other noble Lords have suggested—and which is essential—going to be able to cope in these new conditions? If not, is the only alternative recourse to statutory regulation on subjects like payments to

1187
witnesses, criminal associates, the right to privacy the right of reply and so on? Is that the only alternative, or are there others? I believe there are and I should like, if I may, to point some of them out to the House.
The first step, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, in particular and by other speakers, lies in the hands of a small handful of newspaper proprietors and publishers. Two of them are Members of this House. I propose to name them: they are the noble Viscount, Lord Rothermere, of the Daily Mail group and the noble Lord, Lord Matthews, who owns the Daily Express and the Star. The other is Mr. Rupert Murdoch, in particular as regards the Sun and the News of the World. The fourth big tabloid group is the Daily Mirror group, which has a good record in relation to the Press Council, although one of its papers (the Sunday People) was criticised by the report we are discussing. I have no authority to say this, but I believe that the Daily Mirror group of newspapers would associate itself with some declaration of principles and an acceptance of Press Council decisions and some code of conduct, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and others. Where this initiative should come from is, I believe, from the Newspaper Publishers' Association. The chairman of that association is also a Member of this House, but is not here today. It is essential that any such move should be simultaneous so that no one paper gets an advantage over others and it should be publicly declared. That is the first step.
Some of my old colleagues, like my noble friend Lord Ardwick, might find it ironic that I, who have always feared, resented and opposed proprietorial interference with editorial decisions, should suggest this; but the plain fact of the matter is that proprietors do interfere with the editorial content of their newspapers and here is an opportunity for them, for once, to interfere on the side of the angels.
I do not think that this alone would be enough to re-establish the authority of the Press Council. As I said, the circulation war is not going to abate and things are probably going to get rather rougher; so there is at least a need to re-examine the working and the role of the council and to look for other ways to improve press practices, to protect the public and to protect the press against Government intervention.
Recently a book has been published called People against the Press—a rather provocative title—by Mr. Geoffrey Robertson. Mr. Robertson is a barrister with great experience of media affairs. He has also written and broadcast on media affairs and newspapers. The book is critical of the Press Council but not immoderately so, in my view. It comes up with some suggestions which are at least worthy of consideration by this House and by the newspaper industry.
The Press Council, right from its inception, has always had to wear two hats. One of its duties is to protect the press against political intervention. The second is to protect the public against unfair treatment by the press. The argument in this book—I am trying to summarise it now—is that it has never had the funds or the staff to be able to do both jobs satisfactorily. Therefore, a suggestion has been made. It is not an extreme suggestion because many of Mr. Robertson's ideas are quite moderate; for example, he does not
1188
suggest that the Press Council should be abolished or that journalists should be fined or expelled from the profession. Nor does he suggest that there should be statutory legislation. But he does suggest that there should be a division of the functions between the Press Council and other bodies. He also suggests that a reformed Press Council should be mainly responsible for formulating and maintaining a code of conduct, and that this code of conduct should be agreed by the newspaper industry by means of a contract between the Press Council and the industry. I believe this idea was first floated about 15 years ago under the commission which was headed by the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, but it was not followed up. The newspaper publishers entering into a contract with the Press Council would bind themselves to observe the formulated code of conduct and to publish and abide by the adjudications of the Press Council.
The Press Council's role in protecting the press against legislation designed to interfere with its freedom should be taken over by the newspaper industry itself. I am dubious about this idea myself and I think that perhaps the Press Council should also retain some interest because, particularly under the noble Lords, Lord Devlin and Lord Pearce, it fought some notable battles against Governments as regards preserving the freedom of the press in certain respects. However, this idea is drawn up now. This leaves a very large area of activity such as unfair comment, the right of reply, outside the province of the Press Council. To fill this, it is suggested that we should have an ombudsman for the press—not entirely a new idea, but again possibly one worth considering.
The ombudsman, it is suggested, should have the status, the salary and the prestige of a High Court judge and should be assisted by a staff. His primary function would be to investigate complaints from the public against unfair comment based on misrepresentation or mistaken facts. He would have the authority to investigate these complaints and—if possible, by agreement; if not by agreement, then by authority—to order a newspaper to publish a correction in a position and with a prominence ordered by him.
This would remove from the Press Council the very difficult area of the right of reply, which has been discussed in the other House recently, and would give the public an access to an ombudsman, who, after all, is not a new concept in our life. Both of these ideas—the ideas of a Press Council entering into a contract with the newpaper publishers; and an ombudsman trying to reach agreement with the newpaper publishers about correcting comments and mistakes—have this virtue, that they both maintain a voluntary aspect and avoid the need for an edict by Parliament or by the law.
I think that these arguments are highly controversial. I can already hear the shouts from Fleet Street—in which, to be quite frank, I would join if I were still there—about the restriction of the freedom of editors to publish; and I can hear the complaints from the other side that this is not going far enough and that there ought to be statutory legislation. However, I think that these are ideas which ought to be discussed. This is a middle way and the discussion ought to begin, as other noble Lords have suggested,

1189
within the newspaper industry. It ought to begin urgently, because I am quite convinced that if it does not begin pressure will grow for statutory legislation, which will be a grave restriction on the right of a free press to investigate matters of real public concern.
5.13 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for providing this opportunity to discuss the report of the Press Council on Press Conduct in the Sutcliffe Case and to do so with such a weight of experienced and authoritative voices. The considerable cogency of the noble Lord's own speech was enhanced by his not inconsiderable journalistic experience. This is an important report dealing with matters of very real public concern. It deals with the standards of conduct and good taste, and of consideraion for the feelings of others, which we really ought to be able to expect from newspaper editors, reporters and others in a society which attaches importance both to free speech and the freedom of the press, and to the effects which their reporting has upon the nature of the society upon which and to which they report.
The sensitive and difficult issue of cheque book jounalism is the main subject of the report. The most objectionable aspect of press conduct in the case of Peter Sutcliffe has been the payment of large sums of money for stories and information to people related to, or associated with, Sutcliffe. The Government strongly share the views of noble Lords and of a great many other people who have condemned this type of cheque book journalism.
It is always wrong for crime to pay. It is both wrong and offensive that it should be made to pay on such a grand scale, whether the profit accrues to the criminal or to anyone else. And it is wrong, offensive and absurd that it should be made to pay by public organs that spend so much of their time deploring low ethical standards in public life and urging the Government to do more in the fight against that crime for which they themselves are providing the rewards. In those circumstances, there is a supreme irony, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out, that the not infrequent calls that holders of public office should resign come from those quarters.
With my noble friend Lady Sharpies and others we welcome the firm line taken by the Press Council in condemning the conduct of the newspapers that have done this, and in the light of my noble friend's own experiences I think that her comments were a model of restraint. We welcome the council's action in strengthening its existing declaration of principle on cheque book journalism by asserting that:
"Just as it is wrong that the evildoer should benefit from his crime, so it is wrong that persons associated with the criminal should derive financial benefit from trading on that association."
The council went on to say:
"What gives value to such stories and pictures is the link with criminal activity. In effect, the stories and pictures are sold on the back of crime. Associates include family, friends, neighbours and colleagues. Newspapers should not pay them, either directly or indirectly through agents, for such material and should not be party to publishing it if there is reason to believe payment has been made for it.
"The practice is particularly abhorrent where the crime is one of violence and payment involves callous disregard for the feelings of victims and their families."
1190
We wholly endorse these views.
The Press Council has made it clear that it does not favour statutory restrictions to control distasteful forms of cheque book journalism. It has however sounded a warning to the press that unless it regulates its conduct by observing the voluntary guidelines, the council will find it difficult to argue against legislative controls. We also want to avoid statutory controls in this field if that is possible, and we sincerely hope that newspapers will adhere to the council's guidelines and regulate their activities by voluntary restraint.
The actual drafting of such legislation would be very far from easy. There would be many questions of definition, both of association and reward, some of them extraordinarily difficult, and many other formidable puzzles to resolve. The noble Lord, Lord McGregor of Durris, has summarised a number of these difficulties with great clarity, and rested upon them—and upon the importance to our national life of a press that is genuinely free—his own rejection of legislation.
So far, we have shared his reluctance to deal with this matter by legislation. We have thought that for the newspapers it is better to rely on voluntary restraint and on the influence of the Press Council, just as in the field of broadcasting we have preferred to rely on the statutory duty of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to safeguard against offending good taste, decency and public feeling, and on similar obligations acknowledged by the BBC.
It has been regarded as a matter of fundamental importance to the tradition of press freedom in this country that the Government should not intervene directly in matters of press conduct. Newspaper editors, provided they keep within the law, are free to conduct their newspapers' affairs as they see fit and to publish what they wish. But there is a reciprocal obligation on the press to maintain the highest professional standards, and this is one of the reasons for the existence of the Press Council which was set up by the newspaper industry. The Royal Commission on the Press recommended that questions of press conduct, which cannot be resolved directly with the journal concerned, should be left to the influence of the Press Council. We are sure this is right and much prefer to see the newspaper industry regulating its own affairs in this way.
We cannot, however, rule out the possibility of statutory controls in this field if serious public dissatisfaction with the conduct of newspapers persists, and if that concern is not adequately met by the present arrangements. There are, as I have said, substantial practical difficulties of definition and enforcement. But no-one should assume that these could not be overcome if the case was strong enough. There is pressure to do so and the strong opinions expressed today make it all the harder to resist them. That consideration must emphasise to the press itself the importance of complying with the Press Council's guidelines.
The publication of the memoirs of Mr. Ronald Gregory, the former chief constable of West Yorkshire, writing in the Mail on Sunday, was referred to. We believe that these articles can only lead to further distress for the victims' families, that they have

1191
harmed the police service, which needs to retain the confidence and support of the public. Mr. Gregory was made aware of our views before the articles were published. He was also trenchantly informed of the views of many in his own profession by the article in the current issue of Police, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, referred.
Under the police discipline code, it is an offence to communicate information gained as a member of a police force without proper authority, but when they retire police officers are no longer subject to it. There was therefore no effective action which could have been taken to prevent Mr. Gregory from publishing his story. As I believe I said earlier in answer to other questions, the whole issue is now under consideration by the Association of Chief Police Officers. They are keeping in touch with us. As the noble Lord, Lord Hale, also reminded us, a good and proper relationship between the police and the press can be very helpful to the public good, and the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, very properly drew our attention to the importance of the conduct of the police in these cases: that it should indeed be proper.
Since the Yorkshire Ripper case and arising out of the chief inspector's report to the then Home Secretary, the Home Office issued in December 1982 two circulars—Nos. 114 and 115 of 1982. These give advice to chief officers of police on the investigation of a series of major crimes and on relations with the press. They emphasise the dangers inherent in press conferences following the questioning or arrest of a suspected person in connection with crimes in which the media are closely interested. This advice takes full account of the relations between the police and the media during and after the investigation into the Sutcliffe case. It has been welcomed by the police and I believe that we are putting into effect the lessons we have learned.
As to contempt of court, in chapter 6 of its report the Press Council criticised the former Attorney-General's decision not to bring contempt of court proceedings against newspapers which had given extensive publicity to information about Peter Sutcliffe before his trial. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, added his own criticism to theirs. My right honourable and learned friend had expressed the view that because of the nature of the plea at the trial there was no risk that the pre-trial publicity had prejudiced the fairness of the trial. The Press Council suggested that the Attorney-General looked back at the issue with hindsight after the trial and applied a test which could not have been applied at the time of publication. The council appeared to overlook, however, the traditional principle that it is not in the public interest for prosecution to follow in every case where there is evidence against someone of having committed an offence. Taking into account, as the Attorney-General did, both the purpose of the law and the harm actually done, the argument that his decision was misconceived cannot, I believe, be sustained.
As your Lordships are aware, at the time of Sutcliffe's arrest the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was still before Parliament. Nothing in the Press Council's report suggests that the Act is deficient in providing protection against the risk of prejudice to a fair trial. In
1192
our view, therefore, the Sutcliffe case has not given rise to any need for further review of the law of contempt, but we shall certainly be keeping a very close eye on the way the Act in fact works.
A number of your Lordships were concerned with press intrusion on privacy. The Press Council's report condemned as wholly unacceptable and unjustifiable the pressures to which relatives of both the victim and the accused were subjected by journalists and other media representatives anxious either to interview or photograph them or to bid for the right to publish their stories. We share that revulsion. The council stated that:
"As many codes of conduct lay down, the press should do nothing which entails intrusion into private grief or distress".
We entirely concur with that statement. It is to be hoped that the council's opinion will have an influence on the future conduct of journalists. We see no prospect, however, of reinforcing such moral precepts by statutory controls. We share the majority view of the Younger Committee, given in 1972, which concluded, so far as the press was concerned, that it was impossible to devise any satisfactory yardstick by which to judge whether the importance of a particular story should override the privacy of the people and personal information involved. Their view was that these were matters more appropriate for the Press Council.
The council's report also suggested that chief constables should be prepared to offer help to persons being harassed by the press. The council sought the former Home Secretary's views on this subject and quoted his response in full in the report. As explained there, such a move could be controversial and could seriously complicate criminal investigations. Nothing in the published report contradicts these conclusions and we see no need to issue advice to the police on this subject.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, and many others, we have a deep suspicion of what the noble Lord called press laws. The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, has given ample reasons why this should be so. We as a Government have so far consistently upheld the view taken by the last Royal Commission on the Press in its 1977 report that the press should not be subject to a special regime of law and that matters of press conduct should be left to the Press Council. We are encouraged that the Press Council is prepared to speak out strongly against unacceptable press conduct, as it has done in its report on the Sutcliffe case. There is clearly no lack of resolution on the council's part.
The essential question, however, is whether the council's rulings are seen to carry authority with newspaper editors and, in relation to cheque book journalism, whether editors heed the council's warning of the possibility of legislation if they do not regulate their own conduct. This remains to be seen. We very much hope that editors, in full knowledge of the dangers and possibilities, will act responsibly. It is their council. It is now urgently for them to put their own house in order, and I am sure they will note the very clear comments made on funding and other aspects of this matter by your Lordships during this debate. I do not doubt that the proprietors, whether

1193
members of your Lordships' House or not, will read with close interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson. Indeed, many of them are such that I shall be studying them closely tomorrow.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate which has served as a vehicle for conveying the concern of the House over a somewhat wider field than that covered by the Press Council's report on the Sutcliffe case. I think I speak for the whole House in saying that this debate will have fully justified itself if it concentrates the minds of those in responsible positions in the press on the very deep and real concern that very many people feel about certain aspects of the conduct of the press. We all know what the commercial pressures are, but to try to justify setting aside these concerns on the grounds that more newspapers have to be sold would be an unworthy and irresponsible reaction. Freedom and responsibility ought, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put it, to be engraved on opposite sides of the same coin.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, asked how the press will behave in the next sensational case. How, indeed, my Lords? The House is justified in firing a warning shot rather close across the bows of the offending institutions. I hope that those concerned will take very careful note of what has been said and will appreciate the dangers in the present situation. If that point alone gets home, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will have performed a signal service in initiating this debate. The noble Lord can also count on getting a letter or two from me tomorrow. I know that, as he always does, he will say that I have not answered every point. This' is a weighty and serious matter of national interest, and it is of the greatest importance that those most responsible should listen closely to the tenor of your Lordships' voice.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I shall respond only briefly before withdrawing the Motion for Papers standing in my name. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, need have no anxiety that he is likely to experience any reproach from me resulting from his speech. I am glad to say that, with one significant exception, I agree with almost everything the noble Lord said. I suspect that this is also the view of very nearly all those who have participated in what I believe has been a very interesting and rewarding debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I hope that not only editors but, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacobson, said, proprietors pay some attention to what has been said in this debate really on all sides of the House.
The only point upon which I have some lingering doubt relates to the law of contempt and the decision of the Attorney-General not to bring contempt proceedings against the newspapers which did flout the law of contempt in the Sutcliffe case in such a quite remarkable fashion. I know these decisions must be exceptionally difficult for any Attorney-General but, like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I think it was a profoundly mistaken decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, it is a difficult judgment; it is not necessarily right to bring them in every conceivable case, but what we had here was one of the most remarkable. sustained series of breaches of the law of
1194
contempt which we have seen in this country in the last 30 or 40 years.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that what happened as a result of the failure of the Attorney-General to bring proceedings was that when the Fagan case arose there was another outburst of exactly the same type of conduct by a number of newspapers in Fleet Street. I will not press the point any further, but I am bound to say, like the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I am quite sure the Press Council itself, I think that the decision made by the Attorney-General on this admittedly difficult matter was mistaken. I hope he will look at further conduct of this character by newspapers in the future in a far more rigorous fashion than he did on this particular occasion.
So much for the area of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Other than that, I think there has been almost unanimous agreement in all parts of the House about this matter. I think the report of the Press council is probably one of the most disturbing documents it has published since it was set up. I think that the stories of deceit by a number of powerful newspapers when they were practising their deceit on a Press Council financed by the newspaper industry itself are a very disturbing question indeed. The arrogant and insensitive editorials published by some of the guilty newspapers when they were criticised by the Press Council was just as disturbing.
The last point I would make is perhaps this: the noble Lord, Lord Elton—following what my noble friend Lord McGregor said—drew attention to the difficulties involved in a statutory approach so far as the Press Council is concerned—making it a statutory council. I agree with that entirely. I would be very loathe to move to a situation where we started having some form of press laws in this country. The difficulties of definition pointed out by my noble friend are obvious, but quite apart from the difficulties of definition I think there is something inherently undesirable in trying to deal with problems of this kind by means of legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said, however, in a very interesting passage of his speech, that the press should take note that if there were continued misbehaviour—and I summarise his argument at this stage—one could not rule out some form of statutory countrol. I hope that some of the people who have been so rightly and severely criticised by the Press Council paid due attention to those words, because I believe they represent a great deal of parliamentary opinion and a great deal of public opinion. If we can achieve that result from this debate. we shall have achieved something. Lastly, after again thanking all noble Lords who have participated in this debate, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Inland Revenue: Enforcement Powers
5.35 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby rose to call attention to the report of the Committee on Enforcement Powers of the Revenue Department: and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. There are several reasons why I am raising this matter this evening, more by lottery than by design I may say, although I certainly wished to raise this important report for attention by your Lordship's House if I got the opportunity. One reason is that this report deals with the administration of our tax system which bears very closely indeed upon the rights, duties and liberties of the subject, and these I regard as the especial responsibility of your Lordships' House. Without a constitution, without a Bill of Rights, with an elective dictatorship, your Lordships do have, I think, the responsibility for the especial care of the liberty of the subject.
May I say in this connection that I hope that if and when the Government come forward with proposals to implement recommendations of this committee they will bring them together in one Bill—a sort of taxers' management Bill, similar to the one of 1970, which is not certified by Mr. Speaker as a Money Bill—and not tuck them away in bits and pieces in successive Finance Bills which are so certified. Much has gone through in Finance Bills which relates to administration and the liberty of the subject which should have been discussed by your Lordships' House, but which were outwith our jurisdiction under the Parliament Act.
I think that another reason for raising this issue is that reports of this importance and substance after the lapse of a reasonable time should be drawn to the attention of at any rate one House of Parliament. I have suffered bitter disappointment personally from having served as chairman or a member of several committees and commissions, reports of which have subsequently received very little attention from Parliament solely because they were appointed either to meet a political difficulty or at the peak of some public interest, but when we reported it had all gone; the crisis had passed, the interest had evaporated and nobody cared very much what we had to say. I hope that will not be the fate of this report.
This report was published last March and it was an ideal committee in size and, I think, in composition: small, only five members, two of them distinguished Members of this House; one, the chairman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, who has courteously come to the House to listen to this debate, and my noble friend Lord Allen of Fallowfield; and there was another distinguished member of the committee well known to me, the last holder of the office of Chief Inspector of Taxes in the Inland Revenue, Mr Ernest Simons.
The first thing I would like to do is to congratulate the Keith Committee on the outcome of nearly three years of work and 42 meetings. Just think of it, 42 meetings, on a complex, largely controversial topic, sensitive even where it was not contentious; and I think, if I may respectfully say so, that they have done a highly professional job, undertaken with clarity and skill, and one can only be full of admiration for such a thorough investigation. Not only were facts to be ascertained and considered but judgments upon them had to be made and they are frequently to be found
1196
everywhere in the report. The Revenue departments, and eventually Ministers, will have to look at the report. They will have a major task before them, because the politics of this report will be by no means unimportant. I shall have something to say about the politics of this report later.
I have a third reason for raising this matter. It is a lighthearted, even frivolous reason. It is, that income tax and your Lordships' House have something in common; both have been threatened with abolition. Gladstone threatened to abolish income tax in 1874, on the ground that it makes for a nation of liars. And Mr. Michael Foot threatened to abolish the House of Lords in 1983—not on the same ground, but for other reasons uncomplimentary to your Lordships. In neither case did the threat materialise, and here we still are. It could be said that such is the kingdom of Heaven.
Even when the committee makes no recommendation and says so, they do so for interesting reasons. Sometimes, it is as important to make no recommendation as it is to make a recommendation. To leave matters alone is a very important decision to take, especially when it is taken by a committee of this kind, who have fingers tingling to change as much as possible.
I ought to confess to your Lordships the fact that I am a former general secretary of the Inland Revenue Staff Federation. I suppose that I should have read this report with more relish than I did. Officials of the federation are well represented in both Houses of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Plant was my successor, and Mr. James Callaghan was my assistant secretary. In fact, both served as my assistant secretary for a time; both rose to the top; one succeeded me and the other became the Chancellor of the Exchequer—one cannot do better than that!
My noble friend Lord Plant might take a more favourable view of some of the recommendations in this report than I do, because he was clammering for these additional powers during his term of office. For myself, I have a humble apology to make: now, I am more on the side of the taxpayer than I used to be. Yet I know from long experience that tax gatherers dislike people who get the better of them. They present a mournful picture of themselves as hapless tax gatherers, constantly following their astute quarry through a revolving door and never coming out in front. This is of course a frustrating experience; they grow impatient at not having all the tools they would like for the job.
Earlier committees and commissions have gone over much of the ground covered by the Keith Committee—not in relation to the more modern taxes administered by Customs and Excise but certainly in regard to income tax. They have covered this ground with varying degrees of pomposity and moral indignation. It has always been the same. Even in 1905, when the rate of income tax was about 10d. in the pound, a committee was deploring the substantial amount of fraud obtaining in the field of self-assessment. The Royal Commission of 1920 waxed very indignant; they mounted the steps of the pulpit and let us have it. The commission made many recommendations which, although drastic, they thought would achieve largely what they set out to accomplish: a clean, efficient and effective taxation system.
The surprise that I had when I read the Keith Report was to find that the committee had produced a recommendation originally made as long ago as 1905. What happened to it all this time? The recommendation, which appears in paragraph 1.7.9, is that:
"The names of the defaulters in the civil fraud category should be published unless they make a full spontaneous voluntary disclosure".
The committee add that the civil fraud category is one in which they recommend that criminal proceedings need not be taken, but a financial settlement reached instead.
The 1905 committee made this very same recommendation in somewhat different terms, because they did not like to see the non-criminal types escape what they described as "public exposure". What is wrong with the stocks, I want to know? Why not revive the stocks and put these rogues and vagabonds in the stocks and throw refuse at them? That is "public exposure" if you please. Why worry about the media, when you have these people in the stocks? Well, I leave that suggestion there, because I cannot see it happening. There are all sorts of reasons why one should not publish matters which are not open to public view and exposure. No, I am sorry—but that is not among the wisest recommendations of the Keith Committee. I only picked it out because I could make fun of it.
Seriously, a point upon which I want to dwell for a minute or two is the distinction between those who collect taxes and those who pay them. This distinction is one that is frequently lost sight of. The collection of taxes on behalf of Revenue departments is widespread throughout the community. To an ever-increasing extent, the state now conscripts unpaid tax gatherers into the system of tax administration. When these conscripts fail, they do not fail as taxpayers but fail as agents for the Inland Revenue; as agents for Customs and Excise; as collectors of other people's taxes. They are traders who collect VAT; employers who collect PAYE; companies who collect tax deducted from dividends. The building societies collect an enormous amount of tax through the composite rate which they pay on behalf of recipients of building society interest. This is to mention just a few of the principal agents the Inland Revenue use for the purpose of this process of collection.
When we listen to pontifical accounts of the weaknesses of the system (which we have done since I entered the Inland Revenue in 1915) I wonder whether we realise that every new tax—purchase tax, VAT, the ill-fated selective employment tax, and every extension of existing methods of taxation in war or peace—has entailed this conscription of more recruits into the army of unpaid tax gatherers.
Purchase tax—introduced during the war—was, unusually, a tax on commodities other than excise on dutiable goods. It added 70,000 pay points for purchase tax. When purchase tax was replaced by VAT, 70,000 pay points became 1,300,000 pay points—and I am sure that many more than that are in existence today.
Thousands of millions of pounds are collected in this way—voluntarily but under duress, so to speak—by people who do so without receiving commission, agency fees, or any discount for prompt
1198
remittance. When one gets money on those terms, it is enough to make the Prudential green with envy. Where are the inducements to undertake this vast and unpalatable task on behalf of the nation? What do these people get? There is no kudos, little appreciation and no financial consideration. If they fail in the task imposed upon them by law, and not by consent, they are threatened with penalties if they neglect and prosecution if they fiddle. This is the seamy side of this vast undertaking of the collection of revenue, both direct and indirect, under this system.
This army of unpaid tax gatherers is entitled to much more consideration than Lord Keith and his friends have been able to give it. I am sure they are not lacking in appreciation; but I want to say this. If the unpaid tax gatherers had behaved like the paid tax gatherers in 1981 and had gone on strike and called it industrial action, the whole system would have collapsed like a pack of cards, so important and, indeed, vital are their services to the community. They remained loyal throughout that dispute, though they found great difficulty in paying the money into the bank.
My verdict on the report is that it is mildly minatory in tone, disciplinarian in approach and gently coercive in content. That is my verdict on the report. In its introductory paragraphs it puts the Board of Inland Revenue among the "wets". The committee thought that the department was not firmly enough in the saddle, and although it had its feet in the stirrups it did not use the spurs. They said:
"Long experience of the familiar system appeared to make the Department resistant to ideas for more extensive change and modernisation".
I am always a bit suspicious of the use of the word "modern". What is a modern system of taxation? I am left with the impression that, in the minds of the Keith Committee, "modern" meant harder; that modern systems of taxation required or justified a somewhat harder approach.
The attitude of the Board of Inland Revenue appeared to the committee to be too soft. That is what I think they thought. Yet the committee put their finger on the nub of the problem in pararaph 1.9.1., where they say:
"The human element is of paramount importance, and no pains should be spared to secure that the outlook and conduct of individual tax officials is up to the proper standard in their dealings with the public."
My Lords, they have said it, and I want to ask: what are these pains that are not to be spared? Is it a lot more money for the officials in order to improve the standard of recruitment? Is it more training? Is it more discipline for delinquency inside the department? Is it to pay more attention to those who are rude to the taxpayers? There are 70,000 of them scattered throughout the length and breadth of the land. The attempt to get uniformity of administration is difficult enough, but to get uniformity of human attitudes is virtually impossible. This is the biggest problem; and it must not be lost sight of when proposals are being made to apply tighter controls over taxpayers and over the procedures of the Inland Revenue. Almost everything the corn mittee recommends involves officials in further sensitive contact with the public: and if you cannot be sure of that then you have not got

1199
a system that you can use, because the human factor is the ultimate right throughout the piece and there is no substitute for it. No computers will deal with taxpayers who require consideration and attention, and to whom some measure of discretion or of consideration may be due.
Another thing is for the Government to avoid speaking with two voices. At the present time I think a lot of people feel that the Government apply the carrot of the Department of Trade and Industry in front and the stick of the Inland Revenue at the back. For example. I think the Government ought to study very carefully indeed whether there is some inconsistency between their encouragement to small businesses, on the one hand, and the Inland Revenue's congenital mistrust of the small businessman as a taxpayer, on the other. I saw in The Times on Monday last that a survey done by Shell UK Limited found that, in spite of the emphasis placed by the Government on the role and contribution of small firms, the vast majority feel that relations between the Government and small firms have worsened. It is no good having a big reorganisation of the Small Business Advisory Service if the Inland Revenue are going to spoil it all at the other end. So these are important considerations. You are either going to use the tax system and its administration to help, or you are going to regard it as a cashier's job in order to get the money into the Treasury by any reasonable means possible.
Before I finish I want to consider two of the rather important matters which the Keith Committee was asked to look at. The first is the use of powers granted to the revenue departments, one a long time ago in the case of Customs and Excise the other more recently in the case of the Inland Revenue Department—the right of enforced entry into the premises and the homes and apartments of the taxpayer, the right to interrogate members of his family, the right to take away documents and material belonging to members of his family, and so on—where there is good reason to suspect that fraud may have been committed and the necessary warrant has been granted by the proper authority. In the case of the Customs and Excise they have been at this for a very long time. They were boarding ships many centuries ago; they were in the business of contraband and smuggling—these important and exciting jobs which, in my day, any civil servant coveted when he entered the service. They told me, "You go into the Customs and Excise; they all get drunk in the bonded stores or they get drowned trying to get on ships in the Thames estuary, and the rate of promotion will be much higher than in the Inland Revenue, where they live for ever". I did not get into the Customs and Excise; I went to the war instead.
I myself raised some doubts about these powers a little earlier. In the case of the Customs and Excise they can get a warrant from a magistrate; but in another place they jibbed at a magistrate and said it should be a circuit judge for the purposes of this kind of warrant for the Inland Revenue. The committee rightly recommend that the warrants in both cases should be from a circuit judge so far as England and Wales are concerned. I am glad to see that the committee recommended better rules for the conduct of this unpleasant exercise. They are rare occasions, but very
1200
difficult and grievous occasions indeed when they occur.
I have always felt that civilian officers ought not to be allowed to do the work normally undertaken by the police without very careful consideration of what they are up to. They are not police officers. They have not been trained as police officers. But they have to be subjected to the Judges' rules. They must have a code of conduct and of behaviour, but they are not acting frequently enough to become used to their responsibilities. Therefore, they ought to be under very strict discipline and control.
For one thing, in the past when a raid has taken place all one could see was the warrant, which said little or nothing about the underlying purposes of the raid. Another aspect was that one had no control over the numbers of people involved. It was possible for the Inland Revenue to have people in columns of four, march them onto one's premises and in they went like animals into the Ark. Then, when they got busy inside one did not know who they were. One had no idea of who was the real raider and who was a gatecrasher. It was difficult to fix any responsibility on any individual. Those who suffered from this experience were bewildered, angry, annoyed and, naturally, greatly distressed.
I raised this matter in your Lordships' House when one or two cases were occurring. I sent a copy of my speech to the committee in the hope that it might see what I felt were some of the points it ought to watch. I think the committee watched them all. However, I dissent from the Committee's recommendation that the identification of the individual officers need not be continued. I think it should. No individual police officer or civilian should have the right to forcibly enter premises without an identification that can be seen and enable one to see what is his authority to be there. It is not enough to go to the leader, who is probably decorated with authority, and ask, "Is that bloke over there your man or is he a cleaner?" Surely that is an elementary right so that if someone does overstep the mark, as has been done in some cases, the aggrieved taxpayer can lodge a complaint.
I agree that civilian officers should be trained, but I have already referred to the difficulty of doing that. A unified code for Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue might be all right up to a point, but let me add with full respect to Customs and Excise men that they are a tougher breed than the Inland Revenue men. They have been doing their work for so long and have had to do such rough work in the course of their experiences that they are not quite the gentry that one finds in the Inland Revenue. Therefore, I believe a unified code needs to be looked at with great care lest the Inland Revenue try to live up to the reputation of Customs and Excise, and that might be a pity.
I concede that the Committee has dealt with this most difficult problem with perception and understanding. One must acknowledge that the raiders have come out of it without serious criticism. Nevertheless, the need to use every alternative to this ultimate step should be uppermost in the minds of the Revenue authorities, even though they need additional powers to enable them to achieve what they want not by forcible entry but by more peaceful means. That is

1201
how I sum that up. The committee makes recommendations which it hopes will achieve that purpose.
I come now to casuals—moonlighters; the black economy. Do we have to go on calling it a "black" economy? We have to be a bit careful about "black". Is it a black economy? Who says it is a black economy? Why should it be black? I will not suggest what it should be. But this is a big social problem which cannot be considered solely in the context of tax enforcement. We all know something of the measure of this problem and why so many workers want tax-free income from jobs that they do after working hours and over weekends. We all know also that life would become a great deal more difficult for many people if the supply of this help dried up.
The committee lays down the principle in paragraph 6.3.4:
"The only individuals who should be entitled to receive payments gross should … be the genuinely self-employed providers of services."
So here we go again; more conscripts to the vast army of unpaid tax gatherers. What the committee suggests is that all who use this casual work should identify those whom they employ, deduct tax from their pay, notify the tax people and account for the tax deducted. The casuals exposed to tax deductions would have to claim a refund from the tax office if they happened to be tax exempt in order to get their money back. The department reckon that there are between 500,000 and 1 million—one cannot say how many there might be—who would be brought into the net of tax administration by this suggestion, and many of them would be exempt.
Unless I am very much mistaken I reckon the Keith Committee had a lot of cold water poured on this idea by the Inland Revenue. If they did not the Inland Revenue must have been asleep. The committee proposes that
"a universal scheme for casual workers involving information reporting and deduction at source … be introduced as soon as practicable."
This just shows that the tax threshold is so low that the trawl for the small fish can become either impractical or ridiculous. The present system of the almost universal coverage of direct personal taxation is an inheritance from the war when the restrictive conditions of the wartime economy and the disciplines of civilian work, military or national service, were accepted. We are in a vastly different situation today. The range of this tax, its refinements, and its relationship to the new earnings related national insurance contributions puts the whole mammoth exercise into an entirely different perspective. No amount of manpower, no new set of rules for enforcement with its checks and penalties, can be marshalled against the tide of feeling, engendered politically I have no doubt, which is now rising against bureaucracy. More police powers and more Revenue powers would be strong medicine for any Government to introduce in the year 1984.
I believe that the Keith recommendations, believed by the committee to make our tax system workable, effective and to satisfy minimum standards of efficiency, will depend upon whether it is practical or not. The politics of the matter are whether this array of greater discipline and coercion will be tolerable and
1202
acceptable. Otherwise it becomes almost impractical. I do not think that this is by any means a question of whether the taxpayer will take it. It is more a matter of whether the additional multitude of unpaid tax gatherers that will be required will agree to act. I doubt whether they will.
I have a concluding peroration to make. Taxation is now a part of the delicate fabric of popular government. It may reflect the attitudes and aims of the kind of society it has to serve. It may help to promote social contentment and industrial peace and bring about a fairer and happier life for some sections of the community, or it may do the opposite. It may unite, or it may divide, the nation. The art of government includes the art of administration, and that is why bureaucracy must sometimes be denied all the sharp-edged tools it wants to do the job. That is my verdict on the report of the Keith Committee. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in two ways. First, because he has enabled your Lordships' House to discuss this report and, secondly, because he has made me read it much more thoroughly than I should otherwise have done. I am bound to say to the noble Lord that I find it a much more acceptable report than he does. I am impressed by and agree with the general thrust of the report. There is one underlying principle which I know that the noble Lord shares but which he did not express: namely, that the whole of our tax paying and collecting system depends on public goodwill. The public goodwill will not be there if an increasingly large proportion of the public (particularly those who pay tax at source under pay-as-you-earn) feel that they are bearing a disproportionate share of the tax burden that we all need to share because so many others are getting away with it in other respects and in other fields. The noble Lord referred to small businesses; there may be others.
I share the view of this eminent committee that, in order to make, as the noble Lord terms it, the system practicable—to make it work and to enable it to continue to have the general support of the public: albeit nobody pays tax with a song in his heart, it still has to have that large measure of support—Parliament must give the Inland Revenue the appropriate powers to discharge the responsibilities which Parliament places upon it. I agree with the report that criminal proceedings should be kept for only the worst and most obvious cases of deliberate fraud. They should not be the appropriate remedy in cases of negligence, and even of gross negligence, where a far more appropriate remedy is penalties and action over commercial interests.
I agree with all that and particularly with the extract that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, quoted (which saves me quoting it yet again) about the importance of the human element. I must say that I do not think that the noble Lord did the report justice. That sentence was worded in such a way as to make it clear that those unanimously signing the report thought that this was the most important issue of all—and so do I. I think they were right in coming to this conclusion. My view is that that human element,

1203
as the report calls it—the human relationship between the tax gatherer and the taxpayer—can be improved. I say that notwithstanding that we start not from a low but from a very high level. We start with a very efficient tax gathering machine, which succeeds in raising taxes at very small cost and, I imagine, more successfully than in any other European country. Notwithstanding that it is a great achievement so far, I think that the human element can be improved. It can be improved in three ways which I shall illustrate.
First—and the noble Lord underlined this—the Revenue has a tendency to take for granted that it is the duty of the taxpayer to pay tax and the duty of many to collect tax and pass it to the Inland Revenue. I think the Inland Revenue tends to take that duty for granted, but though it is a clear duty placed upon the citizen, a little appreciation goes a long way. For example, I see on my tax form, "If you want to bother the Revenue to send you a receipt, please put the letter "R" in the square bracket". When the receipt comes, it is a jumble of figures and references. Without the taxpayer having to ask, a collector could occasionally write to say, "I am asked by the Chairman of the Board of Inland Revenue to thank you for your prompt payment of your tax liability". It is almost unimaginable. but why? We do that in ordinary commerce. If somebody pays a bill you say. "Thank you very much". Every practising professional man, when a bill is paid, says, "Thank you". He has given a service, but he has also been paid.
In appropriate cases, a note could be written to say, "The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be interested, helped and assisted by your payment, which will enable him to undertake more readily the onerous task of managing the country's finances". It would make the large taxpayer feel that he had done something, as indeed he has. Rather than relying implicitly on the subject's responsibility to disclose himself and to declare and pay his tax under statute, occasionally, and in appropriate cases, a more human view could be taken by saying. "Thank you" and showing appreciation.
Secondly, the Revenue could more often—it does it only very occasionally indeed—volunteer information which would be of assistance to the taxpayer. I heard of one case the other day which is very relevant. A taxpayer sends in his return. The Inspector of Taxes sees that it would be beneficial to the taxpayer to ask for the application of a certain section of the Finance Act and knows that there is a short time limit of only three months and that it has nearly expired. He rings up the taxpayer and says, "You will be wanting to do so and so. I am ringing you to let you know that you will have to do so in the course of next week or you will lose the benefit of the section". That is courteous, helpful and well within the duty of the Inland Revenue. Such an action would be remembered always by the taxpayer in question. As accountants know full well, there are many occasions where the Revenue can, in discharge of its duty to collect the right, and not an excessive, amount of tax, be helpful to the taxpayer and take the initiative in doing so. That again would substantially improve the human element to which the report refers.
1204
The third example that I wanted to give concerns something to which the report does not refer. I take it that in tax evasion, as in other forms of criminality, the evader—the criminal—relies on not being caught. I assume that in tax evasion the greatest deterrent would be the knowledge that he is likely to be caught. I think it is the duty of the Inland Revenue to make much clearer than it has done so far that in most substantial cases the tax evader is caught. The general view that the tax evader gets off for all time is quite wrong.
The position is that a taxpayer has income that he does not disclose. He deliberately wants to evade paying tax on it. He has this cash. What is he to do with it? He can either spend it or keep it. If he spends it, his lifestyle is seen to be out of context with the income that he declares. The Revenue has powers which it exercises of deep investigation in cases which arouse its suspicion for the kind of reason that I have just described, and the taxpayer is unable to explain how he can live so comfortably on the income that he discloses. One thing leads to another, and the result is that the individual has to pay more in tax and penalties than had the income been declared in the first place.
The alternative is not to spend the income, but to keep it. So what is he to do with it if he keeps it? Is he to invest it? He cannot do that because the investment will produce income, and the probability—not the certainty—is that the income will come to the notice of the Inland Revenue through one of the many ways in which it gathers information. He might make a mistake, as those who evade paying tax generally do over the course of years, because their memories are not good enough to enable them to keep on what they would call the right course, which is really the wrong course.
If the individual in question seeks to evade tax completely, he is not able to put the cash in income-producing investment. So he has to put it into something which does not show any income and does not indicate anything to the Inland Revenue; and he must remember that. He can do that for year after year, and he thinks, "Right, I got away with it". All he has done is to pass on to his widow a legacy of trouble and liability for penalties and interest.
What happens mostly—and I am talking about substantial cases—is that in the typical scenario a widow finds that she is left lots of money by a caring husband, and all is declared for estate duty purposes, or the modern equivalent. The Revenue examines the returns and finds one or two things which cannot be explained in relation to the tax returns which have been made by the individual over a vast number of years. Inquiries start. It is a case where there has been some non-disclosure of income; some cash has been received in some way or other but not disclosed over a period of years. There are many such examples. The widow is faced with a double penalty. She is faced with not only the penalty that arises from the nondisclosure, which clearly was an attempt at tax evasion, but also the penalty which arises from questions which cannot be answered satisfactorily because the man who could have answered them satisfactorily is no longer there to do so.
So the typical situation is that the widow is not as badly off as would have been the taxpayer had he been

1205
found out at that stage; she is worse off. She has all the anxiety, the trouble and the heartache. In addition to all that, she, or the estate, has to pay the tax, the penalties, the interest which need not have been paid had the tax been declared and paid in the first place.
I am not describing an unusual circumstance. I am describing a series of circumstances that are likely to arise in the case of serious attempts at substantial tax evasion. You do not succeed in evading. You succeed in postponing payment, and leaving to your widow at best an enormous problem.
So I say that that is a third example of the way in which the Revenue, by publicising the position, by making clear to everybody that it has enormous sources of information and investigatory powers to carry out the duties imposed upon it by Parliament, could improve the relationship between the taxpayer and the tax gatherer. It could do that by making it clear that it simply does not pay to evade tax. I am sorry to put it at that level, but it is a relevant level when one is discussing the pure payment of taxes by an individual to the Inland Revenue. In the long run it simply does not pay to evade tax. That point is in line with both the many suggestions made in the report as to greater publicity of the Revenue's powers and the report's general thrust, and so I welcome the report very much indeed.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, I do not suppose that when this Motion first appeared on the Order Paper many of your Lordships imagined that such an apparently dry subject could have been opened up in such a down-to-earth and entertaining manner as it has been by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I am not sure whether or not it is fair to say that we have with us a gamekeeper turned poacher. I thought that the noble Lord himself said that more or less, if not quite. But whatever that position may be, he gave us the benefit of his very great experience of the practical problems in this thorny subject.
I do not intend to wander into this jungle—always obscure, sometimes sinister—of which we have been given a glimpse by the two noble Lords who have already spoken. My sole interest is as a member of the accountancy profession, albeit no longer in practice—in fact, very definitely out of practice—and I cannot claim to have read through the 804 pages, the product of the labours of my noble and learned friend and his committee. However, I would say that, though I have not read through the report, no matter what other views may be expressed I am perhaps heartened by the first reaction of one leading tax practitioner: that the report is very tough, but fair. I think that that is only to be expected from a committee guided by my distinguished fellow countryman, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel. At one stage of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in particular when I heard the word "minatory", I thought that he was leading up to his depicting a hanging judge at work directing this committee. That, I can assure your Lordships from personal experience, is very far from being the truth.
The one question that I should like to ask the Government is concerned with what happens next. Of the many bodies which gave evidence to the committee, probably the one most intimately
1206
concerned with the subject-matter of the report—with the obvious exception of the Inland Revenue—is the accountancy profession, represented by the Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies. This body gave its evidence to the committee, and it has set up a working party on the subject, which is still in existence. I simply wish to ask the Government to assure us that before legislation is introduced there will be further consultation with this body, as indeed doubtless there will be with other bodies. This is a body which is uniquely placed to represent the position of the taxpayer and, I believe, to give a fair view of the public interest.
Secondly, following from that, how soon may we expect such discussion and consultation to begin? The Government might reply that we should wait until the publication of Volume 3. I think the main ground has been covered in the two volumes so far published. The taxes remaining to be dealt with are (shall we say?) the more esoteric ones. I do not believe there is a need to delay further, and it will expedite the final legislation if the consultation can begin as soon as possible and while those who have been so concerned with the subject still have it in their minds.
I would further support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton in his plea that, in the interests of proper discussion and of ease of interpretation, any legislation should be completely distinct and separate from the normal Finance Bill. I would even hope that perhaps the Government would consider circulating in advance some draft clauses at the time of the consultative process. In any case, I would sincerely hope that in approaching legislation on this apparently somewhat tiresome and tedious subject the Government will pay full heed to the sensible and practical words of the noble Lord who introduced the debate.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, after some two and a half years of investigation, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Kinkel, and his committee have produced two volumes of their report on the enforcement powers of the Revenue departments. Clearly, much thought and effort have gone into this production. I understand that a further volume is yet to come in relation to Customs and Excise duty. However, this is a suitable time to discuss the recommendations made in relation to the taxes dealt with in the report administered by the Inland Revenue, and value added tax. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is to be thanked for focusing our attention thereon in such a witty manner.
Although the first two volumes of the report run to more than 790 pages, the text concentrates on the enforcement powers of the Revenue and does not trespass on matters of chargeability. If so much paper has to be devoted to what is only a section of our tax law, is there perhaps something fundamentally wrong with the whole system? The enforcement powers of the Revenue are little more than an untidy array of powers that have accumulated over recent years, partly as taxes have extended their catchment area and partly due to the fact that, unlike most other countries, we have two Revenue departments with separate boards of management. That fact alone tends to result in an untidy system with separate enforcement agencies

1207
using differing procedures. The sheer weight of the report, dealing with one section only of the subject raises in my mind the question whether we should start by simplifying the tax system rather than modernising purely the enforcement power.
Let me start developing this thesis by drawing attention to the committee's terms of reference. The basic thinking is contained in the last sentence. This, amended for clarity, reads:
"To consider whether the enforcement powers of the Board of Inland Revenue and the Board of Customs and Excise are suited to their purposes having regard both to the need to ensure compliance with the law and to avoid excessive burdens on the taxpayer".
What, to my mind, this envisages is that it is both necessary and desirable to establish and maintain a fair balance between the powers of the Revenue Departments on the one hand and the burdens placed upon the taxpayer on the other. One must not give to the Revenue departments sledgehammer powers to crack nuts just because nuts can most effectively and efficiently be cracked by a sledgehammer. Alternatively, if there are nuts which require to be cracked, one must give the Revenue Departments a nut cracker which can do the job whatever type of nut may be in season. So there is at all times the necessity and desirability of establishing and maintaining a fair balance—a balance that the taxpayer will acknowledge to be fair and that will not allow a Revenue Department to use its powers by oppressing taxpayers unduly or unfairly.
In considering whether or not the existing tax laws or any proposed amendments thereto, in relation to enforcement powers, exhibit a fair balance, one must always bear in mind that, when a Revenue Department issues a demand—that is to say, an assessment—the burden of establishing that no tax is payable or that the assessment is excessive lies upon the taxpayer. I see this daily. The Revenue department, having inspected the books of a taxpayer, will allege that the books cannot be correct, that he must have done more business or taken more money than he has stated. Faced with such an allegation, it is for the taxpayer to establish that he did not do the additional alleged business—to establish the negative. He starts at a disadvantage.
Next, taxpayers are not computerised machines carrying on a business according to the latest manuals. They can carry on a business competently or sometimes incompetently. They can keep their books and records competently or sometimes not so competently. They can suffer accident, illness or other misfortune. But we have not yet imposed a tax on incompetence, such as failure of the small shopkeeper to limit shoplifting in his small store or to record detailed transactions by way of sale after a hard day's work. The introduction of value added tax has itself imposed burdens on the small shopkeeper. One has to consider the difficulties of running a newsagent's, tobacconist's and confectionery business making £50,000 to £100,000 a year for three months and producing, at the end of that period, an accurate tax return, taking account of the different types of liability for the goods sold and the differing choice of special schemes available for retailers. In these circumstances,
1208
taxpayers—except those who are clearly fraudulent—should not be threatened.
If one gives excessive powers to a Revenue Department, it will tend to use them. As an example, I shall read out the standard form of wording of a letter from one of the Revenue Departments to a small trader who has made supplies for the first time in excess of £6,000 in a three-month period during his year's trading but has not notified the department of that fact within 10 days. The standard form of letter reads:
"Although failure to notify your liability to be registered within the prescribed time limit is an offence under the Finance Act, section so and so"—
I may say that the penalty there is £1,000—
"the Commissioners have decided to take no further action".
That is the standard form of letter. Faced with this consideration of a need for a balance of power, I put forward two questions. First, before we impose penalties and charges for interest on taxpayers and attack moonlighting and the black economy, should we not simplify the tax laws so that they can be understood by the ordinary man in the street so far as those tax laws directly affect him? Secondly, before we impose any further duty or obligation on a taxpayer or threaten him with additional penalties and interest, should we not satisfy ourselves that we are not thereby imposing an excessive burden on him?
As to the first question, I throw out the suggestion that what we should replace our existing income and corporation tax laws with are two basic new taxes. The first should be a personal tax, charging simply salaries, casual earnings, dividends and other distribution of profits, with allowances, in terms of tax, so as to enable a negative income tax to be introduced, incorporating eventually social security payments; and this personal tax should be a liability of men and women on an equal basis—a simple tax just on that basis. Secondly, there shold be a business tax charging both supplies made in the course of a business and profits resulting therefrom. It is at this stage and in relation to this tax that the more complicated provisions can be introduced, as one will expect that such a tax will be administered by knowledgeable tax officials working on friendly terms with members of the accountancy profession. Then, when members of the public, individuals, can easily deal with their own personal tax liabilities, the problems of moonlighting and the black economy can be tackled effectively. Is this not better than imposing penalties and interest in an attempt to enable the Revenue to threaten and coerce taxpayers who plainly cannot be expected to understand the present complicated system?
The report recommends that the revenue departments, especially the Board of Customs and Excise, should have powers to impose default penalties and interest. It will then be left for the taxpayer to establish, if penalties are imposed upon him, that the penalties are unjustified and should be mitigated or removed. Are we satisfied that this will not cause an excessive burden of liability on the small shopkeeper, the small trader, the small business struggling to keep going, required to maintain elaborate records and faced with visits from the Revenue officers, whose duties are to find fault with the books and the returns?

1209
While on this aspect I should like to pose a subsidiary question in relation to the report. As regards the balance between the Revenue departments and the taxpayers, what recommendations are there in the report to alleviate the duties and obligations imposed upon the taxpayer? Are the recommendations as a whole not causing an undue and excessive burden upon him? Perhaps this appears clearly in one sentence from the report which I should like to cite. It says:
"enforcement powers are therefore necessary not only to coerce the dishonest and the neglectful, but to encourage the honest and conscientious".
Do the recommendations sufficiently encourage the honest and conscientious?
I hope that the report will be looked at in the way in which I have suggested—not merely from the point of view of easing the duties and obligations upon the Revenue departments so as to maximise the collection of money, but also from the point of view of the taxpayer and the burden cast upon him. I conclude by asking: do the Government regard the recommendations as maintaining the fair balance to which I have referred?
6.45 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I shall as usual try to be as brief as possible. My noble friend Lord Houghton mentioned that the Government speak in two voices. The Department of Trade and Industry encourages small businesses to start and to build up, and once they are doing that the tax authorities and the Revenue, under the rules under which they have to operate, act as a brake and very often not only intervene, but slow the process down.
It has been accepted that the taxing of earnings, basically, is counter-productive to wealth creation, and that taxing spending has always increased incentive. Yet this country has for a long, long time moved in the area of increasing the taxing of earnings instead of the taxing of spending. Of course the authorities can only operate a system as laid down by Parliament, and so the concept of taxing earnings rather than taxing spending is really the fault of Parliament. It is a strange situation.
I am told that it has been done in the cause of fairness, yet in the socialist countries, in the Soviet Union, there is only one tax—not an increasing tax. It is 8 per cent. on income irrespective of whether you are a cleaner on a factory floor or a general serving out in the Far East. Is the reason for that that the Soviet Union is not left wing enough or concerned with fairness enough, or is it that it realised that the creation of wealth—and the purpose of taxation is to create revenue for the Government—can only be achieved by increasing incentive? That is one of the points that I want to make.
Secondly, listening to the previous speakers and their comments on enforcement, it should be remembered that those countries where there is most enforcement have many more problems in enforcing obedience to the law. The amount of taxation collected depends on the co-operation of the taxpayer and the wealth creators and on their acceptance of its fairness.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby for having afforded it the opportunity to discuss this very comprehensive report. It is to be hoped that the Government will take very careful note of the views that have been expressed this afternoon. We think it is important that this report and the voluminous information that is contained within it should not be lost. Therefore, what we would suggest is that the Government themselves should give the report very careful consideration indeed and should then publish their own views upon it, because it is not only the views of the Members of your Lordships' House and those of another place that are important it is the Government's attitude towards it. Then we can all know the reasoned arguments, from the Government's standpoint, that can be put forward either in support of or in contention with the main recommendations of the report.
I find my attitude towards taxation somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, when I endeavour to take account of the public services from which I derive some benefit—public expenditure on the environment in which I live, and public expenditure on the preservation of law and order and on the provision of the various other amenities, including the National Health Service, whether these services are provided by the Government or by local authorities—part of me is immediately convinced that I am getting very good value for money in everything that I enjoy and possibly take for granted in comparison with the taxation that I pay. That is one side of me. But the other side exhibits a curious reluctance and a disinclination to pay the tax when I am presented with an assessment and the demands arising from the assessment. Possibly we all feel a little like that.
Indeed, in our relationship with the Inland Revenue many of us may to some extent sympathise with the sentiments expressed in a letter which was published in the Standard not so long ago. It was a letter sent to the Zimbabwe equivalent of the Inland Revenue, the Zimbabwe Inland Revenue Service, in which the recipient of an income tax return from the Zimbabwe taxation authority replied as follows:
"I regret so grave I am unable to complete the form, as I do not know what is meant by filling this form. However, I am not interested in this income service. Could you please cancel my name in your books, as this system has upset my mind and I do not know who registered me as one of your customers."
Many of us may, indeed, sympathise with those sentiments.
Some critical comments have been made about the Inland Revenue service this afternoon, and I do not think that personnel in the Inland Revenue service would take them amiss, particularly as they come from my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who has been described as a gamekeeper turned poacher. However, there has been serious criticism of the Keith Report itself, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply will accept my assurance that I seek to make no party political capital out of this at all.
However, I should like to quote an observation on the Keith Report which was made by Conservative Central Office, because it contains criticisms that we

1211
ought to consider. This is what the small business section of Tory Central Office issued in June:
"What the tax Inspectors and their colleagues in Customs and Excise need to learn is a different attitude. Instead of being superior in their understanding of taxation and accounting systems and sure that those who make mistakes are doing so deliberately, they might remember that every penny that is available to tax gatherers, is earned by people with different skills from their own and that it would certainly be much better to assume an honest mistake and make it easy for the taxpayer to discuss it with them than to elaborate the sanctions and penalties hanging over the businessman. In this light the Keith Report should be read. From this angle it should be fought.".
That is a formidable critique, and in some ways one aspect or another of that criticism has been dealt with by successive noble Lords who have participated in this debate.
Therefore, it ought to be borne in mind that the Inland Revenue is not responsible for the injustices in the taxation legislation; neither is the Inland Revenue—nor, for that matter, the Customs and Excise—responsible for its complexity. As many noble Lords have pointed out, the system of taxation in this country is extremely complex, and even within the ordinary ambit of income tax and corporation tax there are very considerable differences not only in the law itself but in the administration of different parts of it.
My noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby referred to the unpaid tax gatherers. In connection, for example, with Schedule E—taxes on employment and income—the taxpayer himself has very little control over the manner in which the tax is collected from him. It is deducted weekly from his wage or from his salary on the basis of a code notified to the employer by the Inland Revenue. Two things have to be borne in mind about that. First, in comparison with other taxpayers, businessmen or companies, the tax is paid month by month, thereby contributing enormously to the liquidity of the Inland Revenue and presumably the reduction of the sacred public sector borrowing requirement. On the other hand, the tax of those who are assessed under Schedule D in connection with their businesses or professions falls due some months after the end of the year in which their final profits are determined. So the Schedule E taxpayer pays promptly and the Schedule D taxpayer delays payment of his tax. The latter is indeed very privileged thereby, and, likewise, apart from the consideration of advance corporation tax, so is the company.
The Schedule E taxpayer has very little control over the total amount of tax that he pays. As I have said, the notice of coding goes from the Revenue to the employer, and it has been admitted that one in every 10 notices of coding is wrong. This is a matter which is a cause of some irritation to the ordinary wage-earning taxpayer in this country. In the first place, he cannot always understand the complexities of the form itself. The notice of coding is very simple to anybody who knows anything about tax, but it is not always so very simple either to the wage-earner, who is provided with a copy of it, or to the person dealing with it in the firm concerned.
To get it corrected is a very long process. Some wage-earners do not even know that they have the right to have it corrected if it is wrong. So there are
1212
inequities in the administration of tax which are inherent in the taxation laws themselves. It is those to which I think the Government ought to direct their attention.
In connection with the Inland Revenue, the taxation burden is not spread quite as equitably as it is sometimes thought. Large public companies have a notional rate of tax of 52 per cent. and smaller companies, within certain profit limitations, have a rate of 42 per cent. In fact, the actual rates that are suffered vary quite considerably from those figures.
The Government themselves have admitted on more than one occasion that precisely owing to the granting of first year allowances, where 100 per cent. of all capital expenditure on plant and machinery is offset against profits, the average rate in certain areas of the country paid by the larger companies is not 52 per cent. but somewhere nearer 16 per cent. to 17 per cent. Whereas companies, whether they are large or small, which have very little capital expenditure but which may be just as large tend, exactly because they are not entitled to the 100 per cent. first year allowances in respect of a decreased capital expenditure, to pay probably nearer the actual rate. These are all inequities within the system.
The Schedule E taxpayer too tends to suffer certain disabilities in addition to those which are suffered by small businessmen or the self-employed. The rules for the admissibility of expense are a continued source of friction between the Inland Revenue and the taxpayer. I am bound to say that the Inland Revenue themselves can do a lot to eliminate that friction by not pursuing, or not opening up, avenues of further disallowance or avenues of further taxation by working on the margin.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point by saying this: brewery workers, for example, allowed 12 free cans of beer each per week, are likely to have to pay tax on the monies' worth because the beer can be taken away and sold. No tax charge will be made if the beer is consumed on the premises. This is one irritating and completely unnecessary imposition on taxpayers who fall into that category.
Then again the Revenue at the moment is keen to find out how much top anglers take home from competitions. A highly successful angler may be considered to be fishing on a professional basis and his winnings would be assessed. It is a question of extent, according to the Inland Revenue. These are irritations in the enforcement of the tax laws that can easily be avoided.
There are other cases too. As, for example, a teacher who did some spare time teaching work was called back to her job and had to incur extra travelling expense in order to perform the job. That was disallowed by the Revenue. Subsequently, owing to a case brought in the courts, the decision was reversed and she was allowed the expenditure for tax purposes. But for a long time thereafter, and still in some districts, the Inland Revenue endeavoured to enforce that rule, because of course under Schedule E, unlike Schedule D, every bit of expenditure incurred by an employee has to be wholly, necessarily, and exclusively incurred in the performance of their duties. The revenue tend to interpret that very rigorously indeed.

1213
This is not the fault entirely of the Revenue. It is the fault of the way in which the legislation is drawn. It would be a good thing if some effort were made to simplify tax legislation. When I was an articled clerk, the taxation text book, which was largely founded on the provisions of the Income Tax Act 1918, was about half-an-inch thick. The case law in the years between the wars arising from the Income Tax Act 1918 was minimal. Since that time, and particularly since the war, tax legislation has become very complicated indeed. So much so that instead of having half an inch the textbooks now are anything between a foot-and-a-half to two feet wide, and they are becoming of ever-increasing complexity, and the ordinary taxpayer cannot possibly be expected to understand them.
These things are not the fault of the Inland Revenue. They are not the fault of the Inland Revenue at all. But there has been a tendency in recent months, particularly since the Ramsay case passed through the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House—the Appellate Tribunal of which your Lordships' House is from time to time—there has been a tendency on the Inland Revenue's part to take Ramsay to practically every extreme. Your Lordships will recall that the main essence of the Ramsay judgment was that although every transaction in a whole series of transactions was quite unexceptionable from the taxation standpoint, if the collection of the transactions taken as a whole was seen to be for the avoidance of income tax then the particular scheme which was devised for the precise purpose of tax avoidance could, in fact, be ruled void for tax purposes and the normal taxation liabilities would follow. I am paraphrasing the judgment very much, but there still is a tendency to open up the area which was revealed by the Ramsay decision and to apply it into spheres for which it was not specifically designed.
The other way in which Inland Revenue enforcement perhaps oversteps the mark is the endeavour to reopen past cases. There have been cases which have been negotiated out over the years between accountants representing their clients and the Inland Revenue, and a settlement has been arrived at. In more recent months there was one such case, the case of R. v. IRC ex parte Preston in which it was sought to reopen a whole series of tax settlements which had been arrived at some years before on the grounds that in a subsequent Act the arrangement arrived at four years before could not have been entered into. The judge very properly decided in that case that the Revenue were bound by the earlier decisions which they had reached in agreement with the accountants concerned.
The whole of the taxation system in this country, whether it involves the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise, depends on a certain degree of mutual trust and mutual goodwill. It is to be hoped that settlements, once arrived at, are not thereafter reopened on any grounds whatsoever.
One other word should be said, and it is this: unlike the popular impression that possibly could be derived of Inspectors of Taxes, they are probably the best tax administrators and the fairest tax administrators in the world. One can say with confidence that if there is a person with a small income, or whose affairs are comparatively minor, and they find themselves in tax difficulties, they can with confidence go themselves to
1214
their local inspector. He will, in most cases, bend over backwards to be as helpful as he can to the problems of the taxpayer, and may indeed—and he frequently does—open up avenues of claim which the taxpayers themselves had not thought of. These things should always be borne in mind.
I hope—and I think your Lordships will hope—that although we may look forward to taxation simplification, we shall not greatly disturb the method of administration of our taxation system as it exists now and certainly not without the Government coming out with a detailed White Paper as to their attitude and the Keith report; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, has said, by due consultation with the consultative committee of accountancy bodies. This I think would be of great advantage but I feel—as many of your Lordships may feel—that we should not tamper with the system for the sake of change. We should change it only if we are convinced, after full consideration of all the factors, that it continues to preserve the fair balance between the taxpayer on the one hand and the Revenue or the Customs and Excise on the other. I hope that the debate which my noble friend Lord Houghton has initiated this afternoon, and the contributions that they were made to it by your Lordships, may enable the Government to approach the whole subject on those lines.
7.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the contributions to this short debate from all sides of the House. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has done your Lordships a service by calling attention to this significant report, and in doing so in what I think we all agree was an entertaining way. I am a little conscious that my contribution may be rather dryer but not very long. I am also afraid that what I have to say is a little constrained, but not so constrained, I think, that I cannot start by quoting the obvious, with which everyone would agree, in the preamble to the noble and learned Lord's report, in which he says:
"Tax gatherers have been unpopular everywhere throughout the whole course of history".
He goes on:
"The payment of taxes is accompanied by a degreee of reluctance, greater in some persons that in others".
All the issues raised by the report are matters to which Ministers are giving considerable attention and study, so that I associate myself with the welcome given to the report in another place by my honourable friend the Financial Secretary, who said:
"We are grateful to the Committee for its work. The Report is a very substantial document. It deserves careful study and full consultation. This will inevitably be a long process"—[Official Report. Commons, 24/2/83; col. 1047]
Before I deal with specific matters raised in the debate, perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of the scale of the ground covered by the Report of the Committee on the Enforcement Powers of the Revenue Departments. Volumes 1 and 2 alone, which were pulished on 23rd March 1983, run to over 550 pages of closely argued text, together with a further 250 pages of summary and background notes. The

1215
scope includes, for Inland Revenue, the enforcement powers applying to income tax, corporation tax and capital gains tax. For Customs and Excise, the VAT powers are covered.
The committee have not yet finished their deliberations. A further volume (Volume 3) expected later in the year will be concerned with (for Inland Revenue) development land tax, capital transfer tax, petroleum revenue tax and stamp duty. For Customs and Excise, the topics to be included are customs, excise, betting and gaming duties and car tax.
It follows that, in one sense, our debate today might be thought a shade premature, in that we have not yet had the committee's last word on the totality of tax enforcement powers which they were set to study. That view is not shared by the Government. We are always ready to listen to views and we welcome authoritative comment. The contributions made by those of your Lordships who have taken part in this evening's debate will be carefully considered by the Government.
We recognise that the powers in respect of the taxes which were covered in Volumes 1 and 2 of the report are those which have attracted the most public interest and debate in the past. Indeed, my Lords, I cite as illustration the fact that, as he said, the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, himself has taken a prominent part in previous discussions of the Inland Revenue's power to enter premises under warrant and search for evidence of tax fraud under Section 20C of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which was enacted in the 1976 Finance Act. That power, together with the equivalent search power under the VAT code embodied in Section 37(3) of the Finance Act 1972, was examined in great depth by the committee, which devoted some 50 pages to it: Chapter 9 is concerned with criminal investigation of trading taxpayers.
The search powers to which I have referred represent one particularly sensitive area of both Revenue departments' enforcement activity, Other areas that have given rise to a measure of public disquiet include control and investigation techniques which can involve "in depth" examinations of trading taxpayers' affairs, and the application of such tests as rate of gross profit to purchases. On the other side, anxiety has been expressed in your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the loss of revenue in the black economy.
We now have the considered views of the committee, which sat for some two and a half years before producing Volumes 1 and 2 and took evidence from 64 organisations, including all those representative bodies which are particularly interested in taxation issues. The committee have helpfully signposted in their introductory chapter their broad impressions upon the topics which have excited some controversy. Here, it might be helpful if I quote from relevant extracts from the report. First, in respect of the Inland Revenue, I am quoting from Chapter 1, Paragraph 4.2, which reads:
"Our conclusion [on in depth accounts investigations] is that the broad approach of Inspectors is reasonable and appropriate, although we consider that much more should be done to describe to taxpayers the nature of the procedure and the reasons that underlie and justify putting questions to them both about their business and their private life styles".
1216
"As regards the use made by the Department of the power to search under warrant for evidence of tax fraud, the few occasions upon which it has been invoked since 1976 [16 cases in total] do not, in our view, amount to an oppressive exercise of power against the business community in general or small businesses in particular".
My Lords, on matters concerning Customs and Excise, the report says at Chapter 1, Paragraph 4.4:
"As regards the aspects of VAT enforcement that have given rise to most controversy, we have concluded that control visiting should continue to be the principal means of checking compliance. We are satisfied with Departmental instructions about, and the overall conduct of control visiting. We are however recommending modifications to the relevant powers and enhanced safeguards. We have also satisfied ourselves that the general practice on making assessments 'to best judgement', including mark-up assessments, is satisfactory in the great bulk of cases and that the avenues for review and redress are appropriate, with effective and modern independent appeal machinery. We have noted that the Departmental guidelines for exercise of powers by the VAT specialist investigators have been developed and strengthened over the years since the start of VAT in the light of experience. It is our impression that the current incidence of justified complaints is low and not such as to justify a recommendation to change the present arrangements. As regards search under warrant, we have noted that the use of the power is turning up evidence of substantial frauds in more than nine cases out of ten, and we have concluded that its use by Customs and Excise is responsible and not indiscriminate and that the execution of the warrants is generally well conducted".
The Government have taken note of the findings of the committee in these sensitive areas. It is right that debate should now be joined in a wider forum, both inside and outside your Lordships' House. With a report of the scale and depth of this one, well-informed debate would not be best served by rushing in with first impressions. The report has now been in the public domain for just four months. The Institute for Fiscal Studies mounted a half-day seminar in June, and the report forms a major part of a two-day conference planned by them for September. The College of Law devoted a morning seminar to the report as recently as 10th July. The Government welcome the expression of considered views on the report now that some reasonable time has been available to read it and think about the issues it explores. The views of those professions and interest groups affected, such as accountants and small businesses—accountants being what my noble friend Lord Polwarth, in particular, referred to—will be especially welcome.
Finally, I am grateful to have this opportunity to express the Government's appreciation of the considerable efforts that the noble and learned Lord. Lord Keith of Kinkel, and his colleagues have put into their report. The report is an impressive document which reflects the noble and learned Lord's personal qualities of clarity and incisiveness. It is right that such a lengthy and thorough piece of work should be considered in its entirety, and your Lordships will understand that it is still early days for the Government to form a considered view. However, the comments expressed this evening have been extremely useful and, as I said earlier, will greatly assist us in coming to our conclusions. May I therefore end by saying that we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for giving us the opportunity to consider the matter this evening.
7.22 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I think it has been worth while to have this

1217
preliminary discussion on the report and to give some first reactions to it. I count myself very fortunate in being a kind of "curtain-raiser" to the debate on this report, and I very gladly gave way to more temperate counsel when I had finished my speech.
Four professional accountants have taken part in this debate. Not always is the close alliance between the professional accountants and the Inland Revenue to be welcomed, but at least it is instructive. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, speaks from great experience as chairman of VAT appeals tribunals. He made some comments which I am sure will receive careful consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, told a moving story of how the follies of husbands can be visited upon their widows. I would respectfully suggest that the duties of the Inland Revenue, vast and extensive as they are, hardly go so far as saving widows from the follies of their husbands. Their job is to look after the revenue and not to look after the financial tribulations of widowhood. Husbands are supposed to have a sense of responsibility towards their widows, and if they go on fiddling and put themselves in a real jam at the time of their death, then if there is any way they can listen to what happens afterwards they must surely be full of remorse for what they did!
My noble friend Lord Bruce made the familiar plea for simplification. Winston Churchill appointed a simplification committee many years ago. It lasted nine years; it killed three chairmen; and it produced a brand-new income tax Act which flabbergasted everybody, including the Inland Revenue. In the end people allowed it to be known that they preferred the devil they knew to the one they did not know, and no more was heard of it. Then, of course, we had a Chancellor of the Exchequer, the late Sir Kingsley Wood, who badly wanted to make income tax understood by the people; but he, tragically enough, died on the very day in 1943 on which he was due to introduce, in another place, the Second Reading of the Finance Bill which started Pay-as-you-Earn. So history is full of interesting events on the question of simplification.
The answer is that taxpayers are so obsessed with the refinements of "fairness" that their demands make for complexity in taxation; and when we say that the general public are not responsible for the complexities of the taxation systems imposed upon them, the answer is that to a very large extent they are. They want differentials and they want refinements. "Fairness" is the plague of the British people. Life itself is unfair, but they do not believe it. The various forms of bureaucracy and public administration are believed to bring fairness into our lives, and people grumble if they do not. The realism of life should really be clearer to many members of the public than is the case today.
I have had my say. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and I welcome him as a kind of new financial Minister. Those who are on the Front Bench opposite become jacks of all trades and masters of quite a few. We look forward to his further contributions to the debates when the time comes. Allow me to say to him that he has done all that could be expected of him today, because obviously we understand the position of the Government. Prematurely to have made declarations about their
1218
own attitude would have been quite unsuitable, and that is why I personally refrained from asking him any questions. I thought I would leave it to the noble Lord's own discretion as to whether or not he commented on my speech. He did so quite generously. That is all I could expect of him, and I am very grateful to him and to all other noble Lords. If we found a debate on the enforcement of the powers of the taxation authorities entertaining in some degree, then I am sure we can look forward to further debates with anticipation, and these debates might be even more exciting than those on the Data Protection Bill or the other responsibilities that are currently before us. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Human Rights: Violation
7.27 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster Viscount Buckmaster rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will define their attitude towards the continuing violation of human rights in Asia (less the Soviet Union), Africa and Latin America.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so I am conscious of the immensity of my task and of my own inadequacy in attempting it. Indeed, I feel like a hill-walker who has hitherto tackled nothing more challenging than the Pennine Way, now confronted with the great panoply of the Himalayas.
In fact, the Question we are considering tonight is far beyond the scope of most Unstarred Questions. Over the last year—in fact it was exactly a year ago when I tabled a Motion in this sense—I have collected enough material on human rights violations, on the basis of press reports, media reports, reports from Amnesty International and, above all, the testimonies of friends, to cover at least four Unstarred Questions. However, I think your Lordships will agree, in the light of the very interesting and wide-ranging debates we have had recently in your Lordships' House on Communism and world hunger, that these wide-ranging debates are particularly valuable when dealing with the problem of human rights. I feel that this human rights problem is far more terrible and far more tragic than that of hunger, if only because its solution lies wholly within the power of mankind.
Somewhat surprisingly, I have discovered that there has been no wide-ranging debate of this kind on human rights either in your Lordships' House or in another place over the past few years. We have of course had numerous debates; there have been Starred Questions, Unstarred Questions and Questions for Written Answer on the legal and other aspects of human rights. But I propose tonight to consider this question in its starkest human terms, clothing the bare bones of the statistics with the flesh of suffering humanity—scars, scabs and all. In doing so, I am quite convinced that my presentation will be inadequate and probably inaccurate; but I hope your Lordships will not accuse me of exaggeration because that would surely be the greatest crime to commit in a speech of this kind.
One thing that has impressed me as a result of my researches is that, whether the violations of human rights in the areas that we are considering increasing or decreasing—they may be increasing in some areas and decreasing in others—nevertheless, they are continuing and continuing on a vast and terrifying scale. In fact they have been continuing since time immemorial and we can perhaps see a direct link between the massacre of the innocents by Herod and the slaughter of innocent civilians at Mai Lai by Lieutenant Calley in Vietnam—or more terribly the slaughter of 300,000 in Kampuchea by the armed forces between 1975 and 1979, of 500,000 or so in Indonesia between 1965 and 1966 and of many hundreds of thousands slaughtered by Amin in Uganda between 1971 and 1979. And so with torture. The rack and the thumbscrew of the Middle Ages have been replaced by electrodes attached to human genitals, and other diabolical devices.
However, I must give a more precise analysis of the situation. According to the latest report published by Amnesty International, in October 1982, which is nearly a year out of date now, violations of human rights which take the form of extra-judicial execution, abduction, imprisonment without trial and torture in prisons, were reported in 48 out of a total of 53 countries in Africa, in 32 out of a total of 39 in Asia and in 19 out of a total of 24 in Latin America which, if my geography and my addition are right—and they may not be infallible—gives us a total of 99 countries which are violating human rights out of a total of 116. If one were to prepare a blacklist of the worst violators, that would include Iran, Uganda, Guatemala, El Salvador, Chile, Pakistan, Kampuchea, Argentina and the Philippines—not necessarily in that order.
But these facts do not present the full picture, partly because Amnesty International is not able to obtain material about every country where violations are taking place, partly because there is another and important aspect of this problem which Amnesty International does not cover.
I need not remind your Lordships that we are within a very few days of the 150th anniversary of the death of William Wilberforce. A recent report in the press, which some of your Lordships may have seen, came to the astonishing conclusion that slavery is now more widespread even than it was in the days of Wilberforce. I find that hard to accept. Nevertheless, in this so-called civilised world of ours the most terrible things are happening in the sphere of slavery.
First, there is the exploitation and abuse of children. We learn from reliable evidence that in India no fewer than 16 million children between the ages of five and 15 are working for up to 12 or more hours a day in appalling conditions. In Iran and Turkey, little girls of five—and I think in some cases even less than five—are employed in the carpet factories: again, working long and tedious hours for a pittance, and they are employed because their nimble little fingers are more adept at stitching.
Then we have Morocco, where young boys—and some of your Lordships may have seen this—are employed in the tanneries, their bodies stained with dye in the same way that chimney-sweepers in Britain
1220
had their bodies encrusted with soot. Perhaps I can remind your Lordships that, although we no longer send children up chimneys, the caseload of battered and abused children handled by the NSPCC has increased by no less than 23 per cent, over the past year.
Then there is the very important problem of debt bondage which is widely practised in India, Mauritania and elsewhere. For example, in India there are supposed to be something like five million people who are now indebted to moneylenders, and this debt bondage extends in some cases to as many as nine generations. I could also mention the growing rate of female infanticide in China, the widespread practice of female circumcision in Africa and elsewhere, the burning of young brides in India and a recent report to the effect that over the next few years something like 5 million people in the Philippines are likely to die as a result of the Government's policy directed against the tribes.
One of the problems that we face—and it is perhaps the most important one of all—is lack of adequate information. Perhaps I may illustrate this by asking your Lordships to imagine a tapestry. somewhat like the Bayeux tapestry, extending from the Table to the Throne. On it one would see a mass of scenes showing the violations of human rights which are going on now, or which have taken place over the past few months. Most of this tapestry is in darkness, but here and there we have a little scene illuminated by the spotlight of a press report or perhaps the testimony of a person who has been there recently.
Let me start with Iran, where a bloody and insensate fanaticism still rules, and our first scene is of a secondary school where we see a group of soldiers rushing in and seizing some students, some of them in their early teens, dragging them off, protesting, to serve as cannon fodder in the army. In Iran, too, we see a group of Baha'is who are going to their execution, because they refuse to renounce their faith. As your Lordships may be aware, the persecution of the Baha'is has continued even since the Question in your Lordships' House on 28th June. But this persecution is not limited to Baha'is. It is not limited to Moslems. For example, in the Philippines we find widespread persecution of the Christian Church. Its leaders are being arrested and detained and in some cases tortured.
Let me now turn to Uganda. Here I must pause for a moment, because that is the area with which I am most familiar. I served there about 12 years ago and I have been responsible for maintaining certain Ugandans who have had to flee the country as a result of earlier persecution.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the situation from press reports, since Uganda has attracted more attention from the media than any other country in Africa or, indeed, in the third world. What has been happening is that the army have been running amok. They have been rampaging around, in most cases unpaid and unfed. They have been menacing and attacking civilians and have been doing so under the guise of eliminating guerrillas. But many of the young people killed and arrested were no more guerrillas than any of your Lordships' teenage sons. I was also told by

1221
a Briton who came back recently from Uganda that there are also what are known as "safe houses" in which rich businessmen are imprisoned and in some cases tortured until they can pay a ransom. Finally, there are, as your Lordships will be aware from recent press reports, something like 100,000 refugees herded into camps: people who have fled from the terror of the villages. To my horror, I heard from this source that the army had even been attacking the refugees in these camps.
We must be balanced and patient. We must accept that President Obote wants to restore order, and we are giving him support. I feel sure that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to enlarge upon this point. But it is perhaps a little difficult for the Ugandan Government to maintain that the terrible excesses of the army are committed without their knowledge when torture is widespread in prisons which are within a few miles of government headquarters.
Finally in this survey of our tapestry, we turn to Buenos Aires, where we find a mother grieving over the loss of her son—one of the 90,000 people who, we understand, have disappeared from Argentina, Chile and Mexico. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Chitnis will be able to enlarge upon this.
One very disturbing aspect of this human rights problem is that so many religious leaders, in particular state leaders, justify their policies on the basis of their religion. President Rios Montt of Guatemala claims to be a "born again" Christian, yet this does not prevent him allowing his army to commit the most terrible excesses. Exactly a year ago there was a report from an American missionary of a group of 89 people in Guatemala who were herded into a camp, shot or beaten to death and then burned; of the babies, tied to their mothers' backs, going, living, into the flames. Again, if this report is to be believed, young children were roped together and dragged into the flames. All of us would agree that the apartheid policy in South Africa is the very antithesis of Christian teaching, yet there are South African leaders who justify their policy on the basis of the Bible.
I turn now to Judaism. We find that President Begin justifies his policy of attacking the opponents of his régime—the Palestinian Arabs and so on—on the basis of the tooth for a tooth and the eye for an eye policy. And how often has he taken a whole jawful of teeth for one tooth, a whole fateful of eyes for one eye? But one learns from the Torah: "Who is strong? He who makes of his enemy a friend". Leading Judaistic divines tell me that this policy of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye is now wholly unacceptable.
Thirdly, I turn to Islam, a religion which I have studied in some detail. Some people may say that President Khomeini's policy of executions and mutilations is justified by the Koran. If noble Lords read the Koran, as I have, they will find that the words coming through most forcefully are: "God is merciful, compassionate". They shine like a great beacon through the fog of obscurity which clouds so much of the Koran. What is even more important is that we read:
"And the recompense of evil is punishment like it; but whoso forgives and amends his reward is with Allah".
Is not that perhaps the most terrible of all the problems now facing human rights? Throughout most of the
1222
world the element of forgiveness is nowhere to be found.
Let me examine, too, the theory that suffering ennobles. In that context, I must speak particularly of the Ugandan martyrs. Forty-six of them went to their deaths in 1885 because they refused to renounce Christianity. They were marched from Kampala to a hill outside the city and given five days in which to collect firewood for their pyres. They died glorifying God. The spirit of those martyrs lives on now. It is found in the death of Archbishop Luwum, whose martyrdom was commemorated by the Pope on his visit to Britain. It is found throughout much of Uganda now. I have found the most moving examples of it. Some of the finest Christians I have met in the world have been Ugandans.
A visitor from outer space might indeed be amazed. He might well ask what is the correlation between the suprahuman which we find in this world and the sub-bestial: between our Luwums and our Schweitzers, our Hitlers and Amins. And would this visitor not also say that we have got our priorities wrong? We discover the mysteries of the atom, yet we use atomic energy to produce what Milton would call "great engines of war". We explore the mysteries of the moon and the marvels of Mars and yet we fail to light those little lanterns of love, those humble candles of mercy, tolerance and compassion which, if lit widely enough throughout the world, would surely transform it. Those lights remain unlit. Meanwhile, the violations of human rights continue, week after week, month after month, year after year—the terror, the torture, the senseless slaughter, the degradation and the despair, creating, as it were, a cacophony of sound even more horrendous than the Mars movement in Holst's suite "The Planets".
And what do we do? What is our reaction? Most of us, I fear, retreat, unable to bear this horror, eyes tightly closed, hands over ears. But surely, as human beings, we must show understanding and compassion. Having served for 30 years abroad, I feel that the things which unite us are more powerful than those which divide us, that the universal brotherhood of man is not just an empty concept, "like sounding brass or tinkling cymbal". It is something real and meaningful, for which we must all work.
I know that our sphere of action is comparatively limited, but perhaps I may briefly put to the noble Lord the Minister four proposals which I feel are worth considering. First, I feel that we must instil in our Foreign Service personnel a greater realisation of human rights problems. During the whole of my service, it was only in the last two years that I was given any directions at all about this matter, although the most terrible violations of human rights were occurring all around me. All too often I fear that the Foreign Office has used the provision in the United Nations Charter of Human Rights against interference in the affairs of foreign states as a convenient hedge under which to shelter from the harshest blasts of cruelty and intolerance.
Secondly, stemming from that, I would recommend that we give closer consideration to the human rights records of states with which we are in relationship. This may perhaps involve some modification of our

1223
trade or aid policy, but I cannot go into that now. Thirdly, I would submit that we should complain to the UN Commission on Human Rights, where complaint is justified, in concert with our EEC partners. Fourthly, I would recommend that we give every possible assistance to the promotion of the many organisations, most of them unofficial organisations like Amnesty, and so on, a great many all over the third world, working for human rights. There is now a charter, The African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which has been set up under the Organisation of African Unity which will achieve that. Unfortunately, this charter has so far been ratified by only seven African states. Might we not perhaps consider sowing the idea of such a charter among the Arab League states?
Finally, I would quote from that very lovely poem of Arthur Clough:
"And while the tired waves vainly breaking
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back, through creeks and inlets making,
Comes silent, flooding in, the main.".
Have we not all stood on the shore wondering whether the tide is turning? I feel in my bones that the tide is turning. There are signs that it is, not least in the recent Madrid Conference between East and West. There are signs all over the developing world that the tide is turning, and the day may not be far distant when those waters of mercy and compassion "come silent, flooding in" to fill the creeks and inlets throughout the world to cover the harsh boulders of cruelty, the jagged rocks of intolerance; and we, although of course the movement of tides is outside human control, must surely do all we can to bring about the return of compassion and reason. Our voice can still be a powerful voice, especially if used in conjunction with the voices of our friends in the United States and Europe. It will be listened to, and it must be heard.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I believe we would all agree that the noble Viscount is doing a public service in asking this Question and in initiating this debate tonight. There is only one point in his speech which I would pick up, and that is where he hinted at the powers of darkness which have been mobilised by the developed, industrialised world. It is not simply the anniversary of Wilberforce that we are thinking of today: we are also within a few days of the 38th anniversary of the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima. Nothing could be more certain to abolish all human rights than the waging of a nuclear war which was initiated by the developed, not the developing, world.
I want to concentrate on one area tonight, and I want particularly to probe the Government's mind—because that is the purpose of this Question—as to their actions, as distinct from their fair words, in relation to the issue under discussion. I should like to say, first of all, that I hope and trust that nobody will misinterpret anything I say tonight as a justification for the horrors, the cruelty and the barbarous acts which I know of and have witnessed time without number on the continent of Africa; but I believe that it is more important, particularly for the Government and for us as Members of both Houses of Parliament. to understand first, before condemning.
1224
It was that notable statesman Lee Kwan Yew who said a few years ago at an international conference in Africa that one of the major failures of British colonial rule was that we had left no structure of security within those states which attained independence, and I believe that to have been proved and proved again, time without number, over the last 25 years. Those of us who have been in close contact with the men and women who have had to deal with the agonising problems of the newly-independent countries can only sympathise with them in the terrible choices with which they have so often been left. I am particularly recalling an evening on which I had to discuss for many hours with a president, who was an old friend of mine, whether or not he should confirm death sentences on a number of men, all of whom had been our friends—friends of both the president and myself. The choice, as he saw it, was between following his own humane instincts and the danger that, if he did so, he would be considered a weak man, opening the way to further disruption and possible civil war. That was a choice which should face no human being.
It is not surprising that in the continent of Africa at this time and in this generation there should be a great deal of violence, a great deal of cruelty and a great many human rights denied to millions of people. It is not surprising if one knows the slightest facts about the history of the continent. That is a history which over the last 500 years has been dominated, first of all, by the slave trade imposed from without, from Europe and Arabia—there was no slave trade in Africa itself as we know it; there was domestic slavery, but not chattel slavery—and by the removal and consequent disruption of whole communities; generations of young men and women taken from their countries.
That was followed by the division of the continent between European states; by the accompanying brutality, such as that in the Congo which shocked the world, and the domination of alien peoples and alien systems; and by the introduction of totally new concepts of political life. Then there were the wars of liberation, such as were to be seen particularly in the French and Portuguese colonies, which concluded with a continent divided totally artificially, divided completely according to European considerations, with profound divisions between ethnic communities, between economic communities and between geographic regions. It is not surprising, I suggest, that the consequence is a great deal of violence, a great deal of chaos and a great deal of terror.
Then, following independence, there was the introduction of the market place; of a consumer society; of the open encouragement to the entrepreneur. There was the large scale destruction of the egalitarian state. These are not excuses and they are not justifications—they are facts. They are facts which could only lead to tragedy.
But Africa is a continent in a state of transition and experiment. All I will add to that which I have said about the continent as a whole is that in those experiments, we must understand much more shrewdly than is common in this country or in Europe that, for example, the single party state—when it is conducted in a democratic fashion. as it is in Tanzania, Zambia and in a number of other countries—may very well fit into the needs of the

1225
people of those countries at this present stage. It is not necessarily undemocratic. In some ways, it is even more deeply democratic than the imposition of a Westminster model on societies which have not developed along the same lines as our society in this country.
I will finish by asking the Government a question concerning their attitude to a country in Africa for which I believe we in this country still have a major responsibility. That country is South Africa. Why "a major responsibility"? Because it was Britain who imposed and devised the original South African constitution in 1909–10. In that constitution, it was the British Parliament which, for the first time, introduced constitutionally the provision that only those with white skin colour should be allowed to legislate. This was the first time in the history of South Africa that this provision had been laid down as a constitutional principle and enshrined in the constitution.
Some of the brave Afrikaners of the time, such as Mr. Schreiner, came and petitioned Parliament to reject the constitution. As they saw it, Britain was devising a constitution for South Africa which could only lead to a denial of basic human rights for the vast majority of the population. Within three years of the acceptance of that constitution, the South Africans had devised land settlement—a settlement which left 13–7 per cent, of the land to nearly 80 per cent, of the African people and the remaining 84·3 per cent, of the land to the white people.
It is ridiculous to talk about apartheid as though it is something new to South Africa. It is the logical conclusion of a trend and process which goes right back into South African history—and certainly right back to the British constitution of 1910. From that time onwards, there has been a struggle in South Africa for human rights. The first basic human right is the right to participate in the government of one's own society. That is a right which we have enshrined in the phrase "No taxation without representation". That right has been denied to nearly 80 per cent, of the population of South Africa since 1910. That right is still denied. It is denied even more firmly today than it was in 1910. Rights have been progressively taken away from the Africans, from the coloureds, and from the Asians in South Africa ever since. Now, the nonwhite population is being still further discriminated against by being expelled from urban life. Literally millions of Africans have been moved from their homes over the past few years—compulsorily moved to settlements in the so-called Bantustans. Those are settlements where they cannot sustain themselves, and where it is estimated by one South African professor that 30,000 children die every year; this, in the richest country in the continent.
I have deliberately given a short précis of this issue because I wish to tackle the question: what can the Government do? It is not enough to say that we are against apartheid. The fact is that under the pressures of apartheid, a resistance movement has inevitably developed. Perhaps I should declare an interest because I have been banned from South Africa for 24 years now. But I was in South Africa when the great congress took place which proclaimed the Freedom
1226
Charter. The preamble to the Freedom Charter stated quite simply:
"We the people of South Africa declare for all our country and the world to know that South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no Government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of all the people".
Surely, that is the first human right. In Africa the second—perhaps equal—right is the right to own one's land. That is a right which, as I have shown, has been denied to the vast majority of the people of South Africa for the past 70 years.
As a consequence of the resistance, we find again, inevitably, that there are tortures in the prison cells; that there are deaths in police offices; that there are massive trials; that there are bannings; that there are restrictions. One finds that friends with whom I worked, such as Nelson Mandela and Walter Sisulu, have been incarcerated for 20 years, and have spent most of their adult lives in gaol. These are deliberate refusals to provide the basic human rights which the African people are demanding.
When one denies human rights to people, they inevitably—as all peoples have done—fight back. In that fight, there are martyrs and there are victims. This is the society which was initiated along those lines by Britain. It is a society which is sustained with the aid of British capital. British trade, and with the support of some leading members, as we saw only last week in the cricket world, of the British establishment.
I should like to ask the Government what they intend to do about the growing, dangerous international repercussions of the situation in southern Africa—a situation in which the fundamental human rights, as the Government I know will admit, are denied to the vast majority of the people. I repeat, it is not enough to say that we disagree with and dislike, or even abhor, apartheid. What are the Government going to do when the international community has constantly demanded action against that regime which is destroying the human rights of the vast majority of the South African people?
May I finish with a quotation, which some of' your Lordships will have heard before, because I think it symbolises the real issue as it is seen through the eyes of the majority of Africans within South Africa, within a South Africa which is the only country in the world that I know of that denies human rights on the grounds of birth, on the grounds of the skin colour that a baby is born with. Again I will quote from my martyred friend Nelson Mandela who, when he was sentenced at the Rivonia trial to life imprisonment because of his opposition to the regime, had this to say—and I believe it is a text for all who fight on behalf of the human rights of the world community. He said:
"I have fought against white domination and I have fought against black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and see realised. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.".
That is the spirit of the African resistance movement in South Africa. I should like to know where the Government stand in this war which now has been waged certainly over the past 20 years: I should like to know where the British Government stand in the middle of this war for the human rights of the majority of the South African community.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Chitnis: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Viscount for introducing this Question tonight, and particularly because I want to talk specifically about E1 Salvador, congratulate him on its timeliness, because it is at the end of this month that the American Administration has to certify yet again whether there has been an improvement in the human rights situation in E1 Salvador thus to justify continuing sending military aid to that country. President Reagan has just set up his commission on the long-term problems of Central America, and former President Duarte has just visited this country. I would say in parenthesis that I am glad the Government gave him a warm welcome. I do hope that while they did so they reflected that without the ill-conceived and unnecessary election in E1 Salvador last year he would still be the president of that country. Secondly, I should like yet again to echo his request to the Government that a British embassy may again be established in E1 Salvador.
Although it is seven months since I was last in that country. I have had recent first-hand contact with it in a long conversation I had two or three weeks ago with Ana Margarita Gasteazoro. She is a prominent member of the Salvadorian Labour Party, the MNR, who was detained two years ago. She was tortured at the National Guard headquarters there, and has been in prison since then until she was suddenly released on 23rd May this year. I would like to say two things about her. The first is to thank those people in this country who worked so hard for her release. When she was first detained, I, together with a Labour and a Conservative Member of another place, wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, who was then Foreign Secretary, and asked him if he could do anything to help in this situation. He did say that he would make enquiries and I believe that a British diplomat did visit her when she was in prison. I am glad, though a little bit surprised, to see that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is answering the debate tonight. I am glad because he was a Minister for about half the time that she was in detention, and on the assumption that there must have been considerable efforts made by the Foreign Office to secure her release, I think that appreciation should be expressed.
Nonetheless, one should remember, as she herself said, that she may have been released and others may have been released with her, but those who were released were quite arbitrarily chosen. Many prisoners still remain in political detention, and many of them have been detained longer than she had been. The other thing she made very clear was the deep fear of those who have been released but who, unlike her, have been unable to leave the country. They are marked, they are living in an atmosphere of the death squads and they are obviously very frightened people indeed. In fact, in a sense those who are in prison in E1 Salvador are the lucky ones, because outside the prison the picture continues to be dreadful.
In the last period of seven days for which I have detailed information—and this is about five or six weeks ago—there were 37 civilian killings and 18 disappearances. Do remember, with regard to these figures, that we are talking about a country with a
1228
population one-twelfth the size of the United Kingdom. Among the dead was a man called Pablo Torres. The significant thing about him was that he was a beneficiary of a previous amnesty. It gives point to the fears of those who have recently been released that at any moment the same thing may happen to them. Among the other dead or disappeared within these few days was a former promoter of the Agrarian Reform Agency, a doctor who was a former MNR (socialist) activist, a professor from San Salvador and the secretary of the Catholic University of the West. In case anyone harbours the unworthy thought that it is only the Left that gets damaged in E1 Salvador, the Christian Democrat headquarters—that is, the Salvadorian equivalent of Central Office—was sprayed with machine gun fire, and Ray Prendes, who is a distinguished Christian Democrat politician in E1 Salvador, who is trying to work within the system and could not by any stroke of imagination be called a Left-wing guerrilla, blamed the extreme Right. I do emphasise that those are events that happened in just one week in El Salvador.
In these circumstances it seems to me that to certify that there has been an improvement of human rights in that country is impossible. But of course it will be done. President Reagan is determined on his policy of military aid to the E1 Salvadorian Government and he will simply tailor the facts to suit his case. While I wish the commission he has set up success, the negative terms in which it was announced do not seem to me to augur very well. In other words, I consider American policy in E1 Salvador to be both blinkered and inadequate. I hope that the Minister tonight, and the British Government in future, will at best dissociate themselves from that policy, but at least express some reservations about American policy in E1 Salvador, because what is happening there is so damaging to the cause of human rights the world over.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, we have heard an appalling catalogue tonight of the abuse of basic human rights, on the grounds of colour, very forcibly put by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I would certainly like to associate myself with the feelings that he expressed, on the grounds of politics, as expressed, by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis. The noble Viscount also drew our attention to abuses of human rights on grounds of religious belief in various parts of the world. I should like to associate myself with that and to reinforce what he said.
It seems almost beyond belief in this century that people can be oppressed because of simple religious belief, and yet it is happening. Possibly the prime example at the present time is the continuing appalling suppression of the Baha'is in Iran, in spite of so very many protests. One has only to meet a few of the Baha'is to realise what peaceful, tolerant, co-operative people they are. Their attitude to their fellow men is always most impressive. One cannot mix with them for more than a few minutes without feeling that here is a touch of godliness. whether it is our religion or not. Speaking for myself, and for everyone else I know who has had anything to do with them, there is a feeling of sickness and disbelief that the persecution of these

1229
people can be tolerated in this world, but it is happening.
The Iranian constitution is most extraordinary. It lays down an Islamic state as being fundamental in Iran. But it tolerates certain nominated groups as well. It names Christians as a tolerated minority. It also names Jews as a tolerated minority. However, unless a group is mentioned in the constitution, its members are simply non-people with no rights whatever as human beings. This is an astonishingly blinkered attitude. The Baha'is are not mentioned although there are about 300,000 who live in Iran, and have done so for many generations. They do not exist legally because their religion is not mentioned in the constitution. Because of this they are denied every decent human right. Their marriages are not recognised and because they are not recognised any Baha'is who marry under the Baha'i rites are regarded as living in immorality and are liable to all sorts of penalties. They are subjected to deprivation of educational opportunities. They have no property rights. Their property is liable to confiscation at any time. This has been going on for year after year.
A number of recent incidents have particularly stuck in my mind. In the city of Shiraz, 80 Baha'is were recently arrested simply for being Baha'is. They were subjected to enormous pressure to convert to Islam and to recant their own faith, but they refused to do so. Out of the 80 who were arrested 22 were condemned to death. The astonishing cruelty of that persecution is shown by the fact that the authorities, although having condemned 22, did not name which 22 were to be executed. So far 19 have been executed. Presumably another three of the survivors remain under sentence of death, but they do not know who they will be. What greater cat and mouse game can one imagine—and this is done in the name of God!
In the village of Ival recently 130 Baha'is were rounded up and driven into a walled field. They were left there without food or water under the blazing sun. They were told they would be let out only when they were converted. They refused to be converted. After three days and nights of exposure they were eventually let out, but they were abused, stoned and chased into the woods. Of course, they still refused to be converted.
An incident which possibly more than any of these touched me recently was when a Baha'i husband and wife were subjected to extreme pressure to renounce their religion. Understandably, the husband changed his religion and was pardoned. The wife refused and was executed. It is believed that the husband has since developed an extreme psychological disturbance, which is not surprising. What ghastly, impossible pressure that is to put on families—again, in the name of God! It is absolutely right that we should express our revulsion at such abuses.
President Reagan appealed to the Government of Iran to pardon the Shiraz Baha'is who were condemned to death. In spite of his appeal, many of the sentences have been carried out. What a pity it is that the rest of the leaders of nations in the world did not associate themselves with President Reagan's demand.
1230
Her Majesty's Government have a good record on the admission of Baha'i refugees. I pay tribute to the Government for having taken that attitude, and I appeal to them to continue with that attitude because I have a strong feeling that the flow of refugees will continue and increase. Perhaps we can also press the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at its meeting beginning in August to renew its appeal to Iran to take a more civilised attitude. We should renew the pressure on the Secretary General of the United Nations to send his envoy to Iran in order to make representations on the spot.
Possibly the best pressure that could be exerted on the Government of Iran would be from the Moslem nations. There are a number of Moslem nations in the Commonwealth with whom we should have a special influence. The Moslem religion is one of the world's major religions and the overwhelming majority of Moslems are godfearing and good living people for whom one must have the deepest respect. But surely every Moslem should realise that the events in Iran and the outrages being committed against the Baha'is in the name of Islam are besmirching the reputation of the whole religion, whether or not they themselves are associated with it. Therefore, it is very much in the interests of the whole of Islam that all Moslems should condemn the abuses in Iran for the sake of their own religion. Her Majesty's Government should perhaps press this point of view with Moslem members of the Commonwealth.
In saying that I am certainly not taking a holier-than-thou attitude. The Christian religion in its time has committed some appalling abuses. We do not forget the Inquisition. But possibly we have had time and the benefit of history to learn the lesson that the martyrdom of one's opponents is not only wrong but it is absolutely counter-productive and reinforces the will of the people that one is trying to suppress. At present the suppression of the Baha'is is drawing sympathetic attention to that religion throughout the world. In Iran there is no doubt that it is inserting steel into the very souls of the people who are being persecuted. History shows us that persecution cannot and will not succeed. The question remains: how many innocent lives will be sacrificed before the persecutors realise that their efforts are simply digging a grave for their own beliefs?
8.28 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for initiating this debate on a subject of the highest importance. I believe we have had a wide-ranging debate, which, albeit short, has been one of considerable significance. Surely one of the saddest aspects of a world in which remarkable advances are constantly being made in science and technology is man's continuing inhumanity to his neighbour in so many parts of the globe. Man has gone to the moon and is exploring the mysteries of space, yet he does not recognise that other men have basic rights to freedom, justice and a peaceful existence.
People are imprisoned without trial in the most appalling conditions. They are starved, beaten, tortured and killed without compunction. In some cases medical science is used to inflict torture, and in

1231
others trials in court are rigged to try to put a cloak of respectability over a monstrous travesty of justice. These things are done in the name of the state or, even more odious, as the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, has just said, in defence, or in the name, of religion or to advance some tyrant's ambition. They are done in the name of freedom as well! The noble Viscount has given us examples of these crimes against humanity in some parts of the world. I shall refer briefly to some examples which cause grave concern.
Perhaps I may start with Latin America, not only because of our long association with many parts of the sub-continent but also because of the inevitable involvement of the United States there. I listened with great interest and respect to the short but important speech of the noble Lord. Lord Chitnis. We recognise the concern of the United States about all political developments in Latin America and especially in those countries which are, so to speak, on her doorstep: nor do we forget that the United States is a close friend and ally. This is why aspects of American intervention in E1 Salvador and Nicaragua are distressing. Human rights are not a conspicuous element there.
In the war in E1 Salvador between the guerrillas and the Right-wing Government, it is the defenceless population which is suffering at the hands of the security forces, which are amply supplied with arms from the United States. The Church there estimates that about 40,000 civilians have been killed in the conflict. A human rights commission was set up by President Mangana last December, but the killing still goes on. As we know, elections were held in E1 Salvador and were said by Government representatives to be fair, although again we must take account of what the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, said in his report. He took a very different view of those elections, which, if I recall his words, he described as "fundamentally flawed".
The European Council which met at Stuttgart on 17th June made it clear that:
"the problems of Central America cannot be solved by military means but only by a political solution springing from the region itself and respecting the principles of non-interference and inviolability of frontiers".
The Council supported the initiative of the Contadora Group. We shall be glad to have the Minister's comments on any progress being made by that group.
The bipartisan national commission set up by President Reagan to advise on the problems of Central America must be warmly welcomed. Dr. Kissinger, with his great experience, will be an ideal chairman. We hope that he and his colleagues will be able to start their work soon. Doubtless they will consult with the Contadora Group. We have noted that the four presidents in the Contadora Group have also issued a statement in the last few days listing specific proposals for peace in the area. They reiterated the two elements in the conflict, as they see it. The first was that foreign intervention must come to an end and the second that the crisis in the region has its origins in deep-rooted social injustice. These are matters to which we have drawn attention before in the House.
As the House is aware, the situation in Nicaragua is equally disturbing. Here again, human rights have
1232
been trampled underfoot and thousands of innocent people have been killed. I read a note from a number of British nationals who are working in Nicaragua and who appeal to the British Government to come down clearly in favour of peace in the region, and join those countries which are working for a negotiated settlement advanced by Mexico and supported by France, among other countries. The danger is that the United States. whose historic concern for human rights has been a shining light to so many, and who fought a bitter civil war in defence of human rights, should now be seen to be unnecessarily involved in a cruel war.
The British Government must take care not to get themselves into an impossible position of condemning the violation of human rights on the one hand but rigidly adhering to the foreign policy line of the United States on the other. We must seek to be independent and objective in these matters. Furthermore,
"those who come to equity must come with clean hands."
It certainly weakens the attacks made by the United States when they condemn human rights violations in Poland while at the same time actively supporting Right-wing dictatorships which are guilty of massive crimes in certain Latin American countries.
There is of course a lively awareness of this in the United States. The House Foreign Affairs Committee of Congress has expressed its anxiety on several occasions, especially about human rights conditions in Chile, Guatemala, the Argentine and El Salvador. But the anomalies in Government attitudes both in the United States and in this country are confusing, to say the least. Let me give some examples.
First, the Government assert officially that things in E1 Salvador are improving: other witnesses, including Amnesty International, to which I pay the highest tribute, take a different view. Quite apart from our relations with the Argentine, the Argentine still regard themselves as being in a state of war with us. They have a grim human rights record, with 15.000 people missing there. Yet British banks contributed £100 million towards the international loan to that country. Again, in Nicaragua, Mr. Arana, a spokesman of the FDN guerrilla movement, said that they had had informal talks with the British Government. This I read in the Guardian on 13th July. I should like the Minister to confirm whether that is true. If it is, what is the object of talking to Mr. Arana and his colleagues?
The point must also be made that the attitude of the United Kingdom to Chile over the last few years, and especially since the Falklands conflict, has been questionable. The flavour of the Government's developing policy can be obtained in the statement made by Mr. Peter Rees during his visit to Santiago in September last year. when he said:
"the Pinochet regime is a moderating and stabilising force in Latin America".
with which Britain is:
"interested in deepening and strengthening political relations".
I must say that that would be a curious relationship for us to be fostering.
Furthermore, the Government's ambivalent—and I choose the word with some care—and hypocritical

1233
conduct in the United Nations deserves rather more attention than it has thus far received. Last December the United Kingdom Government supported a United Nation's resolution condemning the Pinochet regime's human rights record, while on the other hand downgrading the human rights issue by proposing the removal of the special rapporteur, thus relieving the Chilean Government of constant international embarrassment. On the one hand we make the right noises about human rights; on the other we hold out a helpful hand to a dictatorial Government in Chile.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, also dealt with a number of countries in Africa. Two things may be said about that great continent in the context of this debate. First, human rights, as we understand them in this country, or indeed as they are defined in the United Nations Charter, are completely disregarded in South Africa. The doctrine of apartheid operates against human rights. The doctrine of apartheid, or something like it, has been practised in many countries over the centuries, and it has always brought disaster in its wake. It is wicked, unchristian and indefensible. The evidence of the cruelty and torture which it sets in train is incontrovertible.
I have before me a document, Torture in South Africa, published by the Catholic Institute for International Relations, the British Council of Churches and the International Commission of Jurists, and it makes grim and sad reading. It gives details of the way in which prisoners and political detainees are treated by the South African Government, the manner in which the security police there behave and the general attitude of South African Ministers. The document refers to:
"the widespread and systematic use made by Security Police of assault and torture during the interrogation of detainees".
The Detainees' Parents Support Committee have assembled the evidence in a report containing 70 affidavits. On 27th April of last year they met the South African Minister of Law and Order, presented the evidence to him and made a very modest request—namely, that there should be a code of conduct for interrogators and an independent system of monitoring the behaviour of interrogators. The Government's response was to reject the evidence, and the South African CID told the committee that they might even be prosecuted if the allegations were not proved.
The physical and psychological abuse to which detainees are subjected is carefully documented in the report itself, and it makes grim reading. Page 11 of the report refers to:
"Deprivation of sleep in at least 20 cases, some for periods of many days and nights. In one case involving lengthy sleep deprivation the police made payment of substantial damages arising out of their treatment of the detainee culminating in her being found in a comatose condition by the district surgeon".
The report also refers to:
"Deprivation of food and drink whilst being interrogated.
"Deprivation of toilet facilities … Enforced standing and arduous physical exercises in over 28 cases for long periods, sometimes days and nights…
"Exposure to cold in 25 cases by being kept naked for long periods …
"Enforced suspension is reported in 11 cases …
"In 54 cases, including six women, hitting with fists, slapping, kicking, beating with sticks, batons, hosepipes, gun butts and other
1234
objects, crushing of toes with chairs or bricks, dragging by hair, banging head on wall or table …"
and so on. The report goes on to state:
"Suffocation is reported in 25 cases, mostly by hooding with a hag made of canvas or plastic…
"Electric shock is alleged in 22 cases…
"Attacks on genitals are reported in 14 cases"—
and so the evidence goes on. It is a deplorable record, and one that must be condemned in the severest possible terms.
The committee has made a request for minimum rights, and it seems to me to be reasonable. It is asking for simple things which we take for granted in this country: access to a lawyer, access to relatives, access to a doctor of choice, access to reading material. Furthermore, there should be an enforceable code setting out standards of interrogation. This is what it is asking for—simple rights, which have been granted in civilised countries for very many years past.
What is the Government's reaction to apartheid and to South Africa generally? Here again, the Government have used words of condemnation, but they have not always matched them in their relations with the South African Government. For example, they have turned away from any action when South Africa has attacked her neighbours, some of whom are members of the Commonwealth. They voted in favour of a 622 million dollar loan to South Africa by the IMF. They have allowed British radar equipment with a clear military potential to be supplied to South Africa, and they have given permission for British officers to resign their commissions to join the South African Army. It is not easy to reconcile protestations of abhorrence of apartheid on the one hand and these supportive measures on the other hand.
My second point on Africa is that there are black African governments which practise measures which are in total contravention of decent, civilised conduct. Because they were at one time colonies, because they are black, there is a tendency to be somewhat less critical of them. That is a dangerous attitude. Tyranny is tyranny wherever it occurs. Imprisonment without trial and torture are as wicked in a black country as they are in a white country. We are often told that a move away from democratic practice with free elections and free opposition parties is something natural, and even desirable, in African countries, and that a one-party state is a development to be expected and even defended.
I listened with care to what my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby said in his speech, and I agreed with most of what he said. But on this particular question I must disagree with him fundamentally. Let me not mince words about these developments. We are not talking about Westminster Government, or European Government. We are talking about the essentials of democracy, and a move away from a democratic government to a one-party state is a retrograde step towards an unpredictable future. They destroy—
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Will he not agree that, provided you have a choice of candidates for the electorate, you have democracy without having a multi-party state?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I cannot agree with my noble friend. I do not believe that you can have democracy if you deny opposition parties the opportunity to stand for elections, to be elected, and to make their point of view clear.I recognise the struggle of many of the presidents to whom my noble friend has referrred. They are friends of his, as they are friends of mine. I am thinking in particular of President Kaunda and President Nyerere. I have a great admiration for them. They are benevolent men, they are good men, and they are doing a remarkable job in difficult circumstances. But what I am saying is that, so far as I am concerned, they do not operate democratic procedures as I understand them. That is all that I am saying. These men are, of course, benevolent men; these countries are fortunate.
But movements in that direction tend to destroy freedom. They elevate the state, or some ambitious individual in the state, and within a measurable time the prisons are full, the newspapers are controlled, and people walk in fear. I recall that a good deal of tolerance was shown to Idi Amin when he took power in Uganda. That former British Army sergeant was a cold-blooded megalomaniac, if ever there was one.
I believe that when we give aid to countries where we know human rights to be at risk, we should wherever possible use the occasion to ameliorate the lot of those who are in peril, and I warmly welcome the EEC initiative linking aid to human rights.
Finally, I should like to follow the noble Viscount to the Middle East and two other Asian countries. First, Turkey, a member of NATO and the European Council, is showing a frightening disregard for human rights. General Evren has gaoled dissenting politicians such as the former Prime Minister. Mr. Suleiman Demirel. Since the 1980 coup all political parties are barred and hundreds of political leaders are barred from political office. The present Government are an improvement on their predecessors, but repression and even political killings continue there. I read in The Times on 16th June that the Government had been officially held responsible for the death under torture of a person detained by the police. It was reassuring to note that it was Turkey's highest administrative court, the Council of State, which gave this verdict and described the case as an infringement of human rights. What view do the Government take of any action that the EEC might take in relation to aid to Turkey? NATO exists to defend human rights and personal freedom, and its members should not themselves traduce them.
Perhaps the Minister will also comment on the position in Bangladesh and that country's record on human rights. It is a military dictatorship, and I hope that the Government are satisfied that funds given to Bangladesh for civilian purposes are not diverted to military use. Will the Minister be good enough to confirm that the Government are satisfied on that point?
Mention was also made by the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, of the Philippines, and attention has also been focused on those islands in recent weeks. There is substantial evidence that human rights are violated on an increasing scale in the Philippines, and what is disturbing is the information that the Commonwealth
1236
Development Corporation is spending large sums on a project in Mindanao. Is this expenditure of £6 million justified in the light of what is happening there in relation to human rights?
The noble Viscount referred to the continuing misery of debt bondage in India, and to Iran, and Uganda, and we heard the moving appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon, about the Baha'is, with which I am sure the whole House sympathises.
The sad fact is that one could go on to other countries, to Vietnam, to Korea (North and South). to Indonesia, and Cambodia—the list is a long one—where men and women are suffering untold cruelties, and where death is often a happy release. The noble Viscount gave us some of the terrible statistics. The report of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, states that 2 million people have been executed without proper trial over the last 15 years. Independent observers think that the list must be headed by Uganda and Kampuchea, with an estimated 300,000 people killed in each of those countries during the 1970s.
What can we do about it? We talk about it. We hold out our hands up in horror, and sometimes we forget about it. But we all hope that somehow, some day, it will come to an end. There is some evidence that almost all governments now recognise the validity of a growing body of international law that spells out the basic rights and obligations they owe their citizens. World public opinion is developing very slowly. Like individuals, countries want to be respected. Governments such as our own must do all that they can, through aid, through diplomatic action, through honest dealing, through our own conduct of affairs, to influence the course of events, and to help those who do not enjoy the freedom which we prize above everything else.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, for reminding your Lordships of the appalling violations of basic human rights which are widespread in so many parts of the world. The noble Viscount's Question referred to Asia, Africa and Latin America. and some of the tragic abuses of human rights are indeed to be found in these continents. But it remains a sad truth that grave abuses are to be found in Europe also. They can occur whenever those in authority harbour the delusion that they somehow have a right, in the name of some dogma or straightforward self-interest, to override the basic freedoms which we cherish so highly. They can occur when authorities fail to control the excesses of their officials. The Government deplore all such abuses regardless of the reasons with which their perpetrators attempt to justify them.
We have repeatedly made clear our concern about human rights and, like our predecessors and other Western Governments, we have insisted that violations of basic rights are a legitimate matter of international concern, debate and action. Some countries still take the view that any such expression of concern is an unwarranted interference in their internal domestic affairs. But one of the more heartening developments in recent years is that this argument is now widely seen as hollow special

1237
pleading when it relates to abuses which clearly contravene the fundamental standards of decency expressed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The practice of the United Nations, particularly over the past 10 years or so, has endorsed this view and the United Nations and its subsidiary bodies, notably the Commission on Human Rights, have increasingly expressed concern and tried to take action where there is evidence of gross violations of human rights. The United Kingdom has been in the forefront of these developments and the international community can be in no doubt of our unequivocal position on these matters.
The difficult question of course which faces all Governments which share our concern, is how best to act on this concern in the interests of those we are trying to help. The test which we try to apply has to be a practical one and is simply stated. Are our efforts likely to help reduce human misery and repression or do they simply give us the satisfaction of having done something, when in fact they may have made the sufferers' position worse? It is easy, indeed understandable, and in many ways admirable, for people to call on the Government to make strong condemnations of human rights violations in particular countries, or even to apply sanctions against those countries. I think that the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was suggesting that we do not go far enough in this direction, and I would not want to claim that we always get it exactly right. But I would warn that one can often exaggerate the effectiveness of scoldings from afar. Very often, a public condemnation of the abuse will harden attitudes, not only damaging our relations and the hope of further influence, but causing a Government to react even more harshly against those we were attempting to help. There is, unfortunately, no shortage of evidence that this does happen.
We have to judge in each case the right way to make known our concern in a way that will achieve improvements. There is no one answer on how to do this, as the problems and attitudes differ from country to country, as do our relationships with those countries. In some cases, direct pressure in public may indeed be useful; in others, it may be counter-productive. In many cases, where we do judge it helpful to make direct representations, these are best made privately. I can assure your Lordships that we do this quite frequently. The results are inevitably varied, but there have been some successes. This sort of action can often be the more effective when it is concerted with our partners in the Ten and a great deal of effort goes on behind the scenes on this.
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, suggested that we should do more to foster the activities of human rights groups in countries where abuses occur. This is an area where your Lordships may agree that we should move with great caution. Many Governments are prone to see opposition, subversion and dissidence at work when their citizens appeal for an end to persecution and for the local application of universal rights. Further, some Governments want to persuade themselves that such activities do not reflect authentic national feelings but are, rather, orchestrated by hostile powers abroad. Such accusations can have serious consequences for those involved.
1238
As I have said, the United Kingdom has played a substantial part in bringing human rights to the fore in the United Nations and in drawing attention to particular abuses. I should like to pay tribute at this point to the outstanding work of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, who has represented the United Kingdom at the Commission on Human Rights for the past four years. He has not only maintained and enhanced the standing of the United Kingdom in the field of human rights but his tireless work has undoubtedly made a real contribution to the relief of suffering. For example, in 1980, largely as a result of a United Kingdom initiative, a working group was set up to investigate the question of "disappearances". Since it began work, this group, under the chairmanship of my noble friend, has successfully convinced the Governments concerned that it is not moved by a desire to score political points. Although difficult to quantify, it is likely that some lives have actually been saved by the intervention of this group, and Governments can no longer behave in the belief that no one will notice or act.
My noble friend has also recently been appointed special rapporteur to the Commission on Human Rights on Guatemala. We, and the international community, look forward to his report on that unhappy country, a country to whose human rights record we have often drawn attention in United Nations debates. At the most recent meeting of the commission, the United Kingdom expressed its concern about huge increases in the number of refugees and other grave reports of continuing violations of human rights. We hope that my noble friend's report will give the international community the facts on which it can judge the record of the new Guatemalan Government.
I do not think that I can hope to cover all the countries to which reference has been made in my speech but it is more than pleasing to be able to report that the situation in Bolivia has greatly improved since the establishment of the democratic Government of President Siles Zuazo. The United Kingdom accordingly had no hesitation in co-sponsoring a resolution endorsing the recommendation of the special rapporteur that consideration of Bolivia at the Human Rights Commission be terminated.
In another part of the world however we remain deeply concerned about reports from Afghanistan. Under the Soviet-backed puppet regime of Babrak Karmal, the Afghan people are deprived of even their most fundamental rights. Freedom of speech and assembly are non-existent. There have been numerous reports of tortures, detentions and summary executions. It has been estimated that 3,000 to 4,000 political prisoners are held in Kabul's main prison alone. We are appalled by the massive and flagrant violations of human rights which have been inflicted on the Afghan people during the three and a half years of Soviet military occupation. In short, the Karmal régime's record on human rights is deplorable. In excess of 100,000 Soviet troops continue to prop up a puppet régime, depriving the Afghan people of the fundamental human right of self-determination. The increasingly brutal attacks by Soviet and Karmal regime troops against civilian targets deserve the strongest condemnation.

1239
We have given full support to the successive United Nations resolutions on Afghanistan, both at the General Assembly and at the Commission on Human Rights, calling for the immediate withdrawal of foreign troops, the restoration of Afghanistan's independence and non-aligned status, self-determination for the Afghan people and the return of the refugees in safety and honour. At the recent meeting of the commission, the United Kingdom drew particular attention to the massacre of 105 Afghan civilians by Soviet troops in Logar province in September 1982. Soviet attacks on the Shomali region, north of Kabul, and the city of Herat in the spring were condemned by Ministers of the Ten in a statement by the West German Foreign Minister, Herr Genscher, on 15th May. We shall continue to call on the Soviet Union to honour its obligations under the United Nations charter and withdraw its forces from Afghanistan immediately.
I now turn to Iran, where the position of the Baha'is is particularly serious. This was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Whaddon. My noble friend Lady Young has already expressed our abhorrence at the execution of 16 Baha'is, including 10 women, to your Lordships on 28th June. Following reports of the execution of Baha'is in Shiraz, our representative in Tehran has made known to the Iranian Government our concern at renewed persecution of the Baha'is in Iran. We have also sought the views of our partners in the European Community on the possibility of joint action in relation to the Iranian Government in Tehran. We shall, of course, bear in mind the importance of using other bodies, particularly the United Nations and its specialist human rights machinery, to bring home to the Iranian Government concern outside Iran at the degrading and inhuman treatment meted out to the leading Baha'is. We are, of course, in close touch with representatives of the Baha'i community in Britain.
Many of the peoples of Africa also suffer from violations of human rights in various forms. The system of apartheid in South Africa is an abhorrent form of institutionalised discrimination, and the Government have made clear their objections to it and the repressive measures used to enforce it. I can perhaps do no better than refer to the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, speaking in the other place a year or so ago, when she said:
"The policy of apartheid, with its emphasis on separating peoples rather than bringing them together, and all the harshness required to impose it on the South African population is wholly unacceptable".—[0ffical Report, Commons, 25/7/79; col. 629.]
That remains the Government's view. But it is no use exaggerating what Her Majesty's Government can do in that situation. We clearly cannot declare war on them. We do not believe that sanctions are effective because they tend to hurt black Africans inside South Africa much more than they do the white people. We know from our own experience that, in any event, these sanctions are often not effective. But we do express our condemnation; we do try to encourage peaceful changes and we do take direct action when we can—for example, with the European code of conduct for transnational companies operating in South Africa.
1240
The noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, was particularly concerned about the position in Uganda. We are, of course, concerned about allegations of human rights abuse in that country. We take every opportunity to make clear to President Obote and representatives of his Government, both in London and in Kampala, the importance we attach to the observance of human rights. The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs raised the matter with the Ugandan Prime Minister on 6th July, and my honourable friend Mr. Rifkind also put our concern to the Ugandan High Commissioner here on 6th June and emphasised our concern during his recent visit to Uganda in July.
The Ugandan Government are therefore aware of our concern and of international concern, and have recently implemented some corrective measures. These include the gazetting of all detainees, the establishment of a review tribunal and the provision of stricter punishments for army and police personnel, found guilty of violations of human rights.
I turn now to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, in particular with regard to E1 Salvador. At the recent meeting of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, to which I have already referred, we drew attention to disturbing reports of violations in E1 Salvador. We recognise the difficulties of the Government in that country in their task of imposing a reasonable rule of law in a country where factional violence is widespread and where opposition to the Government is expressed through violence and murder. We wholeheartedly condemn these violations, by whomsoever they are committed. We urge the Government to continue their efforts to restore civil peace and protect the population from human rights violations. They have recently set up a peace commission and a human rights corn mission to investigate the situation. This, and the amnesty law which resulted in the release of some 300 political prisoners, are steps in the right direction, but only steps.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred in his speech to the position and the problems of Central America. I should say that Her Majesty's Government support the efforts of the Contadora group of countries to bring about peace in the region, and we are of course aware of those proposals. But it is too early to say what progress they will be able to make.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred to the position with regard to Chile. Her Majesty's Government have consistently made clear their concern about the human rights situation in that country. We have never left the Chilean Government in any doubt about our condemnation of the continued violation of human rights there. Our position was amply demonstrated by our support at the United Nations Human Rights Commission for the resolution on Chile which expressed international concern and renewed the mandate of the special rapporteur. I think the noble Lord thought we had opposed that, but that is not the case: we supported the reappointment. When my honourable friend the Member for Woking, then Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, visited Chile in April, he made clear the Government's concern to the Chilean Government and called on Cardinal Silva and

1241
the acting chairman of the Chilean Commission for Human Rights.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, also referred to the position in Bangladesh, and I should like to touch on that matter. Under martial law, the constitution has been suspended and open political activity is banned at present. Several leading politicians were arrested briefly during student disturbances in March. General Ershad, the head of the military Government, has said that he will hold free elections as soon as possible. Some laws controlling political activity have recently been relaxed, and indoor political meetings are now allowed. The Government of Bangladesh are aware of our hope that democracy can be restored as soon as possible and that human rights will be respected.
The United Kingdom has also played a full and constructive part at the CSCE meeting in Madrid. I am sure your Lordships will join me in welcoming the provisional agreement that has been reached among 34 of the 35 participants on the text of a concluding document. We hope that consensus may soon be reached on the text so that the meeting may be brought to a conclusion, at which point we shall be able to give a final assessment. Meanwhile, it records useful if modest advances on the Final Act, including proposals to hold meetings on human rights and human contacts.
I am afraid that I have not had time in this short debate to survey the whole of the area covered by the noble Viscount's Question, nor indeed to consider in detail the depressing range of violations of human rights that occur. I hope, however, that I have said enough to assure your Lordships that this Government, like their predecessors—and this is the last area where there are party points to be made—deplore these violations wherever they occur. The action we take is sometimes highly visible, sometimes not; but on occasion it is successful.
Before concluding, and again in thanking the noble Viscount for having given us this opportunity for a debate, I must pick up one further point from his speech. He suggested that our representatives overseas should be given clearer instructions on what and how to report on human rights in the countries they cover. There are in fact standing instructions for all posts overseas on the need for and the importance of including the situation of human rights in their countries of accreditation in their normal round of reporting. Because the situation varies so widely from country to country, officials inevitably have to exercise their judgment on how and what to report. Although reliable information is sometimes difficult to obtain, the need to report it is well understood. We do not see this as a problem, but I can undertake that the reporting instructions will be kept under review.
The sheer scale of human rights' abuses in the world presents us with appalling evidence of what man is capable of doing to his fellows, and individual cases forcibly remind us that cruelty and torture are continuing evils and not aberrations of the past. At the same time the bravery of those who are prepared to suffer rather than compromise their freedoms and their beliefs must inspire us to keep faith with them and never to condone by our indifference the actions of their oppressors and tormentors.
1242
Faced with these enormities, it would be easy to become disheartened and the Government remain convinced that the power of continued persuasion is the best weapon we have in this field. Our aim is to contribute to a climate of opinion in which all those in authority will come to see that they have much to lose and nothing worth while to gain by disregarding or violating basic human rights.
House adjourned at ten minutes past nine o'clock.

  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY CONSTABULARY
  ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY CONSTABULARY
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES LEGISLATION: NORTHERN IRELAND STATISTICS
  MATRIMONIAL CAUSES LEGISLATION: NORTHERN IRELAND STATISTICS
  NORTHERN IRELAND: WILDLIFE HABITAT LEGISLATION
  NORTHERN IRELAND: WILDLIFE HABITAT LEGISLATION
  DUDLEY ENTERPRISE ZONE: BUILDING WORK AND WILDLIFE
  DUDLEY ENTERPRISE ZONE: BUILDING WORK AND WILDLIFE