Sitting of 28 June 1983

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

MEMBERS SWORN
The following Members took and subscribed the Oath:

Paul Marland, esquire, for Gloucestershire, West;

Rt. hon. Donald James Stewart, for Western Isles.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MILFORD HAVEN CONSERVANCY BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY BILL
  Considered; to be read the Third time.

  TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL
  Orders for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Health Scheme
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what examination he has made of the possibility of an insurance-based health scheme; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): In 1981–82 my Department carried out a survey of the various approaches to financing health care in other, comparable, countries to see whether there were any ideas worth considering further for adoption here. However, as I announced to the House on 30 July, the Government decided to continue with tile present system of financing the NHS largely from taxation. That remains our policy. We shall continue to examine ways of improving the efficiency of the NHS to provide better services for patients and to promote a developing partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.
    Mr. McCrindle: May we then assume that a strong Health Service financed principally from taxation remains the Government's policy and that we can discount suggestions of any idea of moving towards a compulsory insurance scheme with subsidies payable on behalf of the less well off, which in the opinion of many of us would be a retrograde step?
    Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend We are committed not only to the National Health Service but to the present way in which it is financed.
    Mr. Hoyle: When will the Secretary of State publish the survey? As long as he keeps it secret, is there not a lingering doubt that it might be brought out of the cupboard at the appropriate time?
    Mr. Fowler: There is a lingering doubt only in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I doubt whether any publication will ever take away the lingering doubts that the hon. Gentleman seems to harbour.
    Sir William Clark: I agree that the National Health Service should continue to be financed out of public funds, but does my right hon. Friend agree that people who spend their own money on private medical insurance help the National Health Service? Will my right hon. Friend consider giving fiscal advantages or incentives to those who want to insure privately for health care?
    Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend fully realises, that is an issue for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. On my hon. Friend's first point, the Conservative party believes that the individual has the right to have private health insurance. We support that right and will continue to do so.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Secretary of State saying that there is no question of means-testing anyone who uses National Health Service facilities and that he will not move towards a system of charging for individual services within the National Health Service, because that would undermine its entire purpose?
    Mr. Fowler: If by that the hon. Lady means the introduction of hospital charges, hotel charges and general practitioner consultation charges, both the Prime Minister and I have made it absolutely clear that we do not intend to introduce such charges.

    Bromsgrove and Redditch (Accident and Emergency Services)
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has discussed the provision of accident and emergency services in the Bromsgrove and Redditch health district with the West Midlands regional health authority.
    The Minister for Health (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Yes, Sir. We have approved the letting of the contract for the first phase of the new general hospital for the district, which will include an accident and emergency department. Building began last November and the hospital is expected to open in the financial year 1986–87.
    Mr. Miller: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that that district, under whatever administration, and whatever organisation of the Health Service, has remained seriously underfunded under the Department's own formula? What certainty is there that when the hospital opens there will

    445
    be an accident and emergency service ready to move into the hospital? Should not appointments be made now, especially at consultant level?
    Mr. Clarke: We have allocated additional money to the West Midlands region, and through the region to the district, to overcome the underfunding. We examined the proposals for the new district hospital with considerable care to ensure that the planning provided for the necessary revenue to open it on time. I assure my hon. Friend that there will be an accident and emergency department serving the district in the new hospital when it opens in 1986–87.

    Child Benefit
    Mr. Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he proposes changes in the child benefit scheme.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): We have no plans to change the structure of the scheme. As my hon. Friend knows, the rate of benefit will be increased to £6·50, its highest-ever real value, from November.
    Mr. Bottomley: I congratulate the Government on what they have done for child benefit. May we draw the conclusion that the level of pay settlements has gone down, while the level of child benefit has risen? Will my hon. Friend talk to the Treasury and ensure that the increases in child benefit continue year by year, so that pay settlement levels come down and we all prosper?
    Mr. Newton: I am always happy to talk to the Treasury, but for the moment I am content to rest on what the Government have done.
    Mr. Squire: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of means-testing child benefit, because that, more than anything else, would do a great deal of damage to the prospects of the poorer families who claim a benefit that is an important part of their family income?
    Mr. Newton: We have no plans for changing the structure of child benefit.
    Mr. John: Will the Minister give an undertaking that now that we have returned child benefit to its real value before 1979, it will not again be allowed to fall below that real value?
    Mr. Newton: The Government will look again at the level of child benefit when the time comes for the next uprating.

    Housing Benefits Scheme
    Mr. Fosterasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many local authorities were unable to implement the housing benefits scheme on 4 April; and how many tenants were involved.
    The Minister for Social Security (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Between 30 and 35 per cent. of authorities completed the various parts of the implementation on time, and most of the others had dealt with the large majority of cases by then. From the detailed information available, we know that about 75 per cent. of the total of former rent and rate rebate recipients were assessed on time.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that the Shelter Housing Aid Centre, in its most recent report, referred to hardly any local authority as successfully implementing the scheme without mishaps, serious problems and delays? Is it not true that the inner London authorities are experiencing massive difficulties, especially with private tenants? Will the Minister confirm that the latest date for local authorities to implement the scheme is being moved from June to October?
    Dr. Boyson: I remind the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous hon. Member for Bolton, West, Mrs. Taylor, who in Committee moved the amendment for the scheme's starting date. She was the Opposition spokesman at that time. Apart from the Scottish authorities, there was general agreement that the scheme should start on 1 April. We accept that there are problems, but there are always problems when dealing with 7 million people. Our information is that of 500 authorities, only 15 are now experiencing difficulties. We are prepared to extend the time for the payment to be made, to help the scheme work smoothly.
    Mrs. Knight: I am strongly in favour of the change, which is both wise and right, but is my hon. Friend aware that some local authorities—Birmingham is one—are experiencing great difficulty in sorting out the problems connected with the scheme? Many tenants are paying their rent out of money on which they should be living, and many landlords are not receiving the rent that they need. Can my hon. Friend help such authorities to sort out the difficulties they are experiencing?
    Dr. Boyson: Birmingham is one of the two authorities facing the greatest problems, and we are aware of that. Birmingham has asked for an extension, but I understand from my conservations with that authority that the problems are now being smoothed out. Under the regulations, every tenant should be paid something within 14 days of application. If that is not happening, hon. Members must take the matter up with their local authorities.
    Mr. Alton: Notwithstanding the fact that some landlords are having problems with the scheme, is the Minister aware that many tenants have been caused great distress because they have received notices to quit and eviction orders because of the non-implementation of the scheme? Is he further aware that about 2 million people are about 75p a week worse off because of the scheme? How long will it be before the remainder of those entitled to benefit will be brought into the scheme?
    Dr. Boyson: It is obvious that some people are bound to be worse off on a nil-cost change. About 1·2 million are better off—pensioners and those about whom the House is especially concerned. About 2 million people are 40p a week worse off. When moving to a new scheme, there are bound to be teething problems. The Supplementary Benefits Commission wanted the change and all parties supported it. It is now a matter of making it work smoothly.
    I have already told the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) that only 15 of the 500 authorities are experiencing problems. That is only 1 or 2 per cent. of authorities. We are prepared to extend the transitional period for another three months, if necessary, to ensure the smooth working of the scheme.
    Mr. Greenway: So that hon. Members can press the appropriate authorities, will my hon. Friend say whether a timetable was agreed in advance with local authorities and whether those authorities were satisfied with it?
    Dr. Boyson: Only the Scottish authorities wanted delays, and they were provided for in the scheme that began on 1 April. The regulations we re laid in July last year and detailed information was sent out. Authorities had nine months in which to make applications. There was general agreement on the starting date, and it is only recently that the problems have come to light. I am sure that within three months the scheme will have been properly sorted out.
    Mr. Craigen: As a member of a Government who claim to have so much concern for family life, is the Minister not aware that the operation of the scheme is disrupting family life? Is he not aware also that the way in which the scheme operates actually splits families?
    Dr. Boyson: I remind the House that Professor David Donnison was the chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission when the scheme was recommended. He is respected by both sides of the House. I know that the only idea in the Labour party is to spend more money and never change anything. The scheme was an attempt at a radical change, and was widely supported. However, I know that radical change is unpleasant for Opposition Members.

    Heating Addition
    Mr. Arnoldasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the present level of the heating addition.
    Dr. Boyson: Under this Government, increases in the level of supplementary benefit heating additions have more than kept pace with rises in fuel prices. As my right hon. Friend announced last week, they are to be increased in November in line with the increase in domestic fuel prices between May 1982 and May 1983 of 8·6 per cent. This should more than maintain that improvement.
    Mr. Arnold: I congratulate the Government on making that substantial increase. Can my hon. Friend give an assurance to Age Concern, Stockport—about the staff of which I corresponded with his Department earlier this year —that failure to take up the heating addition is not regarded as a significant problem?
    Dr. Boyson: I give that assurance to my hon. Friend, and if there are any problems in his area with which we can help I should be glad if he would contact us.
    Mr. Gordon Wilson: Is the Minister aware that some areas of the country, such as Scotland, are colder than others? Would it not be fair if there were higher heating allowances on that account? Will he look at heating allowances in Scotland to ensure that pensioners and others on benefit are kept on an equal footing regardless of where they live?
    Dr. Boyson: It would be difficult to raise the allowance to match every degree of cold. I come from the Pennines, where, it is said, it rains all the time, and certainly where it is cold in winter. I suppose it would have a high allowance. There must be a national scheme which applies generally. However, there are exceptionally severe weather payments. If an area is know to be affected by
    448
    exceptional weather, while that may deter some people from living there, those payments should help those who do live there.
    Sir Peter Emery: Will my hon. Friend consider, when this matter is reviewed again, the plight of people over the age of 80, bearing in mind that the problems facing the very elderly are much greater than those affecting, for example, those who have just retired? I am not certain that the present differentiation is adequate to care for the over-80s.
    Dr. Boyson: I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I remind him and the House that between 1979 and 1983 the Conservative Government made it automatic for people aged over 70 on supplementary benefit and those with children below the age of five to be given heating help. That was done, not by a Labour Government, but by the last Conservative Government.
    Mr. Freeson: Is it not the case that the most important aspect of the problem is the insulation of old houses, coupled with the question of standing charges? Will the Minister undertake to consult the Minister for Housing and Construction and the Secretary of State for Energy to see whether standing charges can be abolished or at least greatly diminished for certain categories and that a major campaign is launched, with public expenditure, to insulate old people's dwellings?
    Dr. Boyson: I assure the hon. Member for Brent, South—
    Hon. Members: Wrong.
    Dr. Boyson: I should have said the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson). I realise that both constituencies are still under Labour and that a people's republic still exists in parts of that area. We in the Conservative party live together in such a friendly way that Ministers meet regularly, and obviously when we all meet — the housing managers, the Secretary of Stale for Energy and the Minister for Housing and Construction —the point that the right hon. Gentleman made will be considered.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that many housing problems are the result of the bad construction and design of houses, particularly local authority houses, and that a heating allowance alone cannot solve the problems, particularly in Scotland, of damp and condensation?
    Dr. Boyson: I fear that that supplementary question, like the previous one, is for another Department. There are home improvement grants to help with those problems, and I am sure that when matters such as that are raised in the House the representatives of other Departments pay attention to them.
    Mr. Rooker: Was the Minister telling the House in his main answer that the price of coal had gone down? Is he aware that gas prices rose by 112 per cent. during the lifetime of the last Parliament, that electricity charges went up by 82 per cent. and that the gas standing charge was increased by 400 per cent.? How does he square those figures with that answer?
    Dr. Boyson: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman asked that supplementary question—I was hoping that it would be raised by one of my hon. Friends—because it

    449
    enables me to give the figures. Between November 1978 and November 1982, the basic rate of heating addition increased by 124 per cent., compared with an increase in domestic fuel prices of 96 per cent.

    Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the progress of implementation of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): The Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 has now been consolidated with the 1959 Act into the Mental Health Act 1983, which has the same implementation date—30 September this year. A full memorandum of guidance on the Act will be distributed free of charge to health and local authorities and other interested bodies early next week. The various regulations and orders that were required under the Act will be laid before the House before the end of this week. Leaflets for patients and their relatives explaining their rights under the new legislation are being prepared and will be distributed to health and local authorities at the beginning of August. Arrangements are in hand for setting up the new Mental Health Act Commission and letters of invitation have been sent to 80 or so potential members.
    Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. When does he expect to make an announcement about the appointment of the Mental Health Act Commission, which will be a very important body in the mental health sphere? Can he say when the name of the chairman will be announced?
    Mr. Patten: I hope that my hon. Friend, who has taken a great interest in these matters, will not take it amiss if I answer "Shortly" to both parts of that supplementary question.
    Dr. Roger Thomas: Is the Minister satisfied with the fact that a social worker can refer a patient to a consultant psychiatrist for admission to a mental hospital without any reference whatever to that person's general practitioner?
    Mr. Patten: That point was carefully considered during the passage of the Bill, and we are satisfied about it. Serious steps are being taken to ensure that social workers, who will be responsible for this area of policy, are fully and properly trained.

    MENCAP
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make additional resources available to MENCAP for the current financial year.
    Mr. John Patten: My right hon. Friend announced last week a grant to MENCAP of £600,000 spread over three years, as against £175,000 in 1982–83, towards central administrative expenses. I hope that the increased grant of £200,000 a year for three years will help MENCAP to plan its finances on a sounder basis. This basic grant is in addition to MENCAP's other 1983–84 grants: £59,000 for particular projects and £105,000 for local projects under the scheme "Opportunities for Volunteering".
    Mr. Wigley: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he confirm that money was not included in the other
    450
    schemes to which he referred for the profoundly retarded and multiple handicapped unit which MENCAP proposed, which would be of particular benefit to profoundly handicapped children under the age of five and be a real step forward in preventing their going into long-stay institutions? Will the Government please look again at that proposal?
    Mr. Patten: We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's close interest in these matters. The sums of money that have been made available to MENCAP for the next three years will allow it a certain amount of leeway in its planning so that it will be able to develop further services in close co-operation with other voluntary groups and with private and voluntary fund raising.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend agree that this excellent charity needs as much help as possible? In particular, is he aware that some branches of MENCAP do not have adequate premises, without which they cannot begin their work properly? Will he look with sympathy at branches that apply for funds to provide better premises? There is such a branch in Lincoln.
    Mr. Patten: We shall, of course, do everything possible to help MENCAP. On the other hand, my hon. Friend would not wish to see voluntary organisations "nationalised", but would wish to see them remain truly voluntary, receiving help from statutory authorities and at the same time raising money themselves to help to make premises available. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that the substantial sums by way of grant which the Secretary of State announced last week for MENCAP will be widely welcomed.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: In view of the labour-intensive nature of taking care of the mentally handicapped, is the Minister aware that his donation is rather paltry? In view of the cutbacks in other parts of mental health care, will he now seriously reconsider his decision?
    Mr. Patten: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman thinks that £200,000 a year for the next three years is paltry. I have heard about looking a gift horse in the mouth—
    Mr. Carter-Jones: It is peanuts.
    Mr. Patten: —but kicking a gift horse in the mouth is an extremely unfortunate habit. In co-operation with MENCAP and all the other organisations in that area, which is one of deep concern to hon. Members, we are doing all that we can to help them fulfil the obligations which they set upon themselves as voluntary organisations.

    Hospital Services (Privatisation)
    Mr. Haynesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he intends to publish a circular following discussions with regional health authority chairmen on the draft health circular proposing privatisation of various hospital services.
    Mr. Fowler: I intend to issue a circular shortly asking health authorities to seek tenders for their cleaning, catering and laundry services and to let contracts where savings can be made.
    Mr. Haynes: Can the Secretary of State remember the statement that was made yesterday by his hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health in reply to the debate on the Queen's Speech—
    Mr. Skinner: Get in there, Frank.
    Mr. Haynes: —when he talked about welcoming the intervention of the private sector in the National Health Service? When the Secretary of State had his discussions with the regional health authority chairmen, was a particular problem raised by the Trent regional health authority chairman about a private unit in the central health district? If not, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about it? Is he aware that in the past three years the National Health Service—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading".] No, I am not reading. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for the past three years the NHS has subsidised that private unit to the tune of £180,000? Does he agree that that is so, and does he also agree—I am sure that the House will —that this is the unacceptable face of the Secretary of State for Social Services?
    Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman might have done better if he had written out his supplementary question. If he had done so, he might have deleted some of the more foolish parts of it. The regional health authority chairmen are in favour of the policy of contracting out. I believe that all sensible people are in favour of so doing.
    Mr. Haynes: That was not my question.
    Mr. Fowler: No one is forcing authorities to take outside contractors in place of in-house services. We are merely saying that they should make comparisons. If they find that they can get a better service from outside contractors, that will be a sensible step to take.
    Mr. Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I make you aware, that I shall probably make an application to raise this issue in an Adjournment debate? The Minister has not answered the question.
    Sir Anthony Grant: Will my right hon. Friend confirm — [Interruption]—that there is no truth in the report that the Government are to backtrack on the reform of VAT policy, which he so wisely announced in the previous Parliament, which will enable private contractors to compete equally with the public sector? Will he reconfirm the Government's commitment to put a stop to the little racket of COHSE and NUPE in the Health Service?
    Mr. Fowler: I confirm that it remains the Government's policy to have equality of treatment between the public and the private sectors. The savings that are achieved can be diverted into patient care. That is what the NHS is about and that is why we are pursuing the policy that has been outlined.
    Mr. Hall Miller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my recollection that when a Member gives notice, on a point of order, that he will seek to raise the substance of a question on the Adjournment, that spells the end of the question. Will you assist the House?
    Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for helping me. I trust that he will forgive my inexperience. Once an hon. Member gives notice that he will seek to raise on the Adjournment the matter contained in the question, we should move on. However, I shall call the Opposition Front Bench spokesman to ask a final supplementary question before moving on to the next question.
    Mr. Terry Davis: Does the Secretary of State regard the provision of health care as a service or a profit opportunity?
    Mr. Fowler: I regard it as a service, but I believe that when sensible economies can be made in the Health Service, which means that more money can be diverted into patient care, the opportunities should be taken.

    Death Grant
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he expects to make an announcement about the level of the death grant.
    Dr. Boyson: We are carefully considering the future of the grant in the light of public response to the proposals set out in the Government's consultative document last year. An announcement will be made in due course.
    Mr. Foulkes: Now that we have, not a fresh face but a different face in the Department, we might well expect some action. Does the Minister realise that consultation has been going on for many months? Is he aware that the majority of those who have replied to the consultative document have asked for an across-the-board increase in the death grant? Does he realise that 1 million people signed a petition asking for an increase in the grant? Is it not about time that the Government acted on all the representations that they have received instead of having further discussions?
    Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me all that information in his supplementary question. There was a poll following the publication of the consultative document and the result was as follows: 55 per cent. did not want anything that had been suggested, 30 per cent. suggested other things and 15 per cent. were difficult to understand. There were no spoilt votes. Since the rejection of our proposals we have been thinking about the matter. It is an issue that has been with us for years. The Labour Government did nothing about it for five years. I trust that when we say, we shall make an announcement in due course, we shall do so.
    Mr. McCrindle: How much consideration is being given by the Government to introducing an element of selectivity in the payment of the death grant? It is to be hoped that such a policy will lead to a substantial increase in the amount received by the dependants of those in need, while phasing out the £30 grant for those who have no particular need of it.
    Dr. Boyson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his supplementary question. The idea of directing the money that is available to those most in need of it was one of the Government's options. I remind the House that last year about 16,000 families obtained supplementary benefit, to pay for funerals, of £160 or more a time. These were families who could not afford the cost of a funeral.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How many people have died while the Government have been carrying out their consultations? Surely it would be a good idea for the Government to start increasing the death grant in their upratings, even if by only a small amount, so that we move forward instead of moving back with each uprating.
    Dr. Boyson: I am rather touched by the hon. Gentleman's belief in my numerical memory, which leads him to think that I can give him the number who have died during the consultations. If the hon. Gentleman submits a written question, the answer can be provided for him. The concern of the welfare state is to give what help is

    453
    available to those who most need it. There has still not been agreement on the death grant. I trust that the Government will shortly give a lead.
    Mr. Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that I carried out a survey when the Government's proposals were first published? Will he accept that 90 per cent. of those surveyed, including a large number of elderly people, thought that it would be sensible to concentrate all the help on those who needed it and to withdraw the £30 grant from the rest of us? May I have an assurance from him that that is the line the Government will want to take, and that they will make a decision soon?
    Dr. Boyson: I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we shall consider carefully the suggestion that he has made, which I know is supported by many others.
    Mr. Foster: Is the Minister aware that there are thousands of elderly people who are desperately worried about this problem? When will he treat it with the same urgency as the Government are no doubt attaching to their plans to give large tax handouts to those who are already rich? If the Government are really concerned about the problem, why did his right hon. Friend not make a statement about it when announcing the uprating?
    Dr. Boyson: It is important that we get the death grant properly sorted out. We must determine whether the £27 million now being spent on it is being spent in the right way, whether it can continue to be spent, whether more can be spent or whether the money can be spent more effectively in another way. It is not just a matter of uprating each year.

    Generic Prescribing
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards generic prescribing.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: It is a long-standing policy that doctors should be encouraged to use the generic approved names of drugs when prescribing.
    We are also now considering comments that we have received on the recommendations of the Greenfield report on generic substitution by pharmacists when dispensing.
    Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. May I encourage him to issue a circular to health authorities that will encourage them to proceed with generic prescribing as quickly as possible, bearing in mind the substantial savings that would accrue to the health districts in the provision of patient care, and bearing in mind also that there is no question of clinical freedom involved? Some doctors in some areas, including Peterborough, already employ generic prescribing procedures.
    Mr. Clarke: I accept entirely that generic prescribing is already used widely by doctors in general practice and is almost universal in the hospital service. We must decide whether to change the practice whereby a doctor prescribes a branded drug, and ask whether the pharmacist should be encouraged to dispense a generic substitute. We are considering that matter urgently and I hope to give the Government's conclusions shortly.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the Minister confirm that, if the Greenfield report is implemented, there will be no
    454
    interference with the doctor's clinical freedom and right to prescribe what he likes? As I have wide support for my private Member's Bill on this subject from doctors and pharmacists, will he use his eloquence on the Leader of the House to find time for the Bill when I reintroduce it?
    Mr. Clarke: The Greenfield report did not come to firm conclusions, so we thought it wise to consult the medical profession, the health authorities and the pharmaceutical interests on the various arguments, including those put forward by the hon. Gentleman. We now have all the responses, which we are considering. I hope to announce our conclusions shortly.

    Doctors (Deputising Services)
    Mr. Parkasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he has any plans to reduce the numbers of general practitioners relying on deputising services.
    Mr. John Patten: No, Sir. It is not reasonable to expect general medical practitioners to be personally available to patients around the clock every day of the year, and deputising arrangements, including the use of deputising services, ensure that family doctors can have adequate periods off duty. The use of deputising services is controlled by regulations and local arrangements are reviewed periodically by family practitioner committees and their professional advisory committees.
    Mr. Park: As over 43 per cent. of general practitioners use deputising services, and other doctors make different arrangements, is the Minister completely satisfied that the 1978 guidelines are being observed?
    Mr. Patten: Yes, although I am aware that there is public anxiety in certain areas such as Croydon, Bromley and Stockport that they are not being observed. The family practitioner committees in those areas are carrying out careful investigations. Reports will be received later. If it is necessary to review the guidelines, they will be reviewed.
    Sir Kenneth Lewis: Is my hon. Friend aware that, nevertheless, there are now problems in the countryside because some of the hospitals are cutting out emergency services at weekends? It is becoming increasingly difficult to obtain a doctor within a 10-mile radius of some country towns.
    Mr. Patten: Family practitioner committees regularly review the provision of deputising services. I am sure that my hon. Friend's local family practitioner committee has that point well under review at the moment.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is the Minister aware that more and more doctors are using deputising services and that some in inner cities use them far too often? Clearly, family practitioner committees are not acting sufficiently urgently or efficiently against those who are not following the guidelines. What action does he propose to take?
    Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Lady is not suggesting for one second that doctors do not deserve some time off during their weekly round. Secondly, I am sure she is aware that the regulations that the family practitioner committees lay down for doctors prevent doctors from subcontracting their services every night of the week and weekends. They are not permitted to do so by regulations.

    455
    At the moment the Department, pending certain reviews that are being carried out, is content that the regulations are adequate.

    Retirement Pension
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement about the next increase in the rate of retirement pension.
    Mr. Robert Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what he estimates the increase in retirement pensions will be in November 1983.
    Mr. Fowler: Details of the increase in retirement pension to take effect from week commencing 21 November were set out in my statement on 23 June 1983.
    Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State admit that this, the lowest percentage increase for over 30 years, is not even enough to restore what was stolen from the pensioners by the Tories breaking the link between pensions and earnings? By the time pensioners receive their increase in November, inflation will be up to 6 per cent. The miserable 3·7 per cent. will be a decrease in real terms. How does all that square up with the Tory party manifesto pledge to protect pensioners' interests?
    Mr. Fowler: If inflation increases to 6 per cent. in November it will mean that prices have increased by 70·7 per cent. and pensions by 74·6 per cent. since November 1978. That is above the pledge that we gave. Secondly, lower inflation is the other issue which is vital to pensions. I should have thought that it was a matter of congratulation that inflation is now down to a level that has not been experienced since the 1960s.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that although the Conservative party has a good record on defending pensioners' interests, whether it be those over 80 or by meeting the rate of inflation over the years as we pledged, none the less there is some misunderstanding among pensioners about the increase due this year? Will he take this opportunity to emphasise, and emphasise continuously, how much we care about their needs?
    Mr. Fowler: In this uprating we have introduced a new system of uprating pensions which gives a certainty which the old system did not. It is fair and we shall continue to preserve pensioners' interests.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsendasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 28 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, including one with the High Commissioner of Belize and one with the Mexican Foreign Minister. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I am presiding at a dinner for Lord Richardson, the retiring Governor of the Bank of England.
    Mr. Townsend: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that under her leadership the British people have been able to achieve what they have needed to achieve for 50 years
    456
    —the permanent removal of the threat of a Socialist Government? Is she aware that during and after the election campaign the official Opposition wove a web of falsehoods about the future of the National Health Service and caused needless anxiety to millions of people? Will she re-pledge the Government to safeguarding and strengthening the National Health Service?
    The Prime Minister: I am well aware of what my hon. Friend says and of the anxiety that those completely false scares caused. I stress again that during the lifetime of the last Government our record on the National Health Service was absolutely excellent. By the time we left office there were 56,000 more nurses and midwives than when we started, 7,000 more doctors and dentists and — [Interruption.]—some 2 million more patients a year being treated. It is a record of which we can be proud.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that in this Parliament we will give a fair hearing to those who ask questions and to those who answer them.
    Dr. Owen: As real interest rates have never been higher, has the Prime Minister discovered that mortgage payers are now not just disappointed but angry, particularly those who may have been unwise enough to vote Conservative? Would it not have been right to ask the Governor of the Bank of England to persuade the clearing banks to withdraw rather more slowly from the mortgage market? When she sees Lord Richardson, might it not be a good idea to suggest that he ask the clearing banks to ensure that they do not intervene again so rapidly and withdraw so quickly from the mortage market?
    The Prime Minister: I made clear in the House last week my views about the increase in mortgage charges. The base rate at the moment is 9·5 per cent.—only 0·5 per cent. above what it was when the mortgage rates were last fixed. The banks' involvement in the mortgage market is a matter for them, as mortgage rates are a matter for the building societies. Whether banks go in and come out quickly is a matter for them, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it can also cause severe problems for the building societies.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the results of the recent general election suggest that a large number of trade unionists voted Conservative? Does not that show their agreement with the 1980 and 1982 industrial relations legislation, about which their leaders made such a fuss?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is not unusual for a large number of trade unionists to vote Conservative. Indeed, we should never have been in Government as often as we have unless they had done so and I hope that they will continue to do so. I believe that they supported fully the 1980 and 1982 Employment Acts. I believe that they will give a warm welcome to our next trade union reform Bill when it is introduced.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: How does the Prime Minister square defending the interests of 1,800 Falklanders with invoking the assistance of the South African Government, who deny freedom to 18 million of their citizens? Does not that betray and besmirch entirely the principle of freedom? Does not it insult those who died in the Falklands?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the building of the new airstrip in the Falkland Islands and the contract that

    457
    has been awarded, the arrangement made for people to get there to fulfil the contract is a purely commercial matter for those who won it. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that we should have no commercial relations with South Africa whatsoever, I remind him that there would be 150,000 jobs at stake in the United Kingdom. Perhaps that is what he wants.
    Mr. Shersbyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Shersby: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the extraordinary situation whereby the Leader of the Opposition will be elected by trade union leaders, who will cast millions of votes on behalf of their members, whom they have not consulted? Does she agree that that amply justifies the case for the Bill on trade unions, referred to in the Queen's Speech, to give union members more control over their unions?
    The Prime Minister: I thought I had noticed that a number of Opposition Members were now in agreement that members of trade unions should have the right to cast their votes, direct and secretly, in leadership elections. If that is so, I hope that they will welcome the Bill that we shall introduce in this Session of Parliament to give more trade unionists the right to cast their votes secretly and direct.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Prime Minister take time during her busy day to take a careful look at the report of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts on further and higher education in Northern Ireland, especially in the light of the decision taken by the court of the New University of Ulster in Coleraine yesterday? Will the Government look again at the proposed merger between the New University of Ulster and the polytechnic college, taking particular account of the real costs, which have been concealed until now, and especially having regard to the funding of the pension arrangements for the teaching staff and the cost of the salaries due to the different principles in the incremental scales of the two institutions?
    The Prime Minister: Of course I will look at the hon. Gentleman's point and consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Simon Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: What mandate does the Prime Minister have—[HON. MEMBERS: "Reading."]—for reviving the undemocratic and unjustified practice of appointing not only one hon. Member to the other place, but the untested, untried and, for all she knows, unsuitable children of such appointees, and for reviving the practice of hereditary peerages, therefore adding yet another unjustified element to our legislature, which is supposed to be democratic?
    The Prime Minister: The party that the hon,. Gentleman represents is well represented in another place. I am surprised that he should be so critical of it. With regard to hereditary peerages, I have said that in exceptional cases they should continue to be awarded.
    Viscount Cranborne: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the report—[interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to hear this.
    Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. I was under the impression that my hon. Friends wanted to hear it too. Has my right hon. Friend by any chance noticed the press report about the United States Supreme Court's decision on unitary taxation? Does she agree that it is likely to lead to all sorts of disadvantages for foreign companies in the United States? Does she intend to make representations to our American allies about the consequences of that decision?
    The Prime Minister: Representations to our allies on taxation matters are usually made through the vehicle of the double taxation agreement. We shall continue to make those representations and others, when appropriate. I note that my hon. Friend followed the previous question with a question on a matter that is not discussable in the other place.
    Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Lady tell us how many job losses have been announced since the election to add to the record total that she and her Government have already achieved?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the right hon. Gentleman will realise that the unemployment figures come out once a month and that the next lot are due out on 30 June. The last crude total was about 3,049,000.
    Mr. Foot: Have there not been announcements that about 10,000 people have lost their jobs since the election, for example 2,800 on Merseyside? Those are serious developments. Did not the right hon. Lady discuss this matter with the CBI when she had a meeting yesterday? Did she not agree then with the statement made by the CBI that the signs of recovery were "patchy and thin"? How does that accord with what she said on the same subject in her election manifesto?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman follows my speeches he will realise that when I spoke to the CBI at its annual dinner, the expression that there were signs of a recovery, but that it was patchy, came from me. That is so. It is bound to be so in each and every recovery, as some firms go ahead faster than others, some have obsolete products and some have uncompetitive products. With regard to the talk that I had with the CBI yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman will agree that those firms prosper that have a product that is both well designed and competitively produced.
    Mr. Foot: Did the right hon. Lady say in her election manifesto that the recovery was patchy and thin?
    Mrs. Renée Short: No, she did not.
    The Prime Minister: No, I had a brief election manifesto, but the right hon. Gentleman will have found many speeches with the reference to the word "patchy", which I have said originated from me.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 28 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Prime Minister further consider the proposed 3·7 per cent. increase for the pensioners and the likely shortfall, bearing in mind that inflation is likely

    459
    to be about 6 per cent. in November, when the increase is to be paid? Surely it is not the best possible example of Victorian moral rectitude to try to do down the old people in that way. Why not make up that discrepancy with an enlarged Christmas bonus this year?
    The Prime Minister: Had the hon. Gentleman listened to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in one of his previous answers, he would have heard that from November 1978 to November 1983, assuming that the RPI is up by 6 per cent. over the last year, prices will have risen by 70·7 per cent. Over the same period the pension will have risen by more than that — by 74 per cent. Therefore, under a Conservative Government, pensions are ahead of the increase in inflation over the same period.

    Gibraltar Dockyard
    Mr. Allen McKayasked the Prime Minister what steps she intends to sustain the economy of Gibraltar following the closure of the Gibraltar dockyard on 31 December 1983.
    The Prime Minister: If a decision is taken to establish a commercial dockyard in Gibraltar, we would be prepared to transfer land and assets to the Gibraltar Government free of charge, to provide funds to cover re-equipment and certain other initial costs. We also make substantial contributions to Gibraltar's development programme.
    Mr. McKay: Does the Prime Minister agree that the commitment that we made to the people of Gibraltar could
    460
    be a big failure? Will she take it upon herself to consult all the interested parties in Gibraltar about the viability of the economy after the closure of the dockyard? Will she consider stopping the closure of the dockyard until those discussions have taken place?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The decision was taken. The hon. Gentleman will remember that we also had to take decisions about the closure of Chatham and the reduction of Portsmouth naval dockyard. We have tried to make extensive arrangements for there to be a commercial dockyard in Gibraltar after the closure of the naval dockyard, with the financial arrangements that I mentioned to the hon. Gentleman. The Chief Minister is coming over this week. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I will see him to discuss those matters.
    Mr. McQuarrie: When the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends meet Gibraltar's Chief Minister, will she consider the comments that were made by the NATO commander on the failure of the British Government to ensure the security of the Gibraltar straits by installing guns, missiles and other armaments in that dependent territory?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. During the 1981 defence review it became clear that the Royal Navy's general requirement for dockyard support would decrease in the future. Decisions were then taken about the future of that dockyard. In view of the decisions that have already been taken, there is no question of going back on the decision to close that dockyard.

Erskine May
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. I draw the attention to the fact that the 20th Edition of "Erskine May" is available in the Chamber and generally. I shall refer to the new edition, when appropriate, in my rulings.

Timber Frame Houses
3.31 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: 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,
"the widespread and growing use of the timber frame system in the construction of dwellings and the revelations of serious dangers and defects in this system which will lead to future excessive expenditure and hardship for tenants and owner-occupiers."
This matter is urgent, as the Granada "World in Action" programme last night revealed serious fire risks. There is need for an urgent debate to do five things—first, to get Government action to stop the use of this system until all of the serious and worrying accusations about the inadequacies revealed in the programme are fully investigated. It has long been the view of many hon. Members that timber frame construction is likely to cause major structural problems which will only come to light in the future. It seems that owner-occupiers are being subjected to what the planners and builders did to council tenants in the mid-1960s with factory system building. Secondly, the matter is urgent and should be debated as there is an accusation of serious fire risks. The report of the National House Building Council showed that on 33 per cent. of building sites visited fire stops had been omitted or incorrectly placed. Examples of fires in timber frame houses have shown serious risks not present in traditionally constructed dwellings.
Thirdly, a debate should be held to force the Government to prevent the continued use of this system, at least until the Building Research Establishment's survey of timber frame construction is published in full and to ensure that the report is not hushed up. It seems that at the moment we are operating on the basis of act first and think second.
Fourthly, we need an urgent debate on the Government's involvement in the matter. There seems to be some type of cover-up as I was refused a copy—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. I cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. I ask that he be heard in silence.
Mr. Roberts: There seems to be some type of cover-up going on, as I was refused a copy of the National House Building Council's report on this system which was then obtained by Granada and shows all of the major defects in the system.
On 7 April 1983 a Minister at the Department of the Environment refused to allow me to see a fire research station report into a fire in one of these timber frame houses. He said that the report stated that there was no risk to life. Last night's programme showed that there was a serious risk to life. The standard of the solo timber frame house built by Barratt in England did not satisfy Scottish regulations, but the Government have given an exemption and allowed them to be built in Scotland. Sir Lawrie Barratt's connections with the Conservative party are no secret. In 1979 the famous helicopter was used in the election campaign by the then Leader of the Opposition.
An urgent debate is needed, if for no other reason, to allay the fears of thousands of people who have already bought timber frame houses. There is a real need for a debate as we may be on the verge of a national scandal on

463
the scale of the system building scandals of the 1960s. Without further Government statements, it appears that a fraud is being perpetrated on the first-time buyer by certain speculative builders, assisted by Ministers —[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not use the argument that he might use if a debate were granted. He is asking for permission to move the Adjournment.
The hon. Gentleman 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 growing use of the timber frame system of constructing dwellings and the recent relevations of the serious dangers of this system and its design faults."
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 10, I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision.
I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said and to his representations, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

Orders of the Day
  Debate on the Address

    FIFTH DAY
    Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [22 June]
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, as follows:
    Most Gracious Sovereign,
    We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the Gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament—[Sir Peter Mills.]
    Question again proposed.

    Foreign Affairs and Defence
    Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition.
    3.47 pm
    Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add:
    But humbly regret the unconditional commitment in the Gracious Speech to the deployment this year of Cruise missiles in Britain and to the continuation of the Trident programme, which jeopardise the possibility of any agreement on nuclear disarmament; regret that the failure of Her Majesty's Government to secure changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and the European Community Budget will injure the prospect of constructive relations with our European partners referred to in the Gracious Speech; and consider that he refusal of Her Majesty's Government to support adequate action for international economic recovery condemns the world to continuing mass unemployment, weakens co-operation with developing countries, and puts the world banking system at risk.
    I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Sir G. Howe) on assuming the difficult and somewhat dangerous office of Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. We have been sparring partners for many years and I look forward to continuing our familiar tournament on this new court. However, I deeply regret the circumstances in which he has assumed that office. His predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), showed courage and persistence in pressing British interests as seen by those with knowledge and experience of international affairs on a Prime Minister who was always reluctant to entertain on any matters opinions that are different from her own. The right hon. Member paid the price of offending the Empress and he has been excluded from the court. I dare say that he may come not to regret it as the years pass.
    The right hon. Gentleman's presence below the Gangway should remind the Foreign Secretary that the greatest diplomatic problem facing him in what is the most dangerous decade since the war will not be thousands of miles away in Moscow or Washington or hundreds of miles away in Bonn or Paris, but a few yards away across the street in No. 10, where he must face an opinionated and ignorant Prime Minister who is always convinced that she knows best about everything. His predecessor, Lord Carrington, had the same problem. He handled it with perhaps more urbanity than the right hon. Gentleman,

    465
    although his success until the disaster of the Falklands war led him to resign office perhaps owed less to his diplomatic skill than to the fact that he was not seen as a political rival for leadership of the Conservative party.
    The Foreign Secretary now has a colleague in Washington facing a similar problem. Time and again, Mr. Shultz has seen his responsibilities overidden and his advice rejected by men as ignorant and opinionated as the British Prime Minister but working in the White House. No one can feel happy that power in two of the most important countries in the world is now held in hands so dogmatic and insensitive.
    I hope that many Conservative Members were as shocked as we were by the extraordinary jamboree at Wembley a few weeks ago—a rally all too reminiscent of others held elsewhere half a century ago—at which the appalling performance of Mr. Kenny Everett was received with ecstatic rapture by the Prime Minister and thousands of young Conservatives. Anyone tempted to regard that extraordinary performance as an accidental excess at the end of an election campaign must have had his complacency rudely dashed by the speech of the Prime Minister herself last Friday at the inaugural meeting of her Comintern, as The Times has already described the new organisation of half the Conservative parties in the world. It was an orgy of anti-Soviet rhetoric, but the problems that humanity now faces are far too serious and dangerous to yield to such comic-strip vulgarities.
    As this is the first foreign affairs debate of a new Parliament, I think that it should take a somewhat broader look at the problems in the medium term. Our motion focuses on three—Europe, the crisis in the Western economies and the prospects for disarmament.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: How has the right hon. Gentleman managed to persuade his colleagues to put on the Order Paper a motion that reflects more nearly the manifesto on which I fought the election than that on which the right hon. Gentleman fought it? What has happened to the commitments to withdrawal from Europe and removal of all American nuclear bases from British soil?
    Mr. Healey: All will be made plain to the hon. Gentleman as my speech proceeds.
    There are other matters of perhaps equal importance with the three that we have singled out. There is the crisis in southern Africa, where Western failure to persuade Pretoria to accept independence for Namibia could plunge half a continent into war. The Government's decision to rely on South Africa to provide a base for building a military airport in the Falklands is bound to be seen by the friends of apartheid throughout the world as a signal of support, if not surrender.
    There are grave problems in the Middle East, where the breakdown of the so-called Reagan plan has gravely damaged Western influence in the whole of the Arab world and given the Soviet Union a key role in negotiations for a lasting settlement—to be played whenever Moscow judges the time to be right.
    There are problems, too, in central America, where Washington is drifting, consciously or unconsciously, into a Vietnam type of military intervention which could ruin half a hemisphere and could impose strains on American
    466
    society that would fatally weaken the ability of Washington to play a constructive role in world affairs in the coming years.
    All these are vital issues to which the House will have to return time and again in the next few years. It is clear from even a cursory look at them, however, that at a time when the prospect of helpful initiatives from Washington is clouded it is highly desirable that western Europe should play a more coherent and constructive role in the world. Yet western Europe has been paralysed in recent years by the growing impossibility of making sense of the Rome treaty in its present form. As the Prime Minister reminded us last week, the whole financial structure of the Common Market will break down within a year with the exhaustion of the resources available to finance an ever more voracious common agricultural policy and to meet the legitimate needs of the Mediterranean countries which are already members, or are soon to become members.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) will deal in more detail with the problems of the Community, but I wish to say a word about the Stuttgart summit, about which the Prime Minister grossly misled the House last week when she said:
    "The arrangement that we reached on this year's refund is separate from the long-term arrangement."—[Official Report, 23 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 149.]
    I do not accuse the Prime Minister of wilfully misleading the House but merely of the failing to which she is so prone —selective amnesia, or the refusal to read or to notice anything disagreeable to her. That trait was well described in an interview which she gave during the election campaign to Miss Jean Rook. I wonder, incidentally, what became of that lady's peerage, but perhaps it will come up next time.
    Chancellor Kohl, chairman of the Stuttgart meeting, said that the proposal for a British rebate, which itself was barely half what the Prime Minister was promising a few months ago, was "indissolubly linked" with that of Community financing as a whole. As he made clear, that means in practice an increase in own resources which will be essential once Spain and Portugal join and even more essential if there is not a draconic cut in spending on the common agricultural policy.
    Prime Minister Mauroy of France was even more specific. The statement reads:
    "Mr. Mauroy said that enlargement and development of the Community must go hand in hand. He regards the compromise concerning the British problem as conditional, which is to say that it is connected with the search for a long-term solution. On this matter the French delegation made a statement which had been included in the minutes, stating that the sum on which agreement was finally able to be reached was a one-off sum, invariable, with no reference to the past or the future, the actual payment of which is linked to the results of the negotiation on the future financing and the associated problems."
    That statement was supported at a press conference the same day by the Belgian Prime Minister.
    In other words, nothing has yet been finally decided about the British rebate this year. All these matters will come up again in Athens in December and if there is then no solution to all the financial problems—the problems of increasing own resources, of the common agricultural policy and of enlargement to include Spain and Portugal—as the President of the European Assembly made clear publicly in London last week, it is likely that whatever Governments may then agree the European Assembly will block the budget in which the United Kingdom rebate is included.

    467
    In the light of those facts, no Member could regard the Prime Minister's statement in answer to questions last week as in any sense wholly candid. She was wrong time and again in saying that the agreement on the rebate was unconditional when it is clearly tied to agreement of all those other matters which will be extremely difficult to reach in the next six months and perhaps most difficult to reach at the meeting to be held in Athens just before Christmas, to be followed a few days later by a meeting of the European Assembly.
    Meanwhile, the idiocies of the common agricultural policy continue. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food announced yesterday that the European Commission is now selling 30,000 tonnes of butter, including British butter, to the Soviet Union with a subsidy of 47p per pound. The Russians will thus pay half the price that British housewives have to pay in British shops. I am forced once again to the conclusion that the common agricultural policy is a device invented by the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States of America to undermine the red army by pumping its veins full of cholesterol from cheap Common Market butter. It is impossible to find any other rational explanation for what Western Governments are tolerating.
    Yesterday the Minister told us that 62 per cent. of CAP spending goes on export subsidies and internal dispersal subsidies, compared with only 46 per cent. six years ago. In other words, the position has grown worse and not better under the Conservative Government's policies.
    Unfortunately, the row about the British rebate and the CAP has completely blotted out European initiatives on world problems. However, I notice that the statement on central America by the summit meeting last week was encouraging. It said that the Heads of Government were convinced
    "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. They, therefore, fully support the current initiative of the Contadora Group. They underlined the need for the establishment of democratic conditions and for the strict observance of human rights throughout the region".
    There could be no more direct and blunt a rebuttal of the main elements of the United States' policy for central America than that statement. Will the Foreign Secretary tell us today what steps the Government are taking to further that approach, which was endorsed by the Prime Minister in Stuttgart last week? For the past four years the Prime Minister has acted as President Reagan's poodle in central American affairs. Britain was the only European country to vote against aid to Nicaragua. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us now that he will withdraw the British objection to aid to Nicaragua and restore diplomatic representation there, and that he will explain what steps he plans to take to fulfil the commitments he made at the Stuttgart summit.
    The second major issue that the Labour Opposition wish to raise involves the crisis in the Western economic and financial system and the refusal of the British Government to take or to support the initiatives necessary to overcome it. The Foreign Secretary will realise better than many of his predecessors how important the economic health of the Western world is for its efficiency and influence in world affairs. Will he tell the House how he sees the future on the issues that I shall describe?
    The civil wars proceeding and the external intervention continuing in central America pose a re al risk of collapse
    468
    of organised government in that important area. The problem is not confined to central America, but the whole of Latin America from Mexico in the north to Chile and Argentina in the south face the risk of economic and financial collapse with a consequent risk of political revolution. There are similar risks in many other important countries, especially in Nigeria in western Africa.
    Barclays Bank pointed out that the main cause of the problems facing those countries was not the increase in oil prices brought about by OPEC but the action of the Western industrial countries, which in their pursuit of the holy grail of sado-monetarism have raised interest rates to unprecedented heights — there is no country in the Western world where interest rates are not far higher in relation to the rate of inflation than they have ever been over a sustained period—and the recession engendered in part by those stupendously high interest rates. Those interest rates have meant that, in 1982, 50 per cent. of the debt service of the developing countries that do not produce oil was devoted entirely to paying off interest, as against only one third in 1975. The recession in the Western world has produced a collapse in commodity prices to the lowest level for 30 years.
    I was glad that the Prime Minister took credit for the word "patchy" in relation to present recovery in Britain. Recovery throughout the Western world at present is patchy and spasmodic. Most observers believe that it is likely to sputter out within 12 months unless interest rates can be drastically reduced. Unemployment in the OECD countries, according to the end year study by that organisation, is likely to reach 34 million human beings 12 months from now, which is an increase of 8·5 million in only three years. The human tragedy involved in figures of that magnitude does not need explanation. The political as well as the economic risks in continuing increases in mass unemployment should be equally obvious, but the risks to the world banking system are also great. If the world banking system were to collapse, all those problems would be grossly aggravated.
    The Mexican crisis last summer exposed the fact that the failure of central banks to control lending by private banks, or even to monitor the complexities of the inter-bank market, have brought the entire financial system close to catastrophe. Castastrophe has so far been averted, thanks largely to the personal energy and professional skill of three men, all of whom I shall meet in Downing street this evening. They are the head of the International Monetary Fund, Jacques de Larosiére, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Paul Volcker, and the chairman of our central bank, Sir Gordon Richardson. The Prime Minister's personal prejudice has pushed Gordon Richardson from a continuing role in those affairs, and I wish to pay tribute here to a man who has been an outstanding central bank governer in Great Britain and who has made a major contribution in dealing with the economic and financial problems of the world during the past two or three years. He has been replaced by a personal favourite of the Prime Minister's, who told us within a week of his appointment that the banking crisis was over, if it had ever existed. I hope that the crash course that he has been undergoing during the past six months has taught him a little better.
    Fortunately, President Reagan was finally persuaded to overcome his personal prejudice and to reappoint Mr. Volcker as chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank. Mr. de Larosiére has also been reappointed as managing director

    469
    of the International Monetary Fund within the past few weeks. However, all that those men have been able to achieve with support from Governments and private banks all over the world is merely first aid. The central problems that risked producing catastrophe nine months ago are still there. None of the major debtors has any prospect of solving its problems during the coming years as a result of decisions already taken.
    By 1987, only four years from now, Mexico's debt, even if it carries through all the policies urged on it by the International Monetary Fund and by the banks that are lending money to Mexico, could be $101 billion as against $86 billion this year and $80 billion last year. Brazil faces similar problems, and its central bank warned the world yesterday that the conditions imposed for the aid already given could produce revolution within 12 months.
    In a week or two, Argentina will get another $1·5 billion from the private banks, including a significant proportion from British banks. That is on top of the $1·1 billion that the Argentine Government received earlier this year. But the British Government have sought to set no conditions on those loans. They have not insisted that the money should be spent on getting the Argentine economy right. They have not insisted that the money should not be poured down the drain in buying weapons of war to be used, according to our Prime Minister, for attacks on British forces in the Falklands. Exactly the same is true of the aid that is now going to Chile.
    I see that the British Government are hoping to sell the carrier Hermes to Chile in the coming months. Chile will no doubt use the aircraft carrier to attack the Argentine, or perhaps to join the Argentine—one never knows in that part of the world—in an attack on the Falklands. The fact still remains that the Prime Minister authorised British firms such as Rolls-Royce and David Brown to put essential equipment into warships that are now sailing from Hamburg to the Argentine to be used, according to the Prime Minister, at will against British forces in the Falklands.
    Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: In dealing with the conditions to be imposed upon any loans to Argentina, has the right hon. Gentleman considered how such conditions might be enforced?
    Mr. Healey: Oh yes. I had the experience, which the new Foreign Secretary enjoyed as Chancellor of the Exchequer, of chairing the interim committee of the IMF. When the IMF makes loans, it makes them strictly conditional on performance. With regard to official IMF loans to Latin America, performance must be monitored month by month as each additional tranche of assistance is offered. There is no reason why similar conditions should not have been enforced by Western Governments who have supported British banks in similar loans — [Interruption.] I am glad that the new Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign Office was nodding his head. I presume that it was in agreement with me, because he showed no signs whatever of exhaustion.
    Incidentally, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman. If there is such a thing as a wet in foreign policy, the hon. Gentleman is undoubtedly a wet. We respected the courage with which, though sometimes in coded language, he attacked the Government's policy on the Falklands over the years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is successful in
    470
    shifting them somewhat in his new important position at the Foreign Office. He is not a wet in domestic affairs, but I think that he is in foreign affairs. There is often a distinction between the two.
    If we lend money, or allow our private banks to lend money, to these Latin American countries, and allow them to spend it on arms rather than on reconstructing their economies, that money not only goes straight down the drain but risks bringing economic breakdown nearer and makes it certain that any political struggles that follow will be bloodier than they would otherwise have been. In this situation we have an opportunity to try to halt the arms race at least in Latin America, and I hope very much that the Foreign Secretary, no doubt ably assisted by the Under-Secretary, will find some way of persuading his international colleagues to follow that route.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that one of the reasons why the banking sector and this Government are so lax about imposing any conditions on these various loans to Argentina, Brazil or anyone else is that according to the Inland Revenue statement at the beginning of the year the banks can set off all those bad debts against tax? That means that the £962 million already set aside by the top four banks will in the end be paid for by people who still have a job and are paying tax. That sum set off against tax is, roughly speaking, a loss of £400 million to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the rest of the British people will have to pick up that tab. Is it any wonder that the banks are not bothered about churning out money to these countries that are up to their necks in debt? They play the entrepreneurial role and the British people must pick up the tab. That is why the banks are not bothered about conditions.
    Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend, with whom on this series of issues I have long agreed, or he has agreed with me —I am not sure which is more dangerous—is absolutely right. It suits the private banks very well to lend this money at high interest rates and to make large profits by doing so. I only wish that there were more Members in this House like the members of the American Congress who take very seriously the record profits that have been recorded by private banks out of unsound lending, backed by their own Governments, which is a charge on their own taxpayers.
    That brings me to the next problem that I wish to raise with the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The problems that are now being faced in the international financial system are largely due to the fact that Governments have privatised the problem. When Governments first faced the stark reality of this nine months ago, I think they agreed that it was important to reduce the strain on the private banks and to expand the resources of the IMF and the World Bank so that they could play a larger role in financing the deficits of the major debtors. But last year IMF lending financed only 8 per cent. of the deficits of the non-oil less developed countries, and there was a heavy fall in overseas development assistance and other official flows of aid.
    I read today that the 60 per cent. increase in the IMF cash resources, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman helped to arrange as Chancellor a few months ago, is not likely to be enough even to finance the IMF's existing lending commitments over the next two or three years. The plain fact is that the right hon. and learned

    471
    Gentleman as Chancellor completely failed, along with his colleagues, the Ministers of Finance in other Western countries, to increase the resources available for official financing on the scale required. He has now helped to produce a private banking system in the Western world that can survive only by lending ever more money to bad debtors, and is bullied into doing so by central banks and international institutions that are supposed to guarantee their prudence rather than to promote their profligacy. That is the situation which the world now faces.
    It is not surprising that a proliferation of ingenious plans are now being developed on both sides of the Atlantic to provide more official guarantees for the restructuring of private debts. The plain fact is that there is no answer to this problem. The financial system is likely to collapse unless the Western world can achieve collective growth so that the demand for the commodities produced by the debtor countries increases and interest rates fall.
    That is not only the view of the French Government. It was the view of American leaders, for example, put to the Chancellor by the Secretary for International Monetary Affairs at the United States Treasury some months ago. It is the view of all the international economic institutions, including the central bankers and the Central Bank—The Bank for International Settlements—in its report last week. Yet every such proposal has been turned down flat by the United Kingdom Government. The Foreign Secretary, who a few weeks ago was Chancellor of the Exchequer, turned it down flat even when it was put to him by the CBI the week before the general election was called.
    One can only hope that in his new role the right hon. and learned Gentleman will pay more attention to the international consequences of sado-monetarism. Unless he does so and can persuade others to do so, the risks which the financial system still faces, the suffering caused to the developing countries by the draconic deflationary policies imposed on them either by events or by the IMF, and the suffering caused to the 34 million unemployed in the Western industrial world next year will produce political consequences immensely damaging to any attempt to sustain, still less develop, world order.
    I come now to the most important issue of all: what steps can now be taken to halt and reverse the nuclear arms race? I think—at least, I hope—that all right hon. and hon. Members agree that we want to maintain the military balance between Russia and the West but to do so at the lowest cost and risk. So far, the search for agreement between the West and Russia, at least to control the arms race, has had some useful results—the non-proliferation treaty, the test ban treaty, and the first and second treaties on strategic arms limitation. Despite nose agreements, both sides have continued to increase their nuclear arsenals, and each now has enough to blow up the world 10 times over. Worse still, during the period arms spending in the Third world has been increasing faster than arms spending in the Soviet Union and the Western world, and in many countries in the Third world the arms race is now going nuclear—in the far east, the middle east, and perhaps soon in Africa.
    Until recently, it was possible to argue that although the arms race involved an intolerable waste of money, it has not so far particularly increased the risk of war. That, I fear, is no longer true. First, some new weapons systems are being developed in the United States and the Soviet Union which may appear to offer the prospect of a
    472
    successful first strike which would destroy the enemy's retaliatory power. Some systems are being considered, notably President Reagan's so-called "Star Wars" speech which appeared to offer the prospect of launching an attack on an enemy without any risk of suffering nuclear retaliation. I wish that Conservative Members would wipe the silly smirk off their faces when I mention these matters, because all who have studied them carefully over recent years are deeply disturbed about the prospects, unless action is taken quickly to deal with these new threats.
    Once such systems, either the first strike systems or the watertight defensive systems which President Reagan appeared to contemplate, begin to be deployed, the side which fears that its adversary possesses them will inevitably be tempted to strike first in a crisis, because it would risk losing everything if it did not do so. That is the first great risk facing the world if the arms race continues along the lines at present contemplated in both Washington and Moscow.
    The second risk is that other new systems, particularly the cruise missile, are so small and easily hidden that once they are deployed in any numbers an arms control agreement would be almost impossible to verify without the degree of on-ground interference in national life by international bodies which not only the Soviet Union but certainly the United States would never agree to.
    Both Russia and the United States now have the capacity to deploy those systems. If either does so, the other will certainly follow suit. Marshal Ustinov made that clear, not for the first time, in a speech that he made only yesterday. Yet if one sits back and looks at the problem, one has to accept that there is now an overall global equivalence between the super powers. At a recent meeting in Hamburg I was interested to find that the three leading officials dealing with defence and disarmament in the United States all agreed that there was a rough overall global equivalence at the strategic nuclear level.
    There is, of course, a regional imbalance in nuclear forces in Europe which favours the Soviet Union, but there has been for the past 20 years, ever since NATO withdrew its land-based missiles in favour of submarine-based missiles allocated to SACEUR for use in the European theatre. The fact is that, by 1970, the Russians had 650 medium-range nuclear missiles SAM 4s and 5s, with ranges of 2,000 and 4,000 kilometres, deployed against the West. The West never felt it necessary to deploy similar land-based missiles, rightly judging that it was much better to counter that possible threat with submarine-based missiles, which are invulnerable to attack and therefore do not pose any temptation of a first strike. I was glad that the chairman of the military committee of NATO made that point again in an interesting speech only last week.
    Here we have the dilemma. On the one hand, both sides are on the point of deploying systems that would immensely increase the risk of pre-emptive attack, which would make arms control infinitely more difficult. On the other hand, both sides already have not only a sufficiency but a gross superfluity of nuclear weapons, in rough equivalence with each other. In such a situation, we should adopt the first law of holes which, in a different context, I put to the House just before the general election. The first law of holes is that when one is in a hole one should stop digging. That is precisely what the world should do in the present arms race crisis.
    Mr. Bill Walker: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned SAM 4s and 5s. Would he care to explain the difference between SAM 4s and 5s and SS 20s?
    Mr. Healey: The essential difference is that SS 20s are more accurate. Incidentally, they are nowhere near as accurate as Pershing 2, because the American Air Force journal pointed out that their accuracy is not sufficient for them to be used against point targets. What is also important is that they are faster to react than the earlier missiles. Moreover, they are mobile. Of course they represent an improvement. However, there is no reason on earth why the answer to those missiles should be to do something that the West has deliberately avoided doing for very good reasons—and that is to put land-based missiles of a similar nature on the continent of Europe. I shall come to that in more detail in a moment, because it is a central issue.
    As I said, the important thing is to stop digging. There is now an overwhelming case for seeking rapid agreement on a multilateral freeze on the development and deployment of new nuclear systems, and that would have to include cruise, Pershing, and Trident, and similar systems on the Soviet side. However, Her Majesty's Government, far from supporting the freeze, propose to move as rapidly as possible into each of these three new areas. They are strongly in favour of unilateral rearmament. To argue, against the background of the policy contained in the Gracious Speech, that the Government are in favour of disarmament is like Sir Campbell Fraser yesterday supporting a 2 per cent. increase in wages for the rest of the population after accepting a 30 per cent. increase for himself.
    The Government are already—very belatedly —becoming a little uneasy about the nature of their commitment to Trident. The cost is likely to surpass £10 billion—that could be an underestimate—and it will pre-empt 40 per cent. of our equipment budget at the end of the decade, when all three Services will need major re-equipment. But it also represents a stupendous increase in British striking power. Our present Polaris submarines have a theoretical capacity to destroy 64 targets, because each of the three nuclear warheads in each missile is pointed at the same target; they are not independently targetable. The proposed Trident D4 system would have the capacity in theory to destroy 896 targets, because each missile carries 16 independently targetable re-entry vehicles.
    The Secretary of State for Defence had to admit during the election campaign that if Russia and America, in our absence, made progress in disarmament, Britain would have to think again about the number of warheads in the Trident force. The Foreign Secretary went further—that no doubt explains why he is sitting a little detached from the Defence Secretary at this moment—and said that Britain would have to think again about the whole question of having an independent national deterrent.
    We believe that the time to think again is now. We think that Britain should press to join negotiations and offer to put its existing Polaris forces within the negotiations, because we do not believe that we can trust President Reagan and Mr. Andropov alone to reach agreement. After all, President Reagan has recently appointed, as head of his arms control and disarmament agency, a man who said, just before his appointment, that he regarded arms negotiations as a sham, and that their
    474
    only purpose was to console or comfort public opinion. I fear that the Prime Minister went almost as far as that, according to a report in The Toronto Star, at the Williamsburg summit, when, in the course of a furious argument with the Canadian Prime Minister, she described talks with Russia on arms control as "an exercise in futility". Prime Minister Trudeau well replied that they were an exercise in necessity.
    Mr. Peter Blaker: Will the right hon. Gentleman say a little more about his party's policy? He will be aware that the British strategic nuclear deterrent represents 2½ per cent. of the total of the Russians' strategic nuclear forces. Is it the policy of his party that we should negotiate away the whole of our strategic nuclear deterrent in return for the Soviet Union's reducing its nuclear deterrent by 2½ per cent.?
    Mr. Healey: I think that we should be prepared to put it in the negotiations. Lord Trefgarne said the same in the House of Lords two days ago, directly contradicting the Prime Minister, who said during the election campaign that she regarded—
    Mr. Skinner: Ask the hon. Member for Blackpool (Mr. Blaker) why he got the sack.
    Mr. Healey: I know why he got the sack, but I am much too kind to refer it. The plain fact is that we should put our force into the negotiations and see what is the best we can get for it.
    Mr. Churchill rose—
    Mr. Healey: I have given away a great deal already. Conservative Back Benchers must not be too jealous of one another's success in persuading me to accept their interventions.
    I believe that there is immense confusion in Her Majesty's Government's policy. The Prime Minister said —as did the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), whom she sacked the other day — that she regarded our force as the irreducible minimum. The Defence Secretary said that he would be prepared to reduce it if the Americans and Russians had already reached agreement on drastic reductions in armaments. Lord Trefgarne said last week in another place that we —meaning Her Majesty's Government—have not ruled out putting the British deterrent into the strategic arms negotiations talks. There is a total inconsistency between the three statements. No doubt the Defence Secretary, who appears to be somewhat discomposed by this revelation of inconsistency on the Government Front Benches, will clear it up for us this evening. I shall be ready to intervene if I feel that his explanation is unsatisfactory.
    With regard to the cruise and Pershing programmes, nobody now argues a military case for them. Even President Reagan, who originally argued for them in the context of the possibility of limiting a nuclear war to Europe, has ruled out the prospect of a limited nuclear war in Europe; in fact, the United States never believed that there was a military case for cruise and Pershing.
    Mr. Churchill: That was your friend, Helmut Schmidt, was it not?
    Mr. Healey: I shall be referring later to Helmut Schmidt. The missiles—certainly the cruise missiles—are still facing immense technical problems. Indeed, if the Prime Minister were to have the cruise missiles in place

    475
    by the end of this year and they had to be fired next year, they would be as likely to fall on our European allies as on enemy country, but perhaps that is her intention. It has been argued—certainly by Chancellor Schmidt when he was still Chancellor—that the missiles were politically necessary to keep the Alliance united.
    Mr. Churchill: And by your Government.
    Mr. Healey: Absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is totally untrue.
    It is now clear that the prospect of having the missiles deployed is already dividing the Alliance. Nobody now believes that the Belgian and Dutch Governments will agree to deployment. The possibility of the next Italian Government agreeing to deployment is very open after the general election in Italy yesterday. Helmut Schmidt has now had second thoughts about the military sense and political wisdom of the programme.
    I have always believed—I think that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will confirm this, because we were two of the small group of Ministers who discussed the problem when we were in power in 1979 — that to attempt to construct a Euro-strategic balance confined to the European continent was likely to weaken the American commitment to Europe, and therefore to decouple the American deterrent rather than to strengthen the link.
    Above all, putting new missiles on land is directly contrary to the whole trend of American policy at the present time. Its proposals for strategic arms control are based entirely on trying to get the Russians to give up their land-based missiles in favour of submarine-based missiles. Indeed, it has always been a sensible triolet to say:
    "Put those missiles out to sea
    Where the real estate is free
    And they're miles away from me."
    There is no doubt whatever that to introduce two whole new sets of land-based missiles into the towns and villages of western Europe will be profoundly destructive of popular support.
    Mr. Churchill rose—
    Mr. Healey: No, I shall not give way.
    It is certain that if we proceed with the proposed course we shall be no better off, because there is no reason not to believe the Soviet spokesmen, Mr. Andropov and Mr. Ustinov, who said that they will follow suit and take similar measures if we take those steps.
    It would be far better to recognise that the December 1979 decision was a mistake, as NATO recognised that the MLF proposal was a mistake 20 years ago, as President Carter recognised that his proposal to put the neutron bomb in Europe was a mistake six or seven years ago, and as the United States now recognises that its refusal to negotiate a ban on MIRVs in the SALT II treaty was a disastrous mistake. The Americans, having gone ahead with MIRV in the belief that they would have a lasting advantage out of it, are now trying to produce an arms control treaty which will ban MIRVs on both sides. I have not the slightest doubt that within a year or two they will be doing the same with the cruise system, but probably too late.
    It would be far better for all countries now to support a nuclear freeze. It has overwhelming support in the United Nations, it has growing support among the people of the United States and Britain, it has support in public
    476
    opinion on both sides of the Atlantic, and the Soviet Government have formally endorsed the proposal in detail in a recent statement.
    To cover as vast a canvas as the affairs of the world at a time of immense change and danger inevitably means using a broad brush. However, unless we examine the picture as a whole we risk losing sight of some of the major underlying factors that will determine the way in which the world moves during this Parliament. The major underlying factors make the years of the present Parliament by far the most dangerous since the second world war. They present us with the risk of convulsions, economic, military and political, which could threaten all our hopes of prosperity and, indeed, threaten our survival. Because the approach to those underlying problems in the Gracious Speech is gravely deficient, we have tabled the amendment, which we invite the House to support.
    4.30 pm
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) pointed out, this is the first time that I have addressed the House as Foreign Secretary. I do so at the beginning of my fourth week in the job. I take some comfort in being able to begin on an unusual note of harmony with the right hon. Gentleman. I thank him for his congratulations and good wishes on my appointment. We did not often have the opportunity to exchange such words in our previous partnership. To be received in that way by the right hon. Gentleman is rather like being nuzzled by an old ram.
    Mr. Healey: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not spoil a beautiful friendship by accusing me of necrophilia.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is overwhelming evidence to rebut such a charge against the right hon. Gentleman. However, he did not sustain his good-humoured approach for long. We soon heard him unjustly accusing my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister of being dogmatic and insensitive. He should know because no one shows more evidence of those characteristics than he. I fancy that his reference to comic strip vulgarity was an apt description of his undistinguished part in the recent election campaign.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Get on with it.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is getting extremely sensitive.
    Although this is the beginning of a new Parliament, the Gracious Speech outlines a programme in foreign and defence policy which continues and builds on the work done by the previous Government. I see my task as continuing and building on the work done by my two distinguished predecessors as Secretary of State—my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Carrington, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym). The policies they carried out have proved good for Britain and good for our friends, and they have earned the respect of those with whom we disagree. I am fortunate in my inheritance and I am grateful to my predecessors for the part that they played in building it up.
    The range of issues with which my predecessors had to deal—indeed, with which any Foreign Secretary has to deal—is enormous, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East recognised. Rather than try to comment on all of

    477
    them, I propose to concentrate on two major areas of foreign policy that were the centre of attention during the general election campaign. I have in mind two of the three issues with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt—defence and disarmament and membership of the European Community.
    I shall deal briefly with three topics that are mentioned in the Gracious Speech—the Falklands, Hong Kong and Gibraltar. I should emphasise that they find themselves in the same paragraph as a matter of convenience, not because the Government want to make artificial links between the different subjects or to underestimate the importance of individual circumstances. In each case we have special responsibilities and in each case we shall fulfil in good faith the commitments that we have made.
    In the case of the Falklands, we shall maintain the level of forces necessary to ensure the security of the islands and work to ensure that the islanders have a viable economic future. After the events of last year, we have a special duty to protect the rights of the Falkland islanders. The decision to build a strategic airfield on the islands at Mount Pleasant —which my right hon. Friend announced yesterday—is an illustration of our commitment.
    We are also committed to do everything in our power to ensure the continuing well-being of the people of Hong Kong. As is made clear in the Gracious Speech, we aim to reach a solution on the future of the territory that is acceptable to this Parliament, China, and the people of Hong Kong.
    Various rumours have been circulating about what may or may not be under discussion in the talks taking place through diplomatic channels in Peking. I hope that the House will accept that, at this stage, the talks must be confidential if they are to be successful. The Government do not regard anything said outside the talks as in any way prejudicing their outcome.
    The background of good relations between the United Kingdom and China, and our common interest in ensuring the future stability and prosperity of the people of Hong Kong, give grounds for confidence that we shall be able to reach a satisfactory negotiated settlement.
    In the case of Gibraltar, we shall continue to respect the wishes of its people, as the constitution provides. We have a long-standing commitment to support Gibraltar in face of the present restrictions. If, when the Royal Naval dockyard closes by the end of this year, it is decided to set up a commercial yard to take its place, we are prepared, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said during Question Time today, to offer a generous package of assistance to get the venture off to a good start. She and I will discuss that further with the Chief Minister of Gibraltar tomorrow.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: As the Government are committed to supporting Spanish entry into the European Community, will not it be made virtually a condition of such entry that Spain respects the wishes of the people of Gibraltar?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I had intended almost immediately to say something about that. I see no contradiction between our support for the people of Gibraltar and our continued desire for good relations with
    478
    Spain, both bilaterally and, we hope, soon, as full members of the Western Alliance and the European Community.
    We consider that the joint statement that was agreed at Lisbon in April 1980 and the letters that were subsequently exchanged by the two Governments provide the right basis for progress in relation to Gibraltar. In particular, they provide for the lifting of Spanish restrictions, the existence of which is, of course, quite incompatible with Spain's fellow membership of the European Community.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary has not said more about the Falklands. Would he care to comment on the fact that there are to be elections in Argentina later this year and that a democratic Government will be installed in Buenos Aires on 30 January? Is not that a significant matter on which the Foreign Secretary should comment? Is he aware that both the Peronists and the radicals in Buenos Aires have been making much more helpful comments about possible discussions and negotiations with the United Kingdom? Does the Foreign Secretary intend to conclude his remarks on the dependencies without commenting on that?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: Even in Britain, remarks made several months ahead of an election campaign by some of the parties to that campaign are not necessarily a clear guide to the outcome of the election. I should not like to pursue the hon. Gentleman's analysis in regard to Argentina.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: No, I should like to continue.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East devoted much of his speech to the Community. The nation's verdict at the election could not have been clearer. The electorate gave its overwhelming support to parties which want to stay in the Community and to make a success of British membership. It rejected the sterile alternative of withdrawal. I hope that the signs of fresh thinking by those who are contending for the right to lead the Opposition means that there, too, the message is beginning to be understood.
    The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) drew attention to the limited nature of the amendment on that topic. I am sure that the House will look forward to hearing the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) expound on the matter. When the hon. Gentleman was pressed during his leadership campaign recently to explain Labour party policy on the issue, he replied with the immortal words, "Over the next five years, anything can happen."
    For our part, we shall set out with confidence to do what the British people overwhelmingly want us to do—to make a success of British membership and to play a leading role in reshaping the Community for the next phase of its existence.
    The election campaign, and above all the decisive result, marked a change in the climate of discussion in Britain at a critical moment for the meeting in Stuttgart. That meeting marked what I think will turn out to be an important stage in the development of the Community as a whole.
    Understandably, the reports of that meeting were dominated by our budget refunds for 1983. We were

    479
    determined to secure an acceptable solution. Contrary to the right hon. Gentleman's extravagant denunciations, we secured just that. The result, which provided for a refund of almost exactly two-thirds of our net contribution over four years, is a satisfactory outcome for our efforts. It is in sharp contrast to the so-called Dublin mechanism which the Labour Government secured and which never produced a penny piece.
    By contrast, the settlements that we have secured have been worth £2,500 million to Britain since 1980. The provision and agreement recorded in relation to that settlement are distinct from, and unrelated to, the agreements also recorded to deal with the longer-term Community problems. It was recorded and agreed at Stuttgart that provision should be made for the 1983 settlement in the provisional draft budget for 1984. In that way, the Community has shown that it is prepared to deal with unacceptable situations when they arise. We recognise that our partners have been willing to pay more — or receive less — at a time of general financial stringency to redeem that pledge.
    As we emphasised from the start, the real focus must be on the long-term. It must be on finding a lasting solution to recurring financial problems that affect not only Britain, but the Community as a whole. It is there that the importance of Stuttgart lies, and that is why the Opposition amendment is so misconceived and untimely.
    We have, albeit rather later than the House would have liked, got to the point where Heads of Government have launched negotiations to settle complex major problems that have dominated the Community agenda for too long. That will tackle precisely the points mentioned in the Opposition amendment — the twin problems of the budget and the CAP. By dealing with the problems, not by ignoring them, we shall find a solution.
    The Heads of Government have set a clear timetable for the process. The objective is to reach conclusions on all the long-term questions by the Athens summit on 6 December. I attach the greatest importance to that timetable, and I welcome the decision to make an early start by calling a special meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 8 July.
    The root of the problem is the Community budget. It has operated in a way that was clearly unfair to us, and that has made it harder to make progress towards the basic objectives of the Community. Both points are important and both are now recognised by our partners. As a result, the arrangements are at last to be overhauled. We have our own ideas of how that should best be done. In particular, we should like a safety net to be built into the Community's finances so that no member state will bear a burden disproportionate to its GNP and its relative prosperity. Our ideas will be on the table in the negotiations and we shall, of course, be ready to discuss others that may be put forward.
    The objective is clear. As I said in my speech at the Hague on 3 June 1981:
    "We must find solutions which will preserve the Community's existing achievements, not destroy them; which will bring harmony in place of discord; and which will strengthen the Community in the esteem of all our peoples. Above all, we must find solutions which will open the way for progress."
    As the House knows, there will also be discussion of the desirability of increasing what is known as the Community's "own resources". Some of our partners have
    480
    already put their case for that, but we are not convinced and the terms of reference for the negotiations are careful not to prejudge that issue.
    It is important in this context not to be misled by the attractive simplicity of the phrase "own resources". There is only one way in which such resources can be increased. That is at the expense of access by somebody else, by some other institution, to the same source of resources—the pockets of taxpayers or consumers throughout the Community.
    When considering the case for such a change, we should do well to remember two things. The first is that existing arrangements for "own resources"— based on the yield of VAT—already provide a buoyant source of revenue. Secondly, as every Community Finance Minister will readily testify, we must remember that the most pressing economic need is for a reduction, and not an increase, in national budget deficits.
    That is why our position is that the onus of demonstrating the need for more "own resources" lies on those who want them. That is also why effective steps must be taken at the same time to control the rate of spending on agriculture and other policies and why, at the same time, a lasting solution must be found to our budget problem. We have made those points clearly to our partners and I am sure that they have been fully understood.
    The Heads of Government at Stuttgart called for an across-the-board examination of the CAP and the Commission has been asked to submit its proposals by 1 August.
    Mr. Eric S. Heller: On the question of "own resources", the Prime Minister was not clear and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is also dodging the issue. May we have a clear assurance that if other members of the Community demonstrate to their own satisfaction that there should be an increase in VAT the British Government will not agree to that increase?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The proposal is not for an increase in VAT, but for an increase in the proportion of VAT revenue assigned to the Community. We have undertaken to consider whether there should be an increase in "own resources". For the reasons that I have given, we do not think that the case has been made out. Before there is any change, there must be agreement at the Council of Ministers and subsequent legislation by national Parliaments. The case remains to be proven. It must be proven to the satisfaction of each member state and each national Parliament. We cannot exclude the issue from the agenda and we have not sought to do so, but we do not believe that the case is made out.
    Mr. Healey: I accept that that is the position that the Prime Minister put to the House last week, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not dealt with the British rebate and a satisfactory settlement of the financial arrangements which are indissolubly linked. The French Prime Minister said that one was dependent on the other, and his Belgian colleague took the same view and used the same phrase.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have dealt with that a ready. In the proceedings at Stuttgart the discussion was devoted to two subjects—the settlement of the British budget contribution for 1983 and putting in place a programme of

    481
    work for the longer term. The settlement of the British budget dispute was arrived at and a figure was agreed. It was conditional only until we reached agreement on the other matters discussed at Stuttgart. Once we had agreed on the programme and agenda there, the British budget agreement was valid and all agreed to its inclusion in the 1984 draft budget. That is the position. There is no linkage or connection. The matter still has to be carried through the Parliament, as it was last year. I assure the House that we shall remain as determined as we were last year to secure a proper settlement and the proper payment of the sum agreed to be paid by us.
    I was saying that we should be putting forward some ideas of our own about the common agricultural policy. In particular, we attach importance to the establishment of a firm financial guideline that will govern agricultural spending. The negotiations will also cover other areas of Community business, to give direction to the development of the Community and to promote a better balance of policies. But there can be no question of balancing the CAP by the indiscriminate increase of expenditure in other sectors.
    Budgetary discipline is needed over the whole range of policies, but as a condition of—not as an alternative to—effective Community action, which we certainly wish to see, in areas where it makes sense to operate at a European rather than an exclusively national level.
    Europe can—and must—be far more competitive internationally in the industries of the future if we can develop more effectively the Community's internal market. Despite the energetic efforts of the German Presidency over the last six months, much remains to be done. Non-tariff barriers continue to proliferate—and we are still far from having an open market in important services such as insurance and civil aviation. There is important progress to be made before air travel within the Community can become as widely—and as cheaply—available as it is in the United States.
    The solution of individual problems of this type is made easier if the general principles on which the Community is based are kept firmly in mind. It was therefore appropriate that, following the initiative of Herr Genscher and Signor Colombo, the Heads of Government at Stuttgart, as well as launching the negotiations that I have described, should have signed the solemn declaration in which they recommitted themselves to the principles on which the Community was founded.
    The declaration also mentioned the need to widen the scope of political co-operation. The voice of the Ten is one that counts in world affairs; and the Community must remain outward-looking, not least in relation to the Third world.
    In the renegotiation of the Lomé convention which will begin later this year, we shall look to the continued constructive involvement of the Community in helping economic progress in developing countries, and, of course, the Community itself will be changing; the Government hope to see the early accession of Spain and Portugal.
    The challenge is plainly there. The Community must now respond quickly and effectively, because the problems will not go away or become easier with the passage of time.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have in mind as a possible accession date for Spain and Portugal?
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The date currently in mind is for completion of the negotiations during 1984, with a view to accession at the beginning of 1986. That is the expected pattern.
    Another matter with which the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, dealt and on which the verdict of the electorate was equally clear, was defence and disarmament.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: As the Secretary of State has been dealing with problems that will not go away, will he say something about the role of the Government in the Western contact group of five on the future of Namibia? That is a pressing and urgent problem, as the Secretary-General is supposed to report to the United Nations by 1 August. For six years, the contact group of five has apparently done nothing. The Foreign Secretary and his predecessors have never reported to the House on the matter in a full foreign affairs debate and it is time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did so.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: After the six years of inaction alleged by the hon. Gentleman, which I do not necessarily accept, I am not disposed to give a full report after three weeks in office. It is an important matter and I shall refer to it later in my speech.
    I return to the issue of defence and disarmament. We shall be acting, in accordance with the verdict of the electorate and with our NATO allies, to maintain and strengthen the deterrent strategy that has successfully kept the peace in Europe since the second world war, to negotiate major reductions in the numbers of weapons held by East and West, and to establish a balance of forces at the lowest possible level commensurate with our security. That is the dual strategy which makes sense, morally, militarily and economically.
    If we want to negotiate successfully with the Russians, we must make it clear, as we certainly do, that it is only by negotiation, not by threat and bluster or with public appeals to the naive, that they will get the reduction in force levels that they, too, claim to want. If the Soviet leaders are serious about wanting to do business, they will abandon the shadow of negotiations with Western public opinion and concentrate instead on the substance of negotiation in the conference chamber.
    Experience shows that the Russians will be quick to take advantage of any weakness on the Western side. But experience also shows that agreements can be reached and made to stick. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several previous agreements—the partial test ban treaty, the non-proliferation treaty, SALT and the anti-ballistic missile treaty are all cases in point. We want—indeed, the whole House wants—more such successes, and nowhere more than in the talks on long-range intermediate nuclear weapons, where there is a Soviet monopoly which the Western allies cannot accept. That is what the negotiations should be about.
    The Russians, perhaps understandably, find that simple arithmetic not to their liking, and have set up endless smoke screens in the hope of confusing the issue. They would do better to address themselves to the real issues. If they will not agree to eliminate the whole category of long-range intermediate land-based missiles, President

    483
    Reagan has offered an interim agreement of balanced numbers but at a level higher than zero. The Russians seem barely to have given that possibility serious attention.
    The same, unfortunately, seems to be true of the Soviet attitude to Western proposals in other negotiations, for example, in the strategic weapons talks in Geneva, where President Reagan has once again signalled United States flexibility in the face of the Soviet refusal to accept the United States proposals for deep cuts in Madrid, where the West has worked hard for a conference on disarmament in Europe; in the committee on disarmament in Geneva, where Britain has played a leading role in negotiations on a complete and global ban on chemical weapons; and in the MBFR talks in Vienna, where NATO participants recently put forward a comprehensive draft treaty.
    The lack of progress is, of course, frustrating, but we shall not give up trying, because that would be to give up also the hope of building a safer and more stable world for future generations.
    My right hon. Friend will deal in more detail with the Opposition amendment. I, for one, find it difficult to understand the reference to an "unconditional commitment" to deploy cruise missiles. On the contrary, the Western proposal to eliminate this whole category of weapons remains on the table. I find it difficult to understand how it can rationally be suggested that to abandon the NATO decision would make agreement more likely. The whole point surely is that such a decision would remove from the Russians all incentive to negotiate. And why is Trident thought to have harmful effects on the negotiating process which Polaris does not? Is it seriously contended that a system approaching obsolescence offers some negotiating advantage?
    Arms control is, of course, only part of the picture of East-West relations, though a very important part. We shall continue to look for progress in other areas too. As Secretary Shultz said in his important testimony to Congress on 15 June:
    "We and the Soviets have sharply divergent goals and philosophies of political and moral order; and these differences will not soon go away. Any other assumption is unrealistic. At the same time we have a fundamental common interest in the avoidance of war. This common interest impels us to work towards a relationship between our nations that can lead to a safer world for all mankind."
    That is exactly the sort of relationship that we want and we shall play a full part in working for it, and we fully accept the need to keep open the channels of communication.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What assurances does this Foreign Secretary have from the Prime Minister that the Foreign Office—of which he is the head—would at least be consulted if he were in a negotiating position, bearing in mind that his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), was not consulted at a time of crisis in relation to the decision to attack the Belgrano? That may have been a relatively minor war, but the question is whether we have an assurance that in a crisis the Foreign Office will be consulted by the Prime Minister, who, on a previous occasion, did not consult the diplomats.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has waited until a late stage in my speech to find a tenuous peg on which to hang his obsessive question. I do not accept the premise on which his question is based, but I assure him that in this Administration, as in the previous one,
    484
    consultation between the Prime Minister and her colleagues will be whole and sufficient. I repudiate the hon. Gentleman's point. The hon. Gentleman strayed a long way from the issue that I was discussing, which was the attitude and performance on the world stage of the Soviet leaders. They have been left in no doubt that we deeply disapprove of many aspects of their conduct. We do not forget that there are more than 100,000 troops in Afghanistan and a fifth of the population of that unfortunate country are refugees outside their homeland. We do not overlook the failure of the Soviet Government to live up to many of their commitments under the Helsinki final act. But, at the same time, we have made it clear that if they are willing to show greater restraint in their international actions, a more constructive relationship with the West is available. A good first step by the Russians would be agreement to the concluding document at the CSCE review conference in Madrid, and thus to the convening of the conference on disarmament in Europe to which I referred earlier.
    It is clear from what I have said already that we attach the greatest importance to the continuing unity of the North Atlantic Alliance and the continuing commitment of the United States to the security of Europe. We see that not as an alternative to a more constructive relationship with the Soviet Union and still less as an obstacle to it. It is, rather, an essential condition of what we want to achieve.
    That is not, of course, to suggest that the relationship is, or should be, static or to pretend that there will never be difficulties. British and American interests, for example, will clash from time to time. When they do, we shall represent our interests with vigour. But that will not prevent us from maintaining between this country and the United States the relationship of co-operation and candour that has served us well in the past and will continue to do so. The economic aspects of the relationship — and, indeed, the impact of American economic policy on the political as well as the economic prospects of the entire world—are so important that I hope that there may be some value in the fact that on each side of the Atlantic there is in post a Foreign Minister who has had previous experience in command of his nation's Treasury. Neither of us regards the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) as an appropriate mentor in the conduct of our affairs.
    Mr. Andrew Faulds: More is the pity.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have devoted most of my speech to the major issues of defence and disarmament and Europe. Those were the two areas under closest scrutiny during the election and they are the areas of policy on which there are still great differences between the Government and the Opposition. But no one should be tempted to conclude that my speech signifies some great change of emphasis or that I shall regard as any less important the other relationships of vital interest to us or the other great international issues with which we are faced.
    My two distinguished predecessors were both great supporters of the Commonwealth. I shall take particular pleasure in maintaining that tradition. It is an institution which I came to know well through attendance at meetings of Commonwealth Finance Ministers—the last of which I was honoured to host here in London. I look forward to

    485
    accompanying my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in New Delhi in November. Britain also has a special responsibility, as a permanent member of the Security Council, to play a full part in the work of the United Nations. I look forward also to paying my first visit to the General Assembly in September.
    The list of actual or potential trouble spots is long. As we have seen in Namibia, progress in reducing it can be painfully slow. We should give our close attention to that matter. The continuing tension in Central America is a reminder that the list can all too quickly lengthen.
    Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
    Mr. Hughes rose—
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have made it plain that I am not prepared to deal with the hon. Gentleman's question this afternoon. I am approaching the close of my speech. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to ask questions later.
    Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will the Foreign Secretary consider delaying any future debates on foreign affairs until he is more au fait with his brief.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must address his point of order to me, not to the Foreign Secretary.
    Mr. Faulds rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's point was not a point of order.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not wish to follow the example of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, who took almost an hour for his speech.
    The continuing tension in Central America is a reminder that the list can quickly lengthen. None of these problems is more acute than the Middle East. Despite the Israel-Lebanon agreement, foreign troops remain in Lebanon and the wider Arab-Israel dispute looks as far from solution as ever. We must hope that President Reagan's initiative can still offer a way forward. But in any event, we shall continue to take the active role that our history and our interests dictate in searching for a solution. We shall be playing our part in co-operation with like-minded Governments in working for a peaceful, negotiated settlement. The position is too dangerous to neglect.
    I have taken advantage of my new-found freedom by saying very little about economic issues. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East seized the opportunity to return to his former economic domain. On that subject, I gladly join him in paying tribute to the notable record of public service of the retiring Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Gordon Richardson. I deplore the right hon. Gentleman's gratuitous and unjustified attack on the new Governor of the Bank of England.
    The Gracious Speech does, of course, refer to our economic relationship with the developing world and the importance of increased trade. A most important need for developing countries is to find a market for their goods. The key to improving their market prospects is sustained
    486
    and non-inflationary growth in industrialised countries. That is why the recovery in our domestic economy and in the other industrial economies — most notably in the United States—is so crucial.
    The Williamsburg summit showed the wide measure of agreement that exists on how the world can be brought most surely out of recession. The Opposition amendment and the right hon. Gentleman's speech purport to find us guilty of not taking adequate action for international recovery. The right hon. Gentleman implied that we neglected — and perversely rejected — some attractive approach that was offered for consideration at Williamsburg. But that is not what happened. At Williamsburg there was no dissent from the position adopted by Her Majesty's Government. It was recognised on all sides that continued success in reducing inflation and in curbing budget deficits as a way of reducing interest rates was the best way of strengthening the prospects for sustainable growth in the Western countries.
    Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to Williamsburg, but I did not. I said that the French Government, American Ministries — important Ministries as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows — and all three of the big international organisations, the BIS, the OECD and the European Community, all put forward proposals for collective action to increase demand. They did so again last week. It is perfectly true that sado-monetarism ruled at Williamsburg, and the world will suffer as a result. The right hon. and learned Gentleman might at least address himself to the argument. He is the main criminal.
    Sir Geoffrey Howe: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman would return to that theme. One of the least impressive aspects of his career in recent times has been his epithetical search for ways of dissociating himself from the discipline of monetary policy. He knows that he first introduced the concept of monetary policy. He knows that he sought to practise it with discipline. He now seeks to stand away from it by speaking first of punk monetarism, and when that epithet wore out he embarked on the even more curious proposition of sado-monetarism.
    The Ministers represented at Williamsburg, including representatives from the French Government—which is hardly a sado-monetarist and mad capitalist organisation — all agreed on the necessity to continue the fight against inflation and to reduce budget deficits. They regarded that as the best way of strengthening the prospects for sustainable growth in Western countries. Not least, they regarded it as important in the United States. They thought that that would help to bring about a real improvement in employment, to help developing countries and to strengthen the international financial system.
    Of course for some developing countries, especially the poorest, aid remains a necessity. I have already touched on the contribution of the Community through Lomé. We are also engaged bilaterally, and in support of other multilateral programmes. Our aid will continue to concentrate on those for whom it is most needed, while recognising the special claims of countries with which we have especially close links because of our history. We shall continue to look for a proper return to our own economy from the aid that we give. Above all, we shall look to the effective application of aid in support of sound policies followed by the recipient countries themselves.

    487
    Those are the points in the Gracious Speech of most concern to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. Those that I have touched on only briefly are no less important than those which it seemed helpful to emphasise.
    Our approach in each case will remain one of vigorous promotion of Britain and British interests. Our aim is security and prosperity, both for ourselves and for others. It is on the basis of a realistic assessment of our needs and of our capacity that the Government will seek to further those aims.
    Mr. Speaker: May I ask for the help of the House this afternoon? Eleven new Members have indicated that they wish to catch my eye in this important debate and I should like to call most of them. In the interests of maintaining a balance that might not be possible, but I shall do my best. I therefore appeal to Privy Councillors, and the large number of other hon. Members who have written to me, to make brief speeches. I also urge them not to come to the Chair to check their position on my list, because that might be counter-productive.
    5.11 pm
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: I join the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in congratulating the Foreign Secretary on his accession to his new post. If, as he says, he is looking forward eagerly to a July meeting of the Council of Ministers to deal with financial questions, he is certainly approaching it with remarkable zest and zeal.
    I do not propose to tour as much of the horizon as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East, and the House will be pleased to hear that such tour as I undertake will be done at rather greater speed than I normally speak. I shall concentrate on the two points on which the Foreign Secretary said he would concentrate—though, instigated by some interruptions, he went rather wider—namely, Europe and arms control.
    First, Europe. One of the few beneficial outcomes of the general election is that it has finally settled the issue of the permanence of Britain's membership of the European Community. That should have been settled by the referendum. Those who most wanted the referendum said that they wanted it because it would determine Britain's policy and direction for a generation ahead.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—Yes, they did. However, It was not settled by that and, owing to the tergiversations of the Labour party, it became an open issue again. It is now settled, and I have no doubt that the issue was a vote loser for the Labour party at the election.
    The Community may not arouse great enthusiasm in the country, but there is a growing feeling that to come out would have devastating effects on jobs and investment. If, in the future, the Labour party should ever come within shouting distance of Government, I am sure that it will do so with the commitment to withdrawal cut out of its programme. So either way the issue is settled.
    We may have rows with the Community. So will the French, as will other nations. That happens now, but it happens without the question of their membership being called into issue. The new permanence of which I speak could be of considerable benefit to our influence in the Community.
    In that context I wish briefly to consider the budget dispute. This year's settlement of £437 million was
    488
    substantially less than the figure about which the Prime Minister had been talking, or briefing, a short time before Stuttgart, and less than the figures for previous years. But, taking the four years from 1980 as a whole, a 65·4 per cent. refund is a good outcome and in my view the Prime Minister was right to accept it.
    The right hon. Lady is also right to insist that this settlement should now stand on its own. For others to go on arguing that we will not get it unless we agree to X or Y is unreasonable and, in a way, rather squalid. I hope, therefore, that the issue is settled. At the same time, Her Majesty's Government must want this four-year saga of special subventions to be at an end. We really cannot have more of these short-term negotiations. They are unlikely to turn out well, and having them at all only weakens our influence.
    Mr. Roland Boyes: What did the right hon. Gentleman do about it?
    Mr. Jenkins: I played a substantial part in helping with the 1980 negotiations, which led to £2,500 million being repaid to this country.
    Although linkage is undesirable, it is, on its merits, highly desirable that a new long-term financial settlement for the Community as a whole should be negotiated in the coming months and ratified at Athens in December. That must encompass and underline settlement of the British budgetary problems in a way that puts the balance broadly right for us and other countries, aside from special subventions, without which it is almost impossible to go on.
    That brings me to the increase in own resources or VAT ceiling. Just as I believe it to be wrong to link, so I consider it wrong, indeed foolish, for Her Majesty's Government to continue to resist a moderate increase in own resources. There is the problem of making sure that any such increase is not just swallowed up in agricultural expenditure. At present, agricultural expenditure and surpluses are out of control to a far greater extent than they were six years ago, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said.
    Mr. Boyes: The right hon. Gentleman—
    Mr. Jenkins: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is pursuing a futile line of chatter in his first dealings in the House.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East referred to the beginning of my period of office. At the end of that period, two and half years ago, the mountains had virtually disappeared and the proportion was much lower than it is today.
    Mr. Allan Rogers: The right hon. Gentleman said that he would agree to a modest increase in VAT and resources. Will he spell out what a 0·5 per cent. increase in VAT contributions would mean?
    Mr. Jenkins: I am deploying an argument for doing that, though the figure of 1·4 per cent. is mainly talked about, as opposed to the present 1 per cent.
    Mr. Rogers: What would it mean? Give the figures.
    Mr. Jenkins: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means when he says that I should spell out what it would mean.
    Mr. Rogers: If the right hon. Gentleman objects to the phrase "spell it out", will he spit it out?
    Mr. Jenkins: I come to the essential part of my argument, which is that we shall never get the British budgetary position right unless we develop new programmes, and that means a limited increase of that sort. While it is essential to lean on agricultural expenditure, do not let Ministers escape their responsibilities in that respect. Things have got much worse, not exclusively, but mainly, because Ministers, including the British Minister of Agriculture, have agreed to price increases which, except for last year, have been consistently higher than those put forward by the Commission or which were sensible in the circumstances.
    There is the danger that some people will try to grab the increase for agriculture. I thought that the Danish Minister of Agriculture made some extremely ill-judged remarks this week. However, that is not the unanimous position in the Community. Nor is it the position taken by the most powerful. It is not the German position, nor do I believe that it will be the French position, because the French, who have never been great beneficiaries from a budgetary point of view — although they are substantial beneficiaries from a resource point of view — are moving quite rapidly into a position of being net payers. They are becoming significant net payers — though not as significant net payers as we or the Germans — and therefore they would not want to see that happen.
    Mr. Jim Spicer: I see the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is developing his argument. Would he be prepared to see an increase in own resources without a reform of the CAP in advance? Whatever argument he adduces, we know that those resources would be swallowed up by the agricultural side, whatever we did, unless we held firm on the reform issue.
    Mr. Jenkins: The majority of interventions, even those that come from such well-informed Members as the hon. Gentleman, rarely anticipate the next stage of my argument. Therefore, they consume some of the time of the House.
    It is essential that we fix a much lower limit—this is now becoming a practical possibility—to the percentage of the Community budget that can be directed to jointly financed agricultural expenditure. If member countries want to uphold a higher level of agricultural support, let them finance it themselves. I have no doubt that a lower fixed limit would produce a considerably greater mood of stringent realism. The form but not the substance of central financing could be maintained by varying the increased VAT contribution according to a country's level of agricultural production. That would bring sense into the Community budget in this sector and go some way towards solving the British problem.
    It would not solve the entire problem. It would not be allowed to do so because of the budgetary balance of the Community as a whole. There is an inherent lopsidedness about a community which is overwhelmingly industrial and not agricultural and yet spends such a great part of its budget on agricultural expenditure. However, that will not be corrected, and the British budget problem will not be solved at the root so that we do not have to argue about special subventions without some expansion—I am not talking about vast expansion — of non-agricultural programmes, the regional and social fund, energy saving and energy-producing investment. We could do with a great deal of coal, which could easily be available in
    490
    Britain, and the encouragement of new advanced technology industries. That will not take place, and cannot take place, without an increase—limited by all means—in the own resources ceiling, and probably the VAT ceiling, although there could be other methods.
    It is extremely shortsighted of the Labour party, unless it is to flog the dead horse of withdrawal the whole time, to try to get the Government to give pledges against such a move. However, it has done so consistently in the days of this Parliament. I am happy to say that the Government have not given such a pledge, but nor have they given a promise in the other direction. They have indicated that they want to link the issue with Spanish and Portuguese entry.
    I am strongly in favour of Spanish and Portuguese entry, which I think is of major Western interest on the grounds of peace, stability and democracy. If we are to achieve our objectives, we cannot keep Spain and Portugal hanging about much longer. I recall that 1983 was the original year of entry. There was then a slip to 1984. The Foreign Secretary told us this afternoon that it will now be 1986. We must be careful not to let the date of entry slip too much, as that will destroy the real political benefits of entry. It is a major Western political interest, but it will take some time to realise. We cannot wait that long for a permanent solution to the British budget problem.
    The 1983 settlement is not brilliant, but it is acceptable when taken with the settlements of preceding years. I am sure that we shall not be able to negotiate successfully on the old basis for 1984–85, and nor will we necessarily have such a fluid Community financial position later this summer and into the autumn. Let us get on with it. Let us get on with finding a permanent solution. That means that an increase in VAT must be coupled with effective measures against the agricultural strain. They should not conflict with Spanish and Portuguese entry.
    The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he agree that the only substantial increase in the past four years was voted through with the full support of the Commission? Does he also agree that, following the most recent price fixing, the Social Democratic party's spokesman on agriculture complained that the prices were not as high as those that the NFU was demanding?
    Mr. Jenkins: Well, what is the position? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the Council of Agriculture Ministers has increased the Commission's recommendation nearly every year. Sometimes, and occasionally mistakenly, the Commission has gone along with that. There was one year when there was no increase. I think that that was about two years ago.
    Mr. Foulkes: Not when the right hon. Gentleman was there.
    Mr. Jenkins: No. The Commission resisted quite strongly and suggested that there should be a freeze. That was not supported by the British Government or the other Governments.
    I shall make a few remarks about arms control and nuclear weapons policy—
    Mr. Boyes: Too long.
    Mr. Jenkins: I have taken about one fifth of the time that was taken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East.
    Mr. Boyes: There are only six Members on the alliance Bench.
    Mr. Jenkins: I speak on behalf of 93 or 94 per cent. alliance votes; as many votes as those for which the right hon. Gentleman speaks. In spite of that, I shall be a great deal shorter. Indeed, I shall be substantially less than half as long.
    Mr. Foulkes: And not as funny.
    Mr. Jenkins: General opinion in Britain is clearly not unilateralist. However, there is deep concern about the nuclear threat. The mistake of the unilateralist position has always been not to exaggerate the extent of the nuclear threat, but, paradoxically, to underestimate it. To believe that the danger is confined to those living around certain areas where there are nuclear bases, or to a country which has nuclear weapons as opposed to one which has not, is greatly to underestimate the threat. The nature of the threat is such that it is not confined to an area around Holy loch or Greenham common. It is not even confined to Britain as a whole, as opposed to Denmark or Holland. The whole of civilisation will be at risk if nuclear war breaks out. Therefore, our safety, let alone our freedom, depends overwhelmingly on the preservation of general peace and not on deluding ourselves that we can contract out of a dangerous world.
    Our safety would not be advanced by the absence of a totally secure Western second strike capacity. Nor would we gain by just throwing our own weapons away. There is not a shred of evidence that we would convert by example. It is not credible either to shelter behind the American deterrent and at the same time unctuously to wash our hands of any responsibility for providing facilities or other contributory means.
    That is not the end of the matter. There is a most urgent need for progress in arms control negotiations. I have an uneasy feeling that that progress is slipping away from us this summer with every month that passes. If that is so, we may never be able to retrieve the position. Verification will become increasingly difficult. I agree with much of what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said on this subject. Pointless and dangerous escalation will become the order of the day. Mr. Reagan's ideas for going into ABMs shows that there is no limit to the leapfrogging that can take place.
    What is the reality? Nuclear weapons certainly can deter. They cannot defend without self-destruction. Still less can they conceivably give a victory, because there would be no victory in a nuclear war. Just as there can be no victory in a nuclear war, so there is no point in seeking superiority in a nuclear arms race.
    The Prime Minister appeared to accept that view in her speech on Wednesday, when she said that
    "we do not seek superiority".
    That is not always the view that President Reagan takes — sometimes he does, sometimes he does not. The Prime Minister went on to use, in my view, less reassuring words, when she said that
    "the West has tabled a whole series of disarmament proposals. If they are accepted by the Soviet Union, the world will be a better place."
    I agree with the right hon. Lady so far. She then said:
    "There are proposals, and it is for the Soviet Union to accept them."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 61–62.]
    That is not the way in which to achieve a negotiated settlement. I should not abandon the cruise or Pershing 2
    492
    proposals, because by so doing we would take the pressure off the Russians before the negotiations were at an end. I do not believe that the Russians will ever give something for nothing, although they may give something for something. We will never achieve effective negotiations on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. That has been the fault of the Prime Minister's approach. Before Christmas she was firmly on the zero option as the only subject that was discussable. She then moved from that. To reach agreement, one must be prepared to negotiate. One will not get exactly what one is seeking, if only for face-saving reasons, for one side or the other.
    Can we not return, before it is too late, to the Nietze-Kvitsinsky basis of last July. It is a possible way forward. It has neither been accepted nor rejected by either of the super power Governments. It offers by far the best basis for a practical major reduction on which confidence could be built, with neither side giving away its position and from which one could move forward in the future.
    If we lose the opportunity during the remaining months of 1983 it may never recur and we shall be set on a course of unnecessary and mounting terror and danger on a scale completely unknown in the world's history.
    5.32 pm
    Mr. Robert Harvey: I am grateful for the opportunity to represent the constituency of Clwyd, South-West. It has one of the finest and proudest farming traditions in Wales and the United Kingdom, and has enormous potential for the expansion of small businesses and tourism. It has an industrial tradition that should provide a major incentive to new industries looking for promising locations in the economic revival now under way.
    I pay tribute also to my two distinguished predecessors — Mr. Geraint Morgan who represented the Denbigh part of the division for 23 years with great distinction and who was one of the hardest working Members, and Mr. Tom Ellis, who represented the Wrexham part of the division and who was well respected by both sides of the House. He will be much missed.
    I welcome the Government's continuing commitment, as expressed yesterday and today, to the defence of the Falklands. There can be few hon. Members who doubted at the time that the Government's course last year in sending the task force to the Falklands and in re-taking the islands from the Argentine aggressor was wholly justified before the bar of world opinion and history.
    We should remind ourselves of the historic principles for which we stood in taking that action. They were, first and foremost, that we as a nation uphold the principle that territorial disputes should be resolved through peaceful means, not through the use of force; that aggression must not be seen to pay; that it must be resisted; and that unless Great Britain, as one of the foremost members of the Western community, was prepared to uphold that principle where its territory was concerned the world would be a less safe place.
    I can think of at least three territorial disputes in Latin America alone—the one between Argentina and Chile over the Beagle channel, the one between Chile, Bolivia and Peru over the Arica strip and the one between Venezuela and Guyana—which might have come to the boil if Argentina had succeeded in proving that aggression pays over the Falklands.

    493
    By dispelling any Argentine illusions on that score, Great Britain has paid an unrequited service to Latin America.
    The second principle that Great Britain upheld was that the fate of her territories should be decided by the free choice of their inhabitants. We had to maintain the right to self-determination, no matter that the numbers involved were small, within the limits of what was practically possible. The Falklanders had the right freely to insist upon remaining a part of Great Britain and to reject the claims upon them of an unstable, turbulent nation 400 miles away, which at that time would not even recognise the right of its people to self-determination.
    Those were the principles for which we fought and for which we were right to fight, and for upholding which the world owes us a debt of gratitude. We did not fight for the retention of those islands in perpetuity, regardless of the feelings of the inhabitants. I feel sure that the Government will not commit themselves to the diversion of substantial resources from this country to the indefinite defence of the islands without first ensuring that every possible avenue for the peaceful settlement of the Falklands dispute is exhausted.
    Argentina must be left in no doubt that Great Britain is ready to pay the price for the indefinite defence of the islands if the Argentine Government persist in their stubborn refusal to accept that hostilities have ended. I am equally convinced that the Government must, and will, show a willingness to be flexible if Argentina shows signs of flexibility. If it wants to talk, let us talk. Argentina knows now that it will never gain the Falklands through aggression. We made it clear that any settlement that does not take account of the Falklanders' interests is simply not on.
    Where does that leave the prospect for such talks? It leaves them with a starting point. If Argentina can accept that in principle we are committed not to perpetual British sovereignty over the Falklands but to upholding the interests of the Falklanders, there may be the germ of a formula by which both sides can commit themselves to respecting the Falklanders' final say in the matter. Argentina, as has been said, is moving towards democratic elections in October followed in January by the restoration of civil rule.
    There may be hope that the experience of military rule over the past few years and of the Falklands trauma will induce a greater sense of responsibility and of the politically attainable in Argentina's new civilian rulers. For the Falklanders there may begin to be attractions in the prospect not of any change in sovereignty over them—the bitterness of a year ago will take many years to overcome — but in co-operation with Argentina to provide an economic future for the islands.
    Hon. Members will be well aware of the promising economic prospects for the islands suggested in the Shackleton report once the uncertainty is lifted from them. Only through economic co-operation ultimately with Argentina can the Falklands hope to be developed economically, and only through co-operation can Argentina one day hope to persuade the Falklanders that their future may lie elsewhere than with Great Britain.
    By showing a continuing readiness to talk, Britain can only enhance the prestige that it has gained through the Falklands crisis, adding a third principle—a readiness to
    494
    negotiate peacefully — to the principles of self-determination and resistance to aggression, which are already established. It is worth continuing to try. I am confident that the Government will do so. I thank the House for its indulgence in listening to me today.
    5.41 pm
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: These are the days of the maidens—and I hope that you will not think it impertinent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I offer you the congratulations of the House upon your maiden appearance in the Chair. On these days of the maidens, we raddled harridans of parliamentary life are apt to feel rather lost in an ocean of virginity. Our difficulty in fitting names to faces is exceeded only by our difficulty in guessing where the constituencies, the names of which are entirely unfamiliar to us, may be located upon the map.
    The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) assisted us in that respect at the beginning of his speech, but he also delivered to the House a trenchant contribution to the debate, which showed that he was not afraid to state his own mind and to appeal to principles regardless of where, superficially, they might take him. On that basis, his contributions to these debates will be welcomed in future. I hope that there will be many of them.
    It was in the dying days of the last House of Commons that I expressed my regret and, indeed, indignation that the old House of Commons had been given no opportunity, though it sought one, to discuss the principle of the nuclear deterrent and of the British independent nuclear deterrent. I remember prophesying that that question, which we had neglected, would go out of doors and be handled by the public in the course of the election. I was mistaken. It was an election in which it was clear that both the Opposition and, so far as one could judge, the electorate wanted nothing to do with debate on the major issues concerning the nation. To judge by the media, the only topic of interest consisted of prophecies about who would win the election—prophecies which in respect of one particular constituency turned out to be mistaken.
    However, those questions, because they were neglected when the earlier opportunities arose, will not on that account go away, and it is ironic that two of them, which did not feature largely—let me put it kindly—in the campaign of the official Opposition, have found a place in the first motion upon which this new House will divide. The one question is how far we can reconcile membership of the European Community with the constitution of the United Kingdom and the sovereignty and functions of the House; the other question is how far it is possible to assign a rational role in defence to the nuclear weapon in general and in particular to the independent nuclear weapon held and possessed by the United Kingdom.
    The Prime Minister, both at the end of the last Parliament and again at the beginning of the debate, repeatedly said that in her view the nuclear weapon, and Britain's independent nuclear deterrent, was a weapon "of last resort". It may be helpful, in clarification, if one takes that formulation of the Prime Minister and examines it a little more closely by attempting to identify what on any calculation would be a situation of last resort, and then inquiring what role might be played in it by the British nuclear weapon.
    A week or two ago I sought to address to the Prime Minister a specific question. Having described such a

    495
    situation, I asked her whether in those circumstances she would order the use of the nuclear deterrent by the United Kingdom. It seemed to me that faintly an answer was wafted across the Irish sea. If I caught it correctly, it was an answer in the affirmative: she said that she would. I believe that that reply was repeated on more than one occasion by the Prime Minister.
    I do not believe that answer. I do not believe it on two grounds, very different in character. I do not believe it as it applies to the Prime Minister. It happened to be my privilege—a privilege that I shall never forget—to be able to observe rather closely how the Prime Minister sustained the responsibility that she carried for the conduct of the war in which this country was engaged last year. Having done so, I do not believe that that Prime Minister would take a decision that would consign a whole generation to destruction in any conceivable circumstances whatsoever. However, I shall not rest on the argument ad hominem, for I believe that there are more general grounds for concluding that the true answer to the question is negative.
    Let me set up the scene that I would regard as a situation of last resort, such as is held to justify the possession and use of Britain's nuclear weapon. Let us take this country's situation in the summer of 1940, with a victorious enemy in undisputed possession of the adjacent continent, having apparently immense superiority in conventional weapons. In my imaginary scene, as in 1940, this country is not —not yet, at any rate—supported by the alliance of the United States. Let us further suppose that, as in 1940, there is evident imminence of an invasion and an attempt to conquer these islands by force. I do not believe that any hon. Member could dispute that, whatever other circumstances there might be that might call for the use of the ultimate deterrent, that would be a situation of last resort.
    Therefore, I invite the House to consider the conditions and the rationality of using our weapon in those circumstances. So far as I can see, they fall under two heads. One can assume a case of nuclear blackmail on the part of the enemy. Alternatively, once can assume that the enemy is determined to pursue his advantage by the conventional use of his overwhelming strength.
    Let me take those two cases in order. Let us suppose that Russia and the Warsaw Pact, standing in the shoes, imaginarily, in which Hitler stood in 1940, were to say to the United Kingdom, "Surrender or we shall use a nuclear weapon against you." Let us consider what role in defending ourselves our own nuclear weapon would then play.
    I assume that such an enemy, planting such a threat on the table, would not, at any rate immediately, destroy London, Birmingham and Bristol. He would seek to give credibility to his threat and seriousness to his purpose by a much narrower and more limited use of a nucler weapon. I am not attempting to be jocular when I say that he might use it on Rockall. He would then say, "Here is the use of our nuclear weapon. Think of it for yourselves. Watch it. This is the weapon that we will use on you if your surrender is not in our hands within a given period of time." That is exactly the reason, so we are told, why the United Kingdom needs to possess its own nuclear weapon—to defend itself against blackmail.
    What would the United Kingdom do? Would it discharge Polaris, Trident or whatever against the main centres of population on the Continent of Europe or in
    496
    European Russia? If so, what would be the consequence? The consequence would not be that we should survive, that we should repel our antagonist—nor would it be that we should escape defeat. The consequence would be that we would make certain, as far as is humanly possible, the virtual destruction and elimination of the hope of the future in these islands. We would obliterate, as far as is humanly possible, the possibility of recovery, the possibility of resurgence and the possibility of reversing the adverse verdict of war in which we had been involved. Faced with that situation and with that weapon in their hands, I do not believe that anyone in control of the affairs of this country would use it and, even if I should be mistaken as to some particular individual, I would much sooner that the power to use it was not in the hands of any individual in this country at all.
    Let me come to the alternative case of the position of last resort: not merely are the intention and the ability to invade this country evident and imminent, but the invasion has actually been launched, the aircraft are in the air, the barges are on the sea. It is not possible to get nearer to the edge than that, especially for an island whose escarpments in the south face in the wrong direction; it is not possible to be nearer to staring defeat in the face than those circumstances portray. That is the alternative position, presumably, in which as an act of last resort we use the nuclear weapon.
    So what do we do? We might use the intermediate nuclear weapon. Suppose we had some cruise missiles around. We might take out—the House can make its own choice—an Army group or two, two or three major centres of population on the European Continent, or just a few cities of metropolitan Russia. The consequences must be assumed to be the same. We should be condemning, not merely to death, but to as near as may be the non-existence of our population. We should not win. It would be an inconceivable modality of losing, an inconceivable alternative to fighting on the beaches, in the streets and in the towns, to fighting, if necessary, in the next generation, to coming back again and again, as other nations that were defeated in past European wars have done.
    In this second interpretation of the case of last resort, I came upon the heart, not only of the theory of the 13ritish nuclear deterrent, but the theory of the nuclear deterrent itself, by grace of which it is claimed the nuclear weapon has kept the peace in Europe for the past 35 years—that because of the possession of that weapon by Russia's potential enemies Russia has not invaded central Europe or sought to possess herself of the national territories of the West.
    The Prime Minister said in The Times on the day before the poll:
    "Yes, of course if you have got a nuclear deterrent you have to be prepared to press the button because that deters anyone from using nuclear"—
    and now come the all-significant words—
    "and also from crossing the Nato line on conventional."
    The theory that we would defend ourselves in a position of last resort by the possession and use of the nuclear weapon is in reality the same theory as says that is the reason why the Russians stay on the other side of the Iron Curtain. It is the presumption that the first engagement or the second engagement, the campaign of the first week or the campaign of the second week, would be brought to a close by the escalating and inconceivable interchange of

    497
    a nuclear armoury. It is a presumption that does not bear examination. Those who would hesitate, in the last extremity of their own national existence, when facing national defeat, to resort — who could not rationally resort—to the use of the weapon are supposed to be prepared to use it in the event of a distant line being overrun, a preliminary battle being lost—
    Mr. Julian Critchley: Why does the right hon. Gentleman try to base his analysis on the belief that politics is a rational activity, which it is clearly not? Is it not also the case that the uncertainty as to either the British or the allied response is perhaps the most important element in deterrence?
    Mr. Powell: Whatever may be the weaknesses or otherwise of the argument in which I am attempting to interest the House, there is no patent in it; I have no monopoly of it. These are ratiocinations that can be pursued in French, German or even Russian—I dare say the logic would be the same in Russian. I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley), that sometimes in war those who are in charge act in an insane manner. After all, we have twice been saved as a nation by decisions on the part of a conqueror of the Continent that could in retrospect be judged unbalanced; in each case, it was a decision to invade and to attempt to conquer Russia.
    The question we must ask is whether we can protect ourselves against that insanity by ourselves acting in an irrational manner. No amount of assumption of irrationality on the part of others will excuse us from the necessity of demonstrating rationally and on rational grounds, grounds which we are prepared coolly and coldly to accept, that the possession, the use or the promised use of the British nuclear weapon would be the means of saving us from being the victims either of conventional force or of nuclear blackmail.
    I say again, after many years of thinking and debating this subject, I do not believe it. I do not believe that there are rational grounds on which the deformation of our defence preparations in the United Kingdom by our determination to maintain a current independent nuclear deterrent can be justified.
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I have listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). I ask him to address himself to the following scenario. I ask him to consider the attitude of those in the Kremlin who have to make a judgment about the prospect that would face them if they launched an attack upon us. Having said that Britain should not have an independent nuclear deterrent, is the right hon. Gentleman now suggesting that there should be no nuclear deterrent at all in the hands of the NATO Alliance?
    Mr. Powell: I do think it can be argued that it is better to have two major nuclear powers in the world than only one; but that is not the question to which I was addressing myself, or indeed to which the House can address itself, as we have no control over that matter. I was addressing myself to the matter over which the House has not only control but for which it has responsibility—the defence preparations of this country and the thinking, philosophy and theory upon which they are based.
    498
    In conclusion, I believe that there is a widespread feeling—a sense, an instinct—among the people of this country that the reasoning is unsound, that they are being asked to accept a theory and a proposition, and to admit on their own soil weapons of this character over which the nature of the control is controversial, without being fully satisfied themselves of the rationality, the common sense and the practicability —I I have said nothing about the morality—of the grounds on which this course has been urged and commended to them.
    This is not the last of these debates. It is but the earliest of these debates. They will have to go on either until the people of this country are satisfied that there is some rationale completely different from any that I have been able to discover underlying the policies of the Government or until the policies of the Government themselves have to give way to debate and to reason and be changed.
    6.1 pm
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I rise with some trepidation to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and this honourable House for the first time. This trepidation is not caused solely by the fact that this is my maiden speech. It is also a recognition of the sacrifices that others have made in the cause of freedom to enable us to be in this place. I am here — we are all here — because for centuries men and women of this nation have opposed oppression and sought freedom and justice for all. For that, they have suffered imprisonment, torture and death. I hope that I shall never forget the debt that I owe to those who came before and the responsibility that I bear to those who will come after.
    I have inherited a constituency drawn from two seats which were represented by Mr. Arthur Palmer and Mr. Wedgwood Benn. As the House well knows, Mr. Arthur Palmer represented Bristol, North-East and the honour of this House extremely well for many years without fuss or show. His particular contribution to the subjects of science, technology and energy will, I am sure, be remembered by many.
    My opponent in the last election, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, had the good fortune to serve the city of Bristol for even longer than Mr. Palmer did. For more than three decades he represented his constituency according to his beliefs, with flair, imagination and integrity. Although I disagree with many of his views, I wish to place on record my appreciation of his 33 years of service to Bristol. I believe that it took great courage for him to fight the seat of Bristol, East when he could so easily have taken a safe Labour seat. He did not do so, but stuck to his promise to stand by Bristol, showing the courage and integrity of a man whose most deep-seated belief is in parliamentary democracy.
    The city represented by those gentlemen in whose place I now appear is a magnificent city surrounded by some of the most beautiful countryside and bordered by the western sea approaches. It illustrates all that is good and some of that which is bad in the cities of our nation today. It is a proud and ancient city founded on trade and the sea and it has grown through endeavour, enterprise and fair dealing to be the capital of the west country. It has modern, high technology industry, fast-expanding leisure services and conference facilities that will be the pride of Europe, but it also has decaying inner city housing, outdated and declining inner city industry and inner city unemployment that is a tragic human and economic waste.

    499
    So there is much to be done, and I am proud to have been chosen and given the opportunity to do some of it. Bristol has the strategic position on the motorway network and the western sea approaches to be confident of its future, given the right leadership, but the greatest asset of Bristol is its people. They are loyal, hard working, proud of their freedom and ever ready to defend it with honesty, kindness, steadfastness and strength. For centuries, its history of corporate democracy has been the envy of many and an example to others.
    That democracy and the democracy and freedom that we all enjoy and cherish must be defended. Many Bristolians work in industries — electronics, British Aerospace, Rolls-Royce—which assist in our defence, and many more serve in the armed services. That defence is the prime duty of Government. It will always be an issue that we disregard at our peril. In the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey),
    "once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools; we have a heap of cinders."
    The question of our security is so basic that we cannot afford to lose the argument.
    Our arguments must be clear and make sense, for emotion and wishful thinking are on the side of the CND. I do not seek to cast aspersions on the integrity of CND supporters. In the main, they are compassionate and caring people, but I believe that they are utterly wrong. In the words of Soviet Premier Andropov, "We are not unilateralists. We are not that naive." The Labour party is now unilateralist. It believes that, although we are an island nation at the most strategically vital threshold of the world, we should dismantle our deterrent, throw out our American allies, yet still expect them lo defend us. Some less charitable than I might call that a policy of hypocrisy.
    One-sided disarmament has never worked, as we saw before the second world war. Although we gave up chemical weapons unilaterally, the Russians increased production of chemical and biological weapons. They have used them in Afghanistan and they have 700 tonnes ready if war should ever come to Europe.
    The lesson of history—all history is the same—is that the fight for peace is itself a battle. Unilateral disarmament makes war more likely and it is we who believe in strong defences who are the true party of peace. Whenever the West has backed down and left a power vacuum, the Russians have moved in. So how can the CND say that Russia is not warlike or that Russia does not believe that war is a viable instrument of foreign policy? I deeply regret to say that I believe that the Russian regime is an evil regime. It walls its people in and sends them to concentration camps or asylums if they disagree and it is buttressed by secret police and a one-party state. Most fundamentally, however, it is a regime that fears our ideas of freedom.
    That freedom of land and of ideas needs men and weapons to defend it. We know that in our armed services we have a body of men superior to those anywhere in the world, but we cannot expect them to defend us and we have no right to ask them to do so unless we provide them with the conventional and nuclear forces to match the very real threat that we face.
    In strategic nuclear forces there is broad parity, although the West has 10 per cent. fewer than the Soviet Union, but in intermediate nuclear weapons, which is what cruise, Pershing and the main focus of current CND
    500
    activity are about, the West is outgunned by four to one. Our conventional forces are also inferior: in central Europe the Soviet Union has three times as many men, tanks, artillery and tactical aircraft and in the eastern Atlantic it has twice as many submarines, more aircraft and 31 times as many mines as we have. Mine warfare may be one of the more shadowy forms of warfare, but as an island nation we know, and the Russians well know, that it is one of the most chillingly effective. We must increase our ability to protect ourselves because only when the Russians are convinced of our ability and willingness to fight can we achieve disarmament, which is the aim of us all.
    Finally, our arguments must hold out hope of continued peace that is based on the realism founded on nearly 40 years of European peace, when 120 wars have raged worldwide, and on the realism of the Russians, who know that if both sides can defend themselves there will be no winner in a nuclear war. We, too, have families we love and friends whom we cherish, and we too want peace and disarmament, but there will be peace only when neither side wants a war because neither side can win a war.
    I am pleased to have had the opportunity to address you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the Chamber for the first time on the subject of the first importance. Although right hon. and hon. Members may disagree about the methods that should be employed, we all want to create greater opportunities, better schooling and education, more jobs and improved housing. We are here to create a structure that offers more freedom, self-reliance and self-respect. Under the umbrella of collective security we are here to continue to build a Britain that is proud of its past and looking forward to its future.
    6.13 pm
    Mr. John Morris: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we were faced with oceans of virginity. The Bible tells us that there are two classes of virgins, the wise virgins and those who are otherwise. Those who were otherwise had no oil in their lamps. We listened with interest to the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), and all hon. Members will agree that he had plenty of oil in his lamp. He showed no nervousness and was more controversial than most, and we may take up his arguments in the future. I was glad that he paid tribute to his two predecessors, whom the House will miss greatly, because they served here for long periods and with great distinction.
    I shall concentrate on the Falkland Islands, which were referred to briefly in the Queen's Speech, and especially to the sinking of the General Belgrano. The Foreign Secretary—I congratulate him on his new office—said that there would be full and sufficient consultation between the Prime Minister and himself in this Government as in the previous Government. I suggest that he was pitching it low as a prospectus, given the history. I have followed the single-handed campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who has a reputation for pursuing causes in considerable depth. I have known him since university days. He is not always right and can fall flat on his face, but only an imprudent man would ignore or belittle a cause just because my hon. Friend has taken an interest in it.
    For the Foreign Secretary to say that my hon. Friend is obsessive was insulting. Indeed, my hon. Friend should be watched carefully when he takes up a cause. I have some experience of being at the receiving end of his

    501
    causes, both as a Defence Minister and as Secretary of State for Wales. The House owes a great deal to him on this matter. Whether he is eventually proved right or wrong, the House owes him a debt for his single-mindedness, resilience and tenacity. If he were not a Scotsman, I would liken him to a Welsh corgi, because when the Welsh corgi bites it does not let go until it gets to the bone.
    My approach to the Falklands war was rather different from that of my hon. Friend in one fundamental aspect. I did not dissent from the need at that time, in the face of the failure of negotiations, to ensure with all the means at our command that freedom and liberty were protected in the south Atlantic. Unfortunately, military victory has not meant political victory, and the problem remains unsolved, as the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) said.
    Anything that I say is not a reflection on the armed services, especially the submarine service. I lost many constituents and had to deal with some of the problems thereafter. My family and I, especially my wife, maintain close contact with the sister ship of the Courageous, which was also in the south Atlantic. From my limited knowledge of what happened, the captain's action was copybook, and the political decision rather than the military action is at issue.
    I approach the problem with what remains of my knowledge as a former Defence Minister, and from the evidential aspect. With the help of the Library, I have read most matters of significance written about the subject, and I noted carefully the reaction of the Prime Minister when questioned on television by Mrs. Gould, a lady from Southampton. I have spent portions of my life closely observing the reaction and demeanour of witnesses, and the Prime Minister's response made me very uneasy. It did not satisfy me to hear her repetitive cry that when all is revealed she will be proved right.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow has made serious allegations and has gone as far as possible, within the confines of parliamentary language, to allege deception of the House. He has challenged the Prime Minister's reputation and integrity. I do not join him in that. However, there is evidence of a prima facie case against the war Cabinet, except for the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. The Cabinet has collectively, and she has individually, a case to answer. First, was it necessary for the order to be given for the General Belgrano to be sunk at that time? Secondly, did the firing of the torpedo also torpedo the peace talks for which the Foreign Secretary had been dispatched to America? Thirdly, did the act of the sinking of the Belgrano change the entire dimension of the war, whereby we lost much of the moral force of the collective support of the free world, leading to the sinking of the Sheffield, the Coventry and the Atlantic Conveyor, with the loss of many lives?
    I hope that the House will consider my case for an inquiry on the basis of a series of questions to which I have failed to find a satisfactory answer, or where answers have been contradicted from time to time by later evidence. First, why did Sir John Nott tell the House on 4 May 1982 that the Belgrano
    "was close to the total exclusion zone and was closing on elements of our task force, which was only hours away"—[Official Report, 4 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 29–30.]
    502
    whereas, as later evidence has shown, she was on a course away from the islands and our ships? On which part of our task force was she closing?
    Secondly, when precisely was the Belgrano spotted? Was it, as Lord Lewin told Christopher Lee of the BBC:
    "That from the time the Conqueror sighted the Belgrano to the time it took to sink her was only a matter of hours"?
    Was it, as the Government's White Paper and, later, Admiral Fieldhouse's despatch said:
    "The Belgrano was detected on May 2",
    or was it, as Commander Wreford-Brown, the captain of the ship, said much later:
    "We took up a position astern and followed the Belgrano for over 30 hours. We reported we were in contact with her"?
    Was all this known at Northwood headquarters and perhaps revealed to Lord Lewin only by chance when he chanced to visit the headquarters on that Sunday morning?
    Thirdly, why did Sir John Nott tell the House on 5 May:
    "The actual decision to launch a torpedo was clearly one taken by the submarine commander"? — [Official Report, 5 May 1983; Vol. 23, c. 156.]
    Was that the whole truth, or was a more accurate statement of the facts given by Commander Wreford-Brown who told the Scottish press that the decision was taken by headquarters at Northwood?
    Fourthly, why was it not revealed that Northwood obtained the sanction of the Prime Minister and members of the inner war Cabinet, minus the Foreign Secretary, who were lunching at Chequers on 2 May?
    Fifthly, why was the House told on 29 November that there was concern that HMS Conqueror might lose the Belgrano as she ran over the shallow water of the Burdwood bank? Given the draught of the Conqueror, the depth of the bank and the course the Belgrano was following, how could some or all of these considerations be relevant? What were the factors, all or some of them, that necessitated a change in the rules of engagement?
    Sixthly, what evidence is there that at the point where the Belgrano was torpedoed—45 miles south-west of the bank and heading west-north-west— she might change her course and head for the bank? Was it more likely than not that she was heading for her home port?
    Seventhly, what knowledge was available before the decision to fire was taken of the decision-making process in Argentina at that time which could lead to withdrawal? Was there any knowledge that the Argentine navy had been ordered to port? If so, was some of that knowledge available, possibly up to five hours before the decision was taken? At what stage was any information of this nature made available to Ministers?
    Eighthly, how much of this was known, in particular to the Foreign Secretary, and what exactly was the state of the document prepared by the Peruvian authorities for signature on 2 May? What communications did the British ambassador in Lima have with the Foreign Secretary and-or with Whitehall giving the times and the content of those communications? What was the purpose of the visit of our ambassador to the Peruvian Foreign Secretary in Lima at 6.30 pm on 2 May?
    Ninthly, what communication by telephone or otherwise did Secretary of State Haig have with the Prime Minister on 2 May or on the previous day?
    Tenthly, could the statement of the Prime Minister that
    "News of the Peruvian proposals did not reach London until after the attack"

    503
    be clarified? Does that mean that there was no news in any shape or form in Whitehall of what was happening in Lima?
    Eleventhly, in referring to the proposals as "a sketchy outline", is the Prime Minister referring exactly to what Secretary Haig believed to be containing
    "some difficult problems remaining to be settled. We did think we had a formulation that provided hope that a settlement could be reached"?
    Twelfthly, why precisely did the Prime Minister state in her "Election Call" interview on 7 June that had she done nothing she would have left the Hermes, the Invincible or other ships to be sunk, when the Hermes and Invincible were kept east of the Falklands and at the time of the sinking the Belgrano was nine hours away on a course steaming away from the islands?
    Thirteenthly, if Northwood knew about the Belgrano in the early hours of 1 May, why was leave not obtained to sink her then, when she was conceivably more of a threat to our ships than she could have been 24 hours later, particularly if it was established that there was at least a suspicion that she was heading for her home port? Was Lord Lewin wholly frank in The Guardian on 4 June which said:
    "He could not recall any message from naval intelligence that the Argentines had ordered their ships back to port"?
    Fourteenthly, on what basis did the Foreign Secretary state at his press conference on 1 May:
    "No further military action is envisaged at the moment, except to keep the exclusion zone secure"?
    Fifteenthly, before the decision was taken on Sunday, what efforts were made to ascertain the views of the Foreign Secretary?
    That brings me bang up to date with the new Foreign Secretary's comments today. The previous Foreign Secretary had been sent on a peace mission. He was negotiating. Was it not of paramount importance to have his updated views on the effect of the order to sink? Would the danger from the Belgrano have increased while those views were sought and taken into account?
    I have tried, I hope cooly and clinically, to sift the wheat from the chaff on this issue. I have tried to discover the answer to my own questions. I have tried to reconcile what is apparently irreconcilable. It would be a very serious matter indeed if serious doubt remained that the single act of changing the policy on firing at such short notice, with extremely limited consultation, resulted in a substantial acceleration of the war and subsequent loss of life on both sides when there were serious hopes that it could have been brought to an end.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Morris: If that were conclusively proved, it would be a national and personal disgrace. I believe that some doubts have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow. I have sought to set them out.
    Mr. Stanbrook rose—
    Mr. Morris: They will not go away. The highest tribunal is necessary to examine the facts, the state of the deliberations, the intelligence available and, in particular, the log of the Conqueror.
    Mr. Stanbrook: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Morris: No. The case that I have made out must be answered.
    6.29 pm
    Mr. Julian Amery: I do not want to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) into all the minutiae of the questions that he raised. In commenting on his speech, I would only say that had the task force failed to achieve its objective 8,000 miles away from home with no adequate air cover—and well it might have failed—had it transpired that the Belgrano had played a part in preventing the task force from achieving its objective and had it later transpired that the Cabinet here at home had prevented the sinking of the Belgrano, the Government would have been oven to the gravest possible censure. When one is at war, one has to take every opportunity to destroy the enemy when and where one finds him.
    Mr. John Morris: Does not the evidence show that the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman poses are wholly hypothetical? If what he says were true, the situation would be wholly different, but it was not.
    Mr. Amery: War proceeds on the basis of hypothesis. One does not know how it will turn out. Clearly the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not understand the conduct of war. The operation was very risky. We had no certainty of achieving our objective. We had to take every opportunity that we could to destroy the enemy. I see no possible ground, with the islands invaded and the Argentines established on them, on which we could responsibly have allowed any important element of the Argentine fleet to get away.
    I was greatly saddened by the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), on two counts. The right hon. Gentleman has rightly achieved a reputation for having the most logical mind in the House of Commons, yet I found myself unable to follow the logic of the two possible scenarios that he deployed in questioning the rationale of the independent British deterrent.
    The basis of the rationale, as I see it, is this. If it is in the power of Britain to destroy 20, 30 or 40 Soviet centres of population, there can be no advantage that the Soviet Union or any other power can gain by attacking this island, conventionally or nuclear-wise, that would compensate for what it would lose if we were to use our deterrent. I cannot see how any rational regime in the Kremlin could order the invasion of Britain conventionally or threaten us with blackmail if it knew that it was running the risk of unacceptable damage being inflicted on its people by us. That is well within our power. The right hon. Gentleman may think that it would not be rational, and that there would be an irrational element in the attack. It is difficult to conduct an argument of this kind on the basis that one side or the other is irrational. I fail to see the logic in believing that the Kremlin is more prepared to risk the destruction of 20 or 30 cities than we are to commit national suicide. Therefore, in my opinion, the deterrent should protect us against that threat.
    I am saddened for another and deeper reason. The right hon. Gentleman is a great patriot. Of course, the analogies with 1940 are not valid. The situation now is very different, and the nature of the weapons has greatly increased their destructive power. However, what I heard him say just now was reminiscent of what many patriotic Frenchmen said in 1940, not least the hero of Verdun.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) urged that we should put the British and French nuclear

    505
    deterrents on the Geneva negotiating table. I do not see the sense of that. We have no capability of overkill; still less have the French. The only countries that have the power of overkill are the United States and the Soviet Union. It is their responsibility to try to achieve a balance of deterrence at a lower level. We cannot make a serious contribution without going below the minimum force that we require to maintain a deterrent of last resort.
    The people of this country understand that. Although the right hon. Gentleman for Down, South doubted whether they were convinced of the need for a deterrent, everything that I saw and heard in the election campaign suggested to me that there was a strong feeling that Britain must have its own independent deterrent — I am not talking about any particular system. The President of the United States understands that, and I salute his resolve not to bring the British and French deterrents to the negotiating table. He knows that nothing would do more damage to the cohesion of the Alliance. It was not always so. There have been American Administrations who would have been glad to deprive Britain or France of an independent deterrent. That is not true today. Mr. Andropov may have hoped to tempt the Americans into supporting his proposals and to persuade them to try to establish a Brezhnev doctrine inside NATO. However, President Reagan has been wiser than that, and we owe him a great deal for his staunch stand in the matter.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that Trident was a more powerful weapon than we needed. Who is to say? It will not be deployed for 10 years, and it then has to last 30 years. I should have thought that we needed a slight margin of insurance against the development of better defence systems by a possible adversary, or unforeseen developments in the world.
    Then there is the matter of cost. Having negotiated many weapons systems with the Treasury, I have little or no doubt that the Argus-eyed Treasury officials would not have allowed Trident to be adopted as our main weapon system if they had been able to prove, even marginally, that it was less cost effective than any other system. I do not have time to go into the details, but I commend to right hon. and hon. Members Lord Lewin's letter in the Daily Telegraph on the matter during the election.
    I come now to the question of cruise, Pershing and arms control. We in Britain and France have a certain security by virtue of the deterrents that we possess. We are unlikely to be attacked, for the reasons that I gave a moment ago. Western Germany is in a quite different position. The split between Western and Eastern Germany and the special status of Berlin obviously inhibit that country from becoming a nuclear power in its own right. It has to rely on the United States. Now, leading Americans in every walk of life, military and political, have made it only too clear that the United States would not expose its own homeland to Soviet nuclear retaliation by seeking to defend its allies outside the United States by striking at the Soviet Union. So there is only one security for the Germans, and that is to have American missiles deployed on German soil—not in the sea, not far away, but on German soil — in support of the American army in Germany. Even that is not a 100 per cent. guarantee, but it is a pretty good one.
    The same applies in some measure to us in this country. We have given hospitality, and rightly so, to major
    506
    American installations in this country. As has often been pointed out by Opposition Members, these could be targets for the Soviet Union. To prevent them from being targets for the Soviet Union, it is a good thing that our own deterrent should be supported and seconded by American deterrent missiles in this country, backing up the installations that they have already established here.
    The talks on arms control at Geneva are naturally conducted in terms of nuclear accountancy—the number of warheads and missiles — but the real argument is about Germany and Europe. It is about the relationship, above all, of Germany towards the Alliance, and of the United States to Europe. If the cruise and Pershing systems were not deployed, what would be the impact on the British Army of the Rhine? I do not know how long my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence would agree to leave the British Army of the Rhine in Germany without the backing of a proper missile system to answer the SS20s. I do not know how long Mr. Weinberger would be prepared to leave the United States Army if the missiles were not deployed.
    But, above all, consider the impact on Germany. If the Germans no longer felt secure in NATO, what option would they have except to turn to neutrality and seek reunion with East Germany under Soviet aegis? That would represent an irreversible shift in the world balance of power. Those are the realities behind all the talk about arms control. It is not a question of warheads and missiles but of whether Germany remains in the Alliance, and whether the alliance between the United States and Western Europe holds together.
    That was well and truly appreciated at the Williamsburg conference by two leading men who are not in NATO. It was appreciated by President Mitterrand of France, a member of the Alliance but not of NATO, and a Socialist, who underwrote at Williamsburg our general strategy for defence. Perhaps even more significantly, it was appreciated by the Prime Minister of Japan, on the eve of an election—and Japan is the only country which has ever suffered a nuclear strike.
    I think we must say that it is imperative that we proceed with the deployment of the missiles as well as with the maintenance, development and modernisation of our own British deterrent. We must not conceal from ourselves the fact that the situation that confronts us is extremely fragile and dangerous—rather more than has appeared as yet in speeches either in the election campaign or in our debate today. For the moment, the Soviets have the edge over the West in Europe, in the middle east and in the far east, but for how long? The cruise and Pershing missiles will be deployed; the American rapid deployment force in the middle east is taking shape; Japan has begun to rearm. Overall, the Western powers are rearming — the Americans at an impressive rate.
    There is no way in which the Soviet Union can compete in an arms race with the industrial West—it simply has not the technological or industrial power—but here is the danger; here is the rub that we must not ignore. There must be a strong temptation to the Soviet Union to take advantage of the window of opportunity that is still open to it before it closes, and to try to gain some assets while it can, whether in Europe or in the middle east. It is a very dangerous situation and we have brought that danger on ourselves—especially the United States under President

    507
    Carter's regime—but the danger is there and there is no way that we can avoid it. To hesitate would only encourage Soviet expansion.
    I agree that to go forward also has risks, but even at the height of the cold war, in 1955, suddenly the Soviets gave way on Austria and we had the Austrian treaty. So while there are dangers in going forward with our plans, there is a much greater danger in running away from them. We do not know exactly what is happening on the other side of the hill.
    Plainly, there must be no provocation, but patiently and resolutely we must go forward with our plans, both to defend ourselves and to help those countries and movements which are on our side and are our friends. We have to convince Moscow that we shall not accept Soviet imperialism as a valid and legitimate element in the world. If we succeed in doing that—it will not be easy; it will call for great patience and resolution—internal pressures inside the Soviet bloc, economic, social and national, may well bring about important reforms and changes in the Soviet system. One would like to think that the Soviet empire could turn into a Soviet commonwealth, with real, not cosmetic, independence, for its different members. Is that wishful thinking? Perhaps it is, but it is well-nigh certain that weakness or hesitation on our side will lead to inevitable disaster.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. John Hume: I have come here to represent a new constituency in the north-west of Ireland. It contains the ancient and historic city of Derry and the town of Strabane. It is a commentary on the politics of the north of Ireland—or the fact that there is a problem there—that never before has someone with either my religious or my political persuasion stood in this House to represent the city of Derry.
    I represent an area which has the unenviable distinction of having the highest unemployment rate of any constituency represented in this House, with 38 per cent. in Strabane and 28 per cent. in Derry. Those are statistics which interact seriously and severely with the political crisis in the north of Ireland, because that same area has borne more than its share of the brunt of the atrocities that have taken place in the north of Ireland over the past decade. It is the interaction of the economic situation with the political situation that requires a great deal of attention if the problems of that part of the world are to be resolved.
    People have wondered about the rise in the political strength of extremism in the north of Ireland. There is no greater example of the reasons for extremism in that area than that we now have a generation of young people who were only four years old in 1969 and 1970 and have grown up in a society in which they have always seen security forces and violence on the streets, in which they have been continually searched simply because they are young people, and in which, when they reach the age of 18, they have no hope of any employment because they happen to have come of age during the deepest economic crisis for a long time. Therefore, there are resentments, and there are sadistic people who play upon those resentments, point to a British soldier and say, "Get rid of him and all your problems will be solved". That simplistic message has an appeal to young people, and people such as myself and members of my party who seek to show that the problems are rather more complex have a difficult task.
    508
    If the Government were to take seriously the economic crisis in the north of Ireland and make a sensible and determined attack on the problems of youth employment, they would also be making a determined attack on the problems of extremism.
    The debate is about defence and foreign affairs. In the Gracious Speech there is reference to the major issue between Britain and Ireland—the problems of Northern Ireland. It also happens to be one of the most serious human issues facing the House. Having come here after surviving over a decade on the streets of Northern Ireland, I have to say with some bitterness that I do not see much evidence that there are many hon. Members who think that it is an issue of great human concern.
    We have been told repeatedly by Ministers, Secretaries of State and Prime Ministers, of whatever party, that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We are told by the Prime Minister that we are as 13ritish as Finchley.
    I should like hon. Members to take any part of the United Kingdom over the past decade and to imagine the following things happening. Imagine 2,000 people being killed on the streets in Yorkshire, 20,000 people maimed and injured, and £430 million spent on compensation for bomb damage; two new prisons built and a third under construction; the rule of law drastically distorted, with the introduction of imprisonment without trial; senior politicians and policemen murdered, and innocent civilians murdered by the security forces and by paramilitary forces. Imagine a shoot-to-kill policy for people suspected of crime being introduced from time to time instead of their being arrested. Imagine jury courts being disbanded, plastic bullets used on the streets and innocent children being killed. Imagine paramilitary organisations engaging in violence and the type of interrogation methods that led to the British Government being found guilty in the European Court of Human Rights being introduced. Imagine hunger strikers dying in prison in Yorkshire and representatives of the paramilitary being elected to this House to represent Yorkshire.
    If those things had happened on what is commonly called the mainland, can anyone tell me that those events would not have been the major issue in the general election campaign? Can anyone persuade me that any speech made since that election would not have referred to that issue? However, the only hon. Members who have referred to it were leaders of two parties in Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, we are told that we are as British as Finchley.
    Does any hon. Member believe that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley or any other part of what is called the mainland? Do any hon. Members honestly believe that in their hearts? If so, where is the evidence of their concern? The truth is that if every hon. Member spoke his heart, he would say that he has psychologically withdrawn from Northern Ireland. The truth is that Britain has psychologically withdrawn from Northern Ireland. Britain and Northern Ireland would be healthier places if that psychological reality were translated into political reality.
    The extent of the problem in Northern Ireland today can be summed up by the desperate indictment of a brick wall that has been built between two sections of the community in Belfast to keep them apart and to protect them from each other. That is happening in what is described as a part of the United Kingdom.

    509
    That wall is an indictment of anyone who has governed Northern Ireland in the past 14 years. It is also an indictment of every political party in Northern Ireland. It is an indictment of everyone who has any part to play in the problem. It is an indictment of the Unionist tradition, the Nationalist tradition and the British who govern from this House. It is an indictment, but it is also a challenge because the only truth that has emerged out of all the suffering of the past decade is that all our policies have led us to that wall in Belfast. The real challenge is to reexamine urgently our traditional approaches to a solution.
    Hon. Members who represent the Loyalist tradition have a lot of thinking to do. Their consistent stance on Northern Ireland has been to protect the integrity of the tradition in an island in which they form a minority. I have no quarrel with that objective. Any country is richer for diversity. I quarrel with the methods of protecting the integrity. Put crudely, that method dictates, "We must hold all power in our own hands." That is precisely what has been said. It is a violent attitude. It is an attitude which demands the exclusive exercise of power. The leaders of that tradition have consistently maintained that view, but it invites violence. It is not possible permanently to exclude an entire section of the population from any say in the decision-making process.
    The Nationalist tradition has also taken a rather simplistic approach. Its argument has often been presented in emotional and romantic terms. Its simplistic definition of Irishness is extremely sectional. It is based substantially on two powerful strands of the Irish tradition — the Gaelic and Catholic — to the exclusion of the Protestants. That narrow definition makes the Protestant tradition feel excluded from that notion of Irishness. In its more extreme form, it is thought right not only to die, but to kill, for that version of Ireland. In those circumstances, we can understand what contribution my tradition has made to the deepening of Irish divisions.
    When one considers the streets of Belfast and examines the performance of the organisation that represents itself as the ultimate in Irish patriotism—the Provisional IRA—and one considers the bitterness that it has created by its campaign of destruction and killing, one can see how much rethinking and examination we must do if we are to bring about a settlement of the Irish problem and bring forward a definition of Irishness which is inclusive, not exclusive.
    The third element is the British Government and the House. As matters stand, it now has all the power over Northern Ireland. Examination of history reveals one consistent policy. Moreover, it is the only policy that I have heard enunciated here—that Northern Ireland shall remain part of the United Kingdom as long as a majority so wish. On the face of it, that seems to be a democratic statement and guarantee. However, if one looks behind that, one sees that the majority that is being guaranteed was created artificially by a sectarian headcount. When one tells the majority that it can protect itself only by remaining in majority, one invites it to maintain sectorian solidarity as the only means of protection. Therefore, one makes sectarianism the motive force of politics. Northern Ireland has 60 years of elections to demonstrate that that is precisely what has happened.
    If we are to break the sectarian mould and the divisions, we must recognise that they cannot continue for ever. We
    510
    cannot deny that 5 million people in a Europe which twice this century has slaughtered its people by the millions could find the wisdom and foresight to say, "Let us build structures whereby we can grow together at our own speed." What is wrong with asking for that for our small island of 5 million people? What is wrong with asking to be able to build structures whereby the different traditions can live in peace, harmony and unity in a new relationship with Britain? What is wrong with the Government adopting that as a policy objective? That policy was stated by no less a person than Sir Winston Churchill who, on 7 July 1922, in a private letter to Michael Collins, wrote:
    "Meanwhile, in the intervals of grappling with revolts and revolution, I think that you should think over in your mind what would be the greatest offer the south could make for northern co-operation. Of course, from the imperial point of view, there is nothing we should like better than to see the north and the south join hands in an all-Ireland assembly without prejudice to the existing rights of Irishmen. Such ideas could be vehemently denied in many quarters at the moment, but events in the history of nations sometimes move very quickly."
    They often move quickly when there is a strong Government in power who have the courage to grasp the nettle and face up to reality. Ending divisions in Ireland has evaded statesmen for centuries. Ending the divisions requires strength and leadership. It is not asking a great deal of the Government to adopt as policy the statement that Sir Winston Churchill made on 7 July 1922.
    7 pm
    Sir Anthony Kershaw: The House has just listened to a remarkable maiden speech by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), delivered with the eloquence that we have come to expect from our Irish colleagues. We are aware of the feelings that Northern Ireland generates in the breasts of those with responsibilities. The hon. Member comes to us with a great reputation and as a parliamentarian. He is a member of three Parliaments, although he has not taken his seat in one. He is a member of the European Parliament and the House of Commons, so the expertise with which he addressed us was not too surprising.
    The hon. Gentleman said that he detected an absence of human feeling about Ireland in this Chamber. I hope that he will modify that opinion in due course. Members of the House have much sympathy not only with the political situation in Northern Ireland but for our colleagues who represent Irish constituencies. We understand their difficulties and restraints. We appreciate their difficulties and we are glad that more Northern Ireland representatives are here to sit in this Parliament. If we seem to be indifferent, it is because we are unable to decide what to do. Now that the hon. Gentleman has come to assist our counsels light will be thrown upon the difficulties and we shall be able to come to better conclusions. The House will wish to hear the hon. Gentleman often on important and delicate issues.
    I welcome my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to his new post. It is a post to which his dazzling career and high achievements have not hitherto particularly qualified him. My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was a good thing that he and someone else of whom he spoke had previously been Finance Ministers. I do not think that it is. The precedent is not good. Austen Chamberlain and John Simon were both rotten Foreign Ministers. The Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr.

    511
    Callaghan), who is not here, was not much better. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend does not bring to his new desk the skills which so ornamented his time at the Treasury.
    I was glad that the Prime Minister's statement on the European Council the other day contained references to the general gain in terms of strengthening democracy, and securing peace, which the EC provides. Too often in our discussion of the EC and European activities a mere recitation of figures is considered to be adequate. My right hon. and learned Friend did nothing to dispel my illusion today.
    If each country counts its advantages as being only what it can grab out of the pork barrel and no more, it misleads itself and will not contribute to the future. We do that too often in the United Kingdom.
    Such an approach makes no sense even in economic terms. We are talking about a contribution of £800 million. That is a lot of money, but it is not nearly 1 per cent. of our national budget. Such an approach disregards the trade benefits and the enormous increase in operations inside the EC and with other European countries with which the EC has special relationships. It takes no account of our activities with those countries which give us a surplus in trade. We do not have much to complain about economically.
    I wish that the Foreign Secretary had been able to describe our future policy towards the EC. The EC made good progress in the 1960s and 1970s when we joined, but now we are marking time. Yet the economic and political dangers are greater. There is a world depression, which is difficult at any time. European unemployment is running at about 12 million, with all the social consequences that stem from that. The idea that a nation state can emerge from that alone is too ridiculous to contemplate.
    Super-power confrontation is an additional element. Europe's influence is shrinking. It is inevitable that we shall be involved if anything goes wrong in the middle east. We hear little about what Europe could do about that. Nothing much has happened since the Venice declaration a few years ago. We play a small role. So not only is Europe shrinking in importance: we are diverging in our European policies from the United States. Ever since the collapse of detente stresses and strains have occurred in the Atlantic Alliance which have not yet been resolved and which call for a common approach by the powers.
    We all complain that other EC members are not doing their bit; that they are taking out too much money or not putting in enough; and that they operate restrictions. I read the other day that the menu in a Spanish inn depends upon what the travellers bring. I believe that, unless we bring something, we are not entitled to complain that we do not get anything out.
    The way out is not to retreat—that is impossible—but we cannot stand still. We must identify a wider range of issues and review our common interests with Europe. The Government should seek to set out how they see the EC developing and how they intend to achieve their policies. We are more likely to bring success if we give a lead and let others know our goals.
    I have some suggestions. We have some unfinished business on the economic front. Some matters should have been settled a long time ago. I refer to the freeing of internal services such as insurance, aircraft fares and airlines. We must continue to press for that.
    512
    The CAP is an obvious target for reform. It is clear to me—perhaps I am wrong—that the CAP's object is social. It is intended to help the smaller farmers in Europe and not to make rich farmers richer. The way in which we support the CAP must be in the direction of the small farmer. It must not swell the incomes of those who do not need help. It is doubly urgent to settle the matter soon because we cannot maintain, during a period of falling world commodity prices, the enormous surpluses produced by the present system.
    Before long, we must have more money from own resources. That should not produce such a terrible hiccup for Britain because we should, at the same time, have a progressive taxation system. Countries which fall below average income should pay less and countries above it should pay more. That is a usual way to deal with taxation. It would be useful to adapt that principle to the present circumstances, especially in view of the enlargement caused by Spain and Portugal which are bound to need special treatment for some time. Enlargement will cost immediate money, but I urge the House to consider that the enlargement of the trading area and the protection of democracy makes it highly desirable for Spain and Portugal to join.
    What about Gibraltar? That issue has been missing from our discussions so far. What has been said today is obscure. Apparently we want Spain in, but we continue to give Gibraltar a veto on whether the arrangements with Spain shall go ahead. What are the British Government doing to make it more possible for the Gibraltarians to work with Spain? We did not hear anything about that. We must discuss this properly with the Gibraltarians and I am glad that Sir Joshua Hassan is coming to Britain tomorrow. We should try to educate Gibraltarians into thinking that it might be possible to get along with Spain. Unless they do, it will be impossible for Spain to join the Common Market—yet we say that we want the Spanish to join in 1986 or even sooner. We need further clarification on this point and on what British policy is likely to be.
    It is clear that we must work with our partners in the EC to cure unemployment so far as is possible. Any special measures which Britain might take, such as reducing the retirement age or special redundancy payments, would on the whole increase our costs and, if our other partners did not do so at the same time, would very much diminish our competitiveness. This problem can only be solved satisfactorily in conjunction with our partners.
    I wonder also whether the time has come to consider again the European monetary system. I do not see how an economic area such as the EC can continue long without a common monetary system. I do not believe that the arguments against, which are technical and would take too long to go into now, are as strong as they were.
    It is important that we should work with Europe on energy. We have a great deal of oil and coal and we should have a policy which makes it easier for our partners to ensure their independence in energy if difficulty arises in the future. All those interests are common and surely the solutions should be too.
    I believe that we should make a greater cultural effort in Europe. Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am one of the vice-chairmen of the British Council, which spends a great deal of energy and money in Europe. It has to some extent reduced its activities there, the argument being that the Europeans can read about us in their newspapers, so

    513
    why bother to spend good British money? I believe that that is a false argument. We spend a great deal of energy and time teaching English, which is a great diplomatic asset to this country. The British Council is entitled to a more favourable eye from the Foreign Office than it has perhaps received hitherto.
    The Foreign Office and the Government must make up their minds what they want the British Council to do and then they must provide it with the money to do it. Very often, they provide a task and then discover that inflation overseas has made it impossible for the British Council to fulfil that task. With the new system of accounting, they object very much to keeping up with that inflation which is no fault of the British Council or its efficiency. Of course, the Foreign Office is in the same cart in that regard. The tributes that have been paid to the British Council recently, particularly by the Prime Minister, who said that the British Council has "an excellent reputation" the world over for the work it does and for its total integrity, should be translated into a little more cash and into a little more activity with our allies, which is so important culturally.
    I do not believe that our co-operation in Europe should stop there. Our economic security is at one with our political and military security. We can bring about our economic security only within the ambience of the EC. Therefore, I believe that we should add to our deliberations in Europe our consideration of security aspects. We share a common interest in disarmament, in the middle east, in Poland and in Berlin. We cannot extricate ourselves from these international pressure points. I believe, therefore, that the Genscher-Colombo proposals which were welcomed by the Prime Minister are very much in our interests and should be pressed on with and made to come alive.
    Until now, the United Kingdom has not been regarded as a faithful EC member. After the referendum and the recent elections, there is no reason why that view should continue to be held. Perhaps it is the way that we put things sometimes, our strident calls for more money, which puts up the backs of our colleagues in Europe and makes them feel that we are in it only for the cash that we can get out. I am sure that that is not true, but I believe that we should speak with a more certain voice in order to dissipate that illusion.
    It would be folly to go back to individual nation states. Standing still is dangerous, and these are dangerous times. The Prime Minister is now the doyenne of European statesmen. She can give a lead which will increase the chances of safety and prosperity for our people.
    7.15 pm
    Mr. Alex Carlile: I am extremely grateful for being called to make my maiden speech in this debate, when matters of such great moment are being discussed. To be permitted to make my maiden speech in the debate on the Gracious Speech heightens my sense of the honour bestowed on me by my constituents and my sense of responsibility to them in the future.
    I have the privilege of representing the constituency of Montgomery, unravaged in name or size by the Boundary Commission changes. It remains a vast and beautiful constituency, running to more than 500,000 acres—perhaps I may be permitted to continue to use "acres", for
    514
    we still sell farms in acres in Montgomery—and with the sixth smallest electorate in the United Kingdom I am proud to have been one of those who fought to preserve Montgomery as a single constituency, a fight which was also taken up with great vigour and success by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnor (Mr. Hooson).
    At first sight the constituency of Montgomery may appear to be purely agricultural, but a considerable amount of industry has grown up in Montgomeryshire in recent years — some indigenous, some from outside. That industry brought with it an influx of several thousand people, who were attracted to Montgomeryshire from various parts of England, most notably the west midlands, by the opportunity to work and live in our glorious county. Though small in electors, Montgomery, with its agricultural and industrial base, represents a microcosm of Wales as a whole. With that in mind, I feel proud indeed to have won the highest percentage share of votes of any Liberal or SDP alliance candidate in Wales—indeed, a share a little higher than that won nationally by the Government, who claim to have an overwhelming mandate to govern the United Kingdom.
    The first Liberal Member of Parliament for Montgomery was elected in 1880. During the next 99 years there were only Liberal Members of Parliament for Montgomery. I am pleased to say that their survival rate was high, for there were only five of them. I hope that I can at least emulate their average.
    One or two right hon. and hon. Members will remember Clement Davies, whose wisdom and warmth were much loved in this House for 33 years, and were bywords in Montgomeryshire. He was followed for 17 years by Lord Hooson, as he now is, who is still held in the highest regard in Montgomeryshire. His gentle encouragement and mercurial smile gave me much support in my sustained campaign to regain the seat. In one of my many election meetings, an over-enthusiastic warm-up speaker introduced me as the next Member of Parliament for Montgomery—Mr. Alex Hooson. The noble Lord and I both deny the implicit allegation in that remark. But I value very greatly the close personal, political and professional association that I have with the noble Lord.
    In 1979, at the end of those 99 years, Montgomery fell, one year short of the centenary that we shall soon celebrate. It fell to my predecessor, Mr. Delwyn Williams. It is fitting, as well as in accordance with tradition, that I should commend his service as Member for Montgomery for four years and wish him well in his new ventures. Montgomeryshire is now back where it belongs, in the Liberal fold. I take up the onerous but welcome task of attempting to prove myself a worthy heir to as great a constituency Liberal traditon as exists in the United Kingdom.
    The concerns that were expressed to me by my constituents, both before and during the election campaign, and in my prolific postbag since, are many and varied. They are far from restricted to the agricultural and rural matters which may well have been the principal concerns of my predecessors, although those issues are still of great importance.
    Among the foremost of the issues that I find being raised in my constituency are nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The nuclear waste problem is an issue in Montgomery and in mid-Wales as a whole. During 1980 proposals were in existence which raised the possibility of boreholes being drilled in mid-Wales with a view to the

    515
    eventual dumping of nuclear waste. As a result, an intense multipartite campaign followed. A popular movement arose that had the support not only of the anti-nuclear pressure groups, but of the established bodies, such as both Welsh farming unions.
    My first major public engagement in mid-Wales was in 1980 at a meeting in Dinas Mawddwy where I shared a platform with the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas). Feelings were high and the determination was unmistakable. The effect of that and other meetings and pressure was to cause those proposals to be shelved. That is where they belong, on the shelf. I shall regard it as a part of my responsibility to Montgomery to ensure that those proposals remain not only on the shelf, but unmoved and on the same shelf.
    One aspect of nuclear weapons which has been repeatedly mentioned today is the Trident programme. I, and I am sure the majority of my constituents, view with regret that passage in the Gracious Speech which states the Government's intention to modernise the existing independent nuclear deterrent with the Trident programme. Trident represents an unnecessary and expensive heightening of the nuclear profile at a time when arms control negotiations are in progress with the Soviet Union. I do not believe that the cause of conciliation, in which we should all believe, is helped by the escalation that Trident represents, with its range of 6,000 miles and its frightening and uncanny accuracy—factors that are sure to stiffen the Soviet resolve to compete, rocket for rocket, bomb for bomb.
    Nor is Trident needed for the purpose of defence. Its only utility would arise in circumstances where the United States would not want to use nuclear weapons, but the United Kingdom would want to use them. That postulates Trident being used in a position where the United Kingdom would choose to make the first nuclear strike, to deter a suspected pre-emptive strike by the Soviet Union on the United Kingdom. The consequences that would follow would make the Inferno seem like a Sunday afternoon tea party.
    Those of us who are fortunate enough to have entered the House while still quite young—many like myself with young children, with the future spreading before us and them—must maintain a long political perspective. Our sense of purpose must be to contribute to and to consolidate a future for those children, and for all the children of our constituents and the nation. The warning that many of us give is that Trident only threatens that future.
    7.28 pm
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: It is always a privilege to follow a maiden speech, and it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). He addressed the House with grace, eloquence, confidence, charm and a spice of humour. He showed his affection for his constituency and a proper knowledge of its history. I am sorry that the leader of his party was not in his place to hear such an admirable, although not wholly uncontroversial, maiden speech. There are Members on the Liberal Benches who will be able to tell the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) of the hon. Gentleman's excellent maiden speech.
    Mr. Beith: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his kind references to my hon. Friend's speech.
    516
    However, there appeared to be a note of criticism in his reference to the leader of the Liberal party. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that my right hon. Friend is attending the quatrocentenary of the University of Edinburgh, at which Her Majesty the Queen is present.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: If there was a note of acerbity in my words, I withdraw it. I do not want it to detract from the unalloyed praise that I wish to give the hon. Gentleman for his maiden speech. I will not say that I wish the hon. Gentleman a lengthy tenure in representing his constituency. Many of us on the Conservative Benches miss Delwyn Williams, and I believe that many people in Wales will miss him as their Member of Parliament.
    Yesterday and today we heard complaints in this Chamber of the cost of what is pejoratively termed "fortress Falklands". Some of those who protested that the Falkland Islands could not be defended and some of those who protested that they could not be regained are now putting it about that to hold them is too expensive. General Galtieri has said that had he known that the British would resist, he would not have attacked. Therefore, if a firm purpose to defend the Falklands is shown here in the United Kingdom, it is extremely unlikely that there will be another attack.
    What General Galtieri said is distressing. It means that the operation comes into the Churchillian category of an unnecessary war. Some of us on the Government Benches still have a clear conscience in having urged for more than a decade the construction of an ample airfield there. Once that is built and once rapid reinforcement is possible, our garrison in the Falkland Islands can be modest—modest in manpower, though not in the efficiency of early warning and missile defence. Moreover, the cost throughout must be set against the asset of unrivalled training grounds for all arms of the three services.
    Yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence alluded to the strategic significance of that part of the world. It is a perversity that NATO ends at the tropic of Cancer and that there is no adequate system of maritime defence over that vast area ranging from Australasia through southern Africa to south America. It is not practicable — it is not politically possible — to extend the NATO area, but if there were a SATO to put with NATO then, when the wounds had healed, Argentina might be one of those states taking part in such an organisation of allied maritime defence and the Falkland Islands might be a headquarters or base in that system of the future.
    The Falkland Islands were compared frequently before the invasion by Ulstermen and Unionists with Northern Ireland. The Falklands have also been compared with Gibraltar, the subject which followed that of the Falkland Islands in the Gracious Speech, and I too have made these comparisons.
    The closing passage of the Gracious Speech is, to me, the least satisfactory. We heard an eloquent maiden speech from the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume). His party has not taken part in the Northern Ireland Assembly, on which such stress is laid in the Gracious Speech. However, as we were made well aware, the hon. Member for Foyle is present in this House, and it is here that reconciliation can take place or can be furthered. It is here, in the sovereign Parliament of the whole United Kingdom, that demagoguery and bigotry are cut down to size.

    517
    I do not quarrel with the Northern Ireland Assembly, which exists—if it can be adapted to a proper system of regional administration for that part of the United Kingdom under one sovereign legislature—but all that differentiates and distances Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom just encourages the terrorists in their belief that the British can be blasted or bored out of Ireland. Every political initiative of that kind that we have had under successive Secretaries of State has been lethal.
    The wish of the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar and Northern Ireland to stay British is a wish to exercise or retain the right to self-determination. Self-determination and national sovereignty were, I believe, the essence of the conversations that took place recently in Poland between the Pope and General Jaruzelski. General Jaruzelski is something of an enigma, a man of noble birth, of Catholic education and of Soviet indoctrination. It is certain that he desires, as do the Polish people, to keep Poland free from Soviet military occupation. To that extent he is a believer in national sovereignty and self-determination.
    The principle of national sovereignty is universally acclaimed. The principle of self-determination is universally proclaimed. But it is in Europe, not in the Third world, that these principles are most flagrantly denied. Brezhnev spoke of limited sovereignty. Recently Mr. Gromyko said that Poland would always remain an inalienable member of the Socialist community or Socialist commonwealth.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) looked into the distance to a time when there might be a sort of dominion status within what is now the Soviet empire, but that is not the case today. It is hypocrisy to speak of a Socialist community or commonwealth; it is an empire. But the Soviet empire is not the only empire in the world immune from dissolution. When Mr. Gromyko says that Poland will always remain in that empire, I would reply that "always", like "never", is a dangerous word for a politician to use.
    Europe is half slave and half free. The Gracious Speech refers to the development of the European Community, but the EC—in at least the common agricultural policy and the budget—is for many of our fellow subjects a pain in the neck. But Europe is more than a market, and it does not end at the Berlin wall, the wire and the watchtowers. The very existence of the Community—to which the Gracious Speech expresses the renewed commitment of Her Majesty's Government — as a partnership of sovereign nations can and does exert a strong attraction on the Europe that, in God's time, will be free again.
    7.38 pm
    Mr. Stan Thorne: I hope that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) will forgive me if I do not go down the road that he followed. It is difficult when debating the Gracious Speech to adhere strictly to the chosen subjects for the day, so I trust that a certain flexibility will be allowed because I shall raise a number of points that might be considered not to be directly within the terms of Mr. Speaker's selection of subjects.
    I am glad to see the Minister of State for the Armed Forces in his place, because I hope that he will comment on what the Secretary of State for Defence alluded to in
    518
    a television programme a few days ago, when he referred to the need to care for the members of the Armed Forces, which presumably included their families.
    There is a family in my constituency which lost a soldier in Germany in February 1983 as a result of an attack by two other soldiers. It seems that four months later the Ministry of Defence is incapable of giving me any real information about when the body will be returned to the family for burial, when charges will be laid against the two assailants, and there will be a trial concerning the precise circumstances of the attack. It took several telephone calls during the past few days to get an agreement with the noble Lord to see me about the matter on Thursday. I hope that the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will do something about his Department if that is how it operates in such circumstances.
    I have read the Queen's Speech several times and it seems that there is little in it about meeting people's needs. That should be the main consideration of the House if it is facing its responsibilities to the British people. Many of the measures in the Queen's Speech relate to what is dear to the hearts and minds of Conservative Members, and that is private profit. It seems that we shall privatise certain parts of our public assets. The Government have no right to do that, because they did not obtain a mandate for any of those policies in the election.
    There is a pious comment in the Queen's Speech about unemployment, but there is nothing about the way in which we can overcome that unemployment by creating demand within the economy. One direct method of doing so is through investment. Most Conservative Members, and some who occupy places on the Opposition Benches, especially the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), are keen on our involvement in the Common Market. However, there seemed to be nothing in what the right hon. Gentleman said, nor in what the Government have said in the Queen's Speech and elsewhere, about using part of the massive funds in Europe—I understand that they stand at about £1,000 billion—to create the jobs that are needed throughout Europe, especially within the United Kingdom. It has been estimated that we could find about 20 million jobs over the next 10 years if those funds were used sensibly and in a planned way in accordance with the economic needs of Europe.
    There seems to be more anxiety on the Government Benches to protect international finance capital than to promote investment in manufacturing industry. Another omission from the Queen's Speech — this is not surprising — is a reference to controlling prices and dividends. There is little provision for relieving the massive poverty that exists in so much of Britain.
    The Queen's Speech must be seen against the background of the general election. I make no apology for dealing briefly with certain aspects of it. There is no doubt that the election was a disaster for the Labour party. I feel that the economic crisis of the late 1960s and the 1970s saw Labour and Conservative Governments involved in crisis management. We saw that during the late 1960s under Sir Harold Wilson's prime ministership and we saw it again under the Labour Government of 1974–79. Labour's management of a capitalist economy in that period included wage restraint, which alienated many working people from the Labour party. More important, it laid the basis for Thatcherism, which has emerged from

    519
    the struggle against social democracy and the wets within the Tory party by the radical Right led by the Prime Minister.
    The Queen's Speech confirms Thatcherism's victory. The political forces of the Right have been given the go-ahead by further anti-trade union legislation and privatisation measures, some of which are contained in the speech. The victory of Thatcherism has been made possible to some degree by the divisions within the left of the Labour party and by changes in the cultural milieu that is enjoyed by what we loosely call the working class and in their response to the economic crisis.
    The Labour party was not seen by the electorate as the political representative of the interests of the working class and of organised labour. The electorate heard and listened, but unfortunately it was duped by the Tory media's slogans and references to concepts such as the nation, making Britain great once more, the Falklands, the family, duty, authority, traditionalism, self-interest and competitive individualism.
    Possibly most important in some ways was the denigration of the state. The state related to Labour statism and the Tory advocacy of anti-statism, while strengthening the state apparatus of oppression within Britain. Thatcherism has succeeded in equating Socialism with state bureaucracy and counterposing the idea of a free market, which is to be extended into education, health and into some notion of public choice, when we all know that we are talking about the ability to pay.
    The image has been created by the Tory media that the Labour party is enmeshed in the pursuit of a state apparatus that would be riddled with bureaucracy while the new brand of Toryism that is promoted by the Prime Minister provides freedom for the people. Unfortunately, many people have been embraced by this populism.
    I remind the Government that there was no mandate for their policies in the election. Their Note fell by about 800,000. There was a majority of 2 million or 3 million votes cast against the Tory party, that is, nearly 19 million votes. The many seats that the Tories have in the House are merely a reflection of our undemocratic electoral system. That does not disguise the miserable vote of about 8 million that the Labour party secured. The Labour party's failure to reach the working class— overwhelmingly the majority of the British people—was based on its inability to win the people over to the policies of the Left.
    What is likely to follow from this? It is clear that there will be a major increase in extra-parliamentary action, which can only be welcomed as an expression of people's increasing unwillingness to tolerate the lowered standard of living which is inevitable from the Government's policies. In my constituency there is some appalling housing. We are probably talking about several million pounds being needed to replace housing and give people the opportunity to live in decent homes. We need new sheltered accommodation for the increasing elderly population in the area and major resources in welfare and health. Trade union rights need to be protected. The prospects of achieving such aims under the Government are almost non-existent.
    I travelled by train recently with a trustee of a major multinational company's pension fund. He was one of the workers' representatives. That day the trustees had been discussing a recommendation tabled by the directors about £440 million which they were anxious to invest. We are
    520
    talking about workers' pension funds. What was the recommendation? It was suggested that Phillips and Drew were talking about a 7 per cent. inflation rate later this year. The directors were satisfied that there were no high expectations of improvements in manufacturing. Where was the investment to go? Overseas. Fortunately, the workers' representatives resisted that suggestion. It is difficult to say what will follow. However, it is a sign that within our society, encouraged by the Government's philosophy, there is more interest in investment overseas than in British manufacturing industry. That is one of the reasons why our expectation of an upturn in the economy in the foreseeable future is virtually non-existent.
    At this juncture the Labour party needs, above all, an involvement in a broad alliance for social change if it is to have political power in the late 1980s to plan the social change that will lead us to a Socialist Britain.
    7.52 pm
    Mr. Robert Jackson: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said:
    "These are the days of the maidens."
    It is not just a maidenly duty, but a pleasure, for me to pay the customary tribute to my predecessors. Tom Benyon had a reputation in the constituency for helpfulness. I experienced it at first hand as the representative for his constituency, which is now mine, in the European Parliament. Tom Benyon and I suffer from the difficulty that we follow a much greater man than either of us. As the Member representing Abingdon—now the Wantage division—Airey Neave is remembered well, not just in his constituency, but in the House. I see his name and arms illuminated over the door that faces you, Mr Deputy Speaker, among the escutcheons of those Members who fell fighting for our country. He was a man who carried a flame which I shall do the utmost in my power to honour.
    The Wantage constituency rises in a series of gentle terraces from the flood plain of the Thames to the Berkshire downs. Two arresting visual images impose themselves upon my mind. At the one end we have the white horse, which is carved in chalk against the green of the downs, and at the other, and less romantically, we have the cooling towers of Didcot power station.
    Amid this wide landscape in the four towns of Faringdon, Wantage, Didcot and Wallingford and in the many villages around, some 100,000 souls live, work and have their being. Their fate may seem far removed from such questions as the future of the European budget which is being discussed today, but that is not so.
    Let me dwell for a moment on the ties that join the European Community and its institutions—including the European budget — to the people whom I have the honour to represent in the House and at Strasbourg. Most of my constituents earn their living in enterprises such as the motor industry and the new science-based industries that are springing up in what has been called the "M4 corridor". The present and future of these enterprises depend largely upon access to the open market place of the Community, which in turn depends for its continued existence upon a stable and developing frame work of European institutions.
    The basis of my constituency's prosperity lies today, as it did in ancient times, in agriculture, which is the principal charge upon the European budget—the main focus of controversy in the European Community—and

    521
    a leading British industry which has profited exceedingly —some may even say excessively—from Community policy.
    I represent thousands of scientific and engineering civil servants at Harwell and other institutions in the constituency. About 10 per cent. of their professional activities and budget are influenced strongly by our European commitment.
    Whatever may be the case in some other parts of these islands, my constituency has certainly joined Europe. For that reason we feel that we have something to say about its future. One of the most valuable things that I have learnt from my experience of the four years in the European Parliament is that one does not have to be a Continental to be a European. The definition of a European is not "Made in Paris, Bonn, Rome or The Hague". The consequences of our mistaken aloofness from the European movement in the 1950s are now fading and Great Britain possesses her authentic and original points of view about the Community and its future.
    Let me identify just three of those. In spite of our taste for ceremonial, the British tend to look at the substance rather than the form of things. We have a strong interest in the practical side of the Community; in particular, the creation of a genuine common market without restrictions and impediments. A country which has fulfilled its treaty commitment to free the movement of capital does not need lectures on the European spirit from those who have not yet done so. Nor do we need such lectures from those who continue to maintain obstacles to the freedom of the provision of services without let or hindrance throughout Europe.
    The British are realistic. We know that an organisation such as the European Community lives and grows by a continuous process of negotiation. We know that in the present state of Community affairs Great Britain seeks at least three major national objectives—to assure long-term equity in the European budget; to improve the operations of the common agricultural policy; and to ensure that our budget payments this year and next are contained within reasonable limits.
    We know that in the give and take of negotiations it is unlikely that we shall be able to secure those objectives without at the same time giving some ground and going some way towards meeting the major objectives of some of our partners—some increase in the Community's own resources.
    I believe that the main issue is not if, but when, and, above all, on what conditions. The British have a profound interest in how the Community is governed. Our most distinctive national contribution to the arts of civilisation probably lies in the sphere of government. We know that no free polity can succeed whose actions run ahead of the comprehension and consent of its subjects. That is why, for instance, we take a cautious and evolutionary view of how the Community Council should take its decisions.
    We know also that a parliamentary institution possesses life and vigour only to the extent that its members and proceedings represent the true, vital forces of society, which is the spirit in which our British colleagues in the European Parliament have been making an effort which I fear has not yet been sufficiently recognised in the House.
    From our national experience, we know that no fiscal system can survive where there is an unappeased sense of
    522
    grievance and inequity. I have never been one of those who believe that Britain's net contribution to the Community budget is a matter of de minimis. A principle that is fundamental to Europe's future is at stake. It is that the future of the Community's resources should be assured by putting them on that basis of equity and fair play that is taken for granted in the finances of all civilised states.
    If I go further I shall be in danger of exceeding the time that convention allows maiden speakers. I thank the House for its courtesy. It is a great privilege and the fulfilment of a lifetime's dream to be here. I hope that for many years I shall be able to remain here to serve the people of the Wantage constituency, whom I thank for doing me the honour of sending me here.
    8.1 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and to say that his maiden speech was most able and eloquent, delivered with erudition and in a civilised manner, which I shall find great difficulty in following. However, we would expect little less from someone who has had the training and experience that he has had in Europe. I am glad that he delivered his speech at a reasonable speed, unlike the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), who seemed to be waiting for interpretation. Like the hon. Member for Wantage, I represent a seat that has a large agricultural interest, but I shall resist the temptation to follow him down the highways and byways of Europe.
    It is difficult in a Queen's Speech debate, and even on the relatively narrow topic of defence and foreign affairs, to decide what to concentrate on. Although not concentrating on Europe and tempted to talk about Hong Kong and Gibraltar or to follow the contributions on defence and disarmament, I make no apology for returning to the subject of the Falkland Islands. I was one of the few hon. Members who spoke in the debate in April last year against sending the task force. I am pleased to see present, now as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, one of the few others who expressed reservations about the dispatch of the task force.
    The Falklands problem is not a matter of history. I mean no disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who carried out an important campaign with regard to the General Belgrano, but the future is more important than the analysis of history. Much of our discussion in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and our attempts to produce a report have been stifled by some Conservative Members. Apart from our work, little has been done about considering the future of the Falkland Islands.
    Earlier in the debate, when I asked the Foreign Secretary a question about the future of the Falklands, he deliberately and studiously avoided answering it. The Foreign Secretary will not be able for much longer to avoid answering questions about the future of the Falklands or the discussions that will be pressed upon us by our colleagues in the United Nations and by the United States and our European partners.
    Yesterday's announcement about the go-ahead for a major new airport in the Falklands is a major step backwards. It is more ill-conceived than even the groundnuts scheme. It will provide a bigger bonanza for the friends of the Tory party than the black market has provided. Even worse, it will lead us to a much more

    523
    dangerous situation than the one before the invasion. It makes a long-term peaceful and negotiated solution much less likely. It will be perceived as representing a hardening of the United Kingdom's attitudes towards negotiations. That perceived hardening of attitudes will have occurred, and is occurring, at the same time as the opposite is happening in Buenos Aires. There, the climate has improved. Attitudes are softening. There is progress towards democracy.
    My question to the Foreign Secretary was derided by some of the Tory hawks. I said that there was progress towards elections in Argentina. I am glad that the hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) admitted that in an important and courageous maiden speech. There are to be elections later this year. A democratic Government will take over at the end of January.
    Let us examine the statements made by the people likely to be in a democratic Government. The Peronist party is still the largest party in Argentina. A very important spokesman said:
    "Peronist policy will be one of peace and co-operation."
    He said that the Falklands war was
    "an imprudent war with no adequate political or military basis."
    He went on:
    "We must prepare the ground for a new negotiation."
    Positive attitudes are coming out of Buenos Aires at the same time as a negative attitude persists in the United Kingdom.
    Fortunately, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, including some Conservative Members, was moving towards a more enlightened attitude. Had that Committee been allowed to produce its report, there would have been a majority recommendation urging negotiations, just as many other people have done — not just the United Nations, but the Church of Scotland and many other forces that are coming round to the view that we must eventually enter into negotiations with Argentina about the future of the Falklands because of the continuing claim that will not go away, the escalating costs that cannot be shrugged off and the diplomatic pressure that will continue.
    The Falklands airport proposal is regrettable not just because it threatens to close our options for peaceful negotiations but for many other reasons There first is the South African connection. We are having to use the apartheid regime of South Africa as our staging post. That shows that we still have poor relations with Latin America. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) would do well to take note of this. He said the opposite during previous discussions. Britain still has such poor relations with every state in Latin America that we cannot find one that will give us landing rights, so we must deal with the Right-wing regime in South Africa. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, that is an insult not only to 18 million black South Africans, but to black people throughout the world.
    Another unfortunate aspect about the airport is the profits that will be made. As has been said, the Conservatives are in the operation for profit—profits for Mowlem, Laing and Amey-Roadstone, and, of course, for the Falkland Islands Company which will be selling to the Government the land on which the new airport is to be constructed, no doubt at greatly inflated prices.
    The development of an airport on those islands in the south Atlantic will be strategically useless. The Secretary of State for Defence, in reply to a question from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), said that the
    524
    base in the south Atlantic has wide strategic implications. That is absolute rubbish. Nothing was said about important strategic implications before the invasion. No generals, admirals or RAF officers pressed on the Government the importance of having a base in the south Atlantic. Nothing was done until the invasion took place. It is sheer rationalisation. It has no strategic importance.
    Negotiations must be undertaken with a democratic Government in Argentina, when that comes about, and sovereignty must be considered. I appreciate that we must deal with the duplicity of the Government of Argentina. We must compare their actions and statements before and after the invasion and now. The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), quoting the famous phrase much used by Conservative Members, said that he did not want the islanders to live under the heel of a Fascist junta. We often hear those words tripping off the tongues of Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mrs. McCurley) nods.
    In August 1980, the then Minister for Trade, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, formerly a member of the great war Cabinet which fought the war, was happily trotting round Argentina leading a delegation comprising Mr. P. E. G. Bates of Plessey, Mr. R. J. Dowding of Hawker Siddeley, and Mr. H. W. Jackson of GEC. The representatives of those companies were not discussing trade in textiles or tourism. I shall let right hon. and hon. Members guess what they were discussing, especially since they met air force officers, Brigadier Major Carlos Washington Pastor and Commodore Ravel Cura.
    The press in Argentina reported the Minister for Trade, who later became the chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Parkinson), as saying:
    "The British admire the efforts of Argentina … The conversations on the Falklands should be allowed to develop."
    Those are the same people whom they later described as "the Fascist junta" under whose heel they did not want the poor Falkland islanders to live. That is the type of duplicity with which we have to deal with this Government.
    When the Opposition and one or two Conservative Members, who really are honourable Members, highlighted the appalling, deplorable human rights' record of the Argentine Government, we were literally laughed down by some Conservative Members, just as they laugh now when we talk about other Right-wing Fascist countries or the dangers of selling HMS Hermes to Chile, supplying arms or other goods to South Africa or using South Africa as a staging post. However, they will laugh on the other side of their faces, as they did when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. James Hamilton: And Suez.
    Mr. Foulkes: And, as my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Mr. Hamilton) says, in the case of Suez.
    The growing catalogue of criticisms about the Falkland Islands Company is amazing. It points to the need for an investigation into its operations. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) drew my attention to a Norwegian newspaper which, on 8 May 1982, pointed out that reports were circulating about the Prime Minister's husband having a large shareholding in Coalite, which controls the Falkland Islands Company. That report, which has not been denied by the

    525
    Government, bears investigation. There must be either a denial or a further examination of the matter as it raises serious questions about the conduct of the whole operation.
    There are many criticisms of the Falkland Islands Company. It is in the business of extracting blood money, fleecing Argentines and British alike and trading with the enemy. The Select Committee on Defence criticised the company for its extortionate charges for accommodation for United Kingdom troops.
    On 19 June, The Sunday Times revealed that the company sold wool to the Argentine army at inflated prices. Mr. Needham's answer to that was that the Argentines would have taken it anyway. I suspect that 50 million people in Britain, including myself, as well as 1,800 Falklanders and the 250 British troops who died, would have said that that is what the company should have made them do, rather than giving it to them or selling it to them and making money out of trade with the enemy.
    Further revelations show that the Coalite company in Bolsover was in constant telex communication with Port Stanley throughout the war and that not only bales of wool, but jeeps and other war materials were sold to the Argentines. That, too, needs investigation.
    The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs also criticised the Falkland Islands Company for the way in which it exploited its monopoly on the islands for its own profit by controlling the storage and shipping of the wool clip and thus exercising total control over the price of wool to the independent farmers.
    Finally, in an amazing attempt to exploit public interest and concern about the Falklands, the company proposed the sale of 50-acre plots at £1,000 each. That is £20 per acre, when land on the islands normally costs about 50p per acre. The plots were to be sold with a false prospectus, as there was no access, no housing, no water or electricity and no wood for fencing or building. Everything necessary to make the plots viable would have had to be brought 8,000 miles from the United Kingdom by means of the tortuous transport link that we know so well.
    All those cases are amazing instances of exploitation or attempted exploitation by the company of interest in the islands. I hope that the company's activities will be investigated. It is a company which puts profit before principles, but, knowing this Government and the Tory Members who also put profit before principles, I have very little hope that they will instigate the kind of investigation that is necessary.
    8.18 pm
    Rev. William McCrea: I am grateful for the honour that has been given to me today to address this House. I understand that it is a tradition of the House that maiden speeches should be short and non-controversial. Given the record of many Northern Ireland Members, however, I doubt whether that tradition counts for anything any more. As the new Member for a unique constituency in the United Kingdom, I wish to express the fears and wishes of the people who elected me. If in so doing I appear controversial or partisan, so be it.
    First, I pay tribute to the outgoing Member for Mid-Ulster, Mr. John Dunlop. I wish to put on record my personal thanks for his efforts in the years during which he served the people of Mid-Ulster in this House. He and
    526
    I have been personal friends for a long time. Indeed, I campaigned with him and in each election he had the backing of my party. After the Northern Ireland Assembly elections in October, he wrote to me intimating that he would be standing down and that he looked upon me as his rightful successor. My only regret is that petty bickering and personal ambition on the part of others who claim to be Unionists nearly led to Danny Morrison, an IRA front man, winning the Mid-Ulster seat. Thankfully, the Unionist electorate placed greater importance on the union than on that petty rivalry and united behind me to defeat that apologist for murderers. Although I had a majority of only 78 votes over him, I assure the House that I am delighted to have a majority over the representative of murderers. As a result, Mid-Ulster has a representative who believes in the supremacy of the ballot box and does not believe in supplementing it with the Armalite.
    In my constituency, 16,000 people voted for the gunmen and for a man who openly supports an organisation that practises genocide against the Protestant population in Mid-Ulster and other border constituencies. Therefore, I must first mention security in Northern Ireland.
    I make my maiden speech today with a heavy heart, because another Protestant has just been brutally murdered by the IRA. As I sat in the early hours of this morning with a young widow in her 30s, with a child of four on her knee and three other children around her, what comfort could I bring them? What message can I deliver to that family when I return home for the burial tomorrow? What hope does the House give me for my people who sit as easy prey to the murderers? Mr. Moffat died brutally while doing his day's work simply because he was a Protestant and not because he was a member of the security forces. He was never connected with them, but he was a Protestant who was carrying on and prospering in his own little family business. That was sufficient to have him murdered and to leave four children without a father.
    Early this morning I heard a child of four asking his mother, "Mammy, why did God take Daddy?" That child did not realise that Daddy was done to death by brutal IRA murderers, who are no better than cowards. Only a coward can lie behind a hedge and shoot a man in the back. Only cowards can shoot our policemen, our Ulster Defence Regiment men and our soldiers from behind without showing themselves. I believe that our security forces are capable of dealing effectively with IRA murderers if they could be brought from their dens, and then Ulster could live in peace.
    I am disappointed by the reference in the Queen's Speech to security in Northern Ireland. The Government's promise to continue to give the highest priority to upholding law and order there is looked upon with sadness by my people and, if the position were not so serious, it might even be looked upon as a joke. That promise implies that the Government are already doing all they can about security in Northern Ireland, but the House should examine that. Some hon. Members may think that I sound ungrateful, but they must realise that if all that can be done is being done, the future holds nothing but despair, death, sorrow and tragedy for my constituents.
    Do two murders a week in an area the size of Yorkshire suggest that all in the Government's power is being done to eradicate terrorism? Week after week, and day after day, we mourn, we weep, and we bury our dead, and the cry that goes up as thousands of Ulstermen and women

    527
    walk behind the caskets on our country roads is, "Will it ever stop?" or, "Who is next?" The question is not, "Will there be a next?", but my people are asking, "Who is next?" Perhaps someone sitting at home sympathising with that widow will tonight leave behind a widow and little children as orphans. It seems that we rear our children — I have five — just to be mown down by the IRA gunmen at will. Does anyone really care?
    Are there any Members in the House today who would accept that level of violence in their constituencies without being enraged? Yet an eminent Member of the House once said that there is an acceptable level of violence in Ulster. Until the Government show the will and determination to win in Northern Ireland that they showed in the Falklands, death, destruction and despair will continue to be a way of life in our Province. The long-drawn-out murder campaign by the IRA and the inactivity of successive British Governments have led to cynicism among the Unionists of Northern Ireland. In the Falklands, when the Government's reputation was at stake, money and effort could be found to deal with the problem. No effort was spared to free 1,800 British citizens from under the heel of a terrible aggressor.
    Unlike Opposition Members, I salute the resolute leadership given to our nation by the Prime Minister, and I congratulate her on her forthright and honourable stand for freedom. We in Ulster were proud that Her Majesty's Government were not willing to sacrifice the lives of our gallant service men, but that they efficiently and effectively finished the war in a proper military fashion. Although we must all grieve at the loss of any life in any war, and the lives lost in the Falklands war, Britain had restored to it a national pride in the fact that aggression would not succeed and that cherished freedom would be defended, no matter what the cost.
    However, the position in Northern Ireland — not distant relatives but part of the same British family—has been allowed to drag on, not for a few months but for many years. We seem to be a political pawn in an international game. We have admired the efforts of our young service men, but we genuinely believe that their political masters have tied their hands rather than risk the wrath of the press and the international community, which is manipulated by the IRA propaganda machine.
    I pay tribute to the members of the security forces who continually risk their lives in the streets and in the countryside of Ulster, both on duty and off duty. I make a solemn appeal to the Government: do not let the matter continue for another 13 years. Perhaps some hon. Members do not remember it, but there was a time when Ulster lived in peace. [Interruption.] It may be funny to some people but 2,000 dead bodies are not laughable. When our fellow British citizens died as service men in the Falklands, the rest of the family, and we as part of it, did not think that funny either.
    There was a time when we did live in peace. Prosperity did blossom and tranquillity reigned. I pay tribute to the gallant Ulster special constabulary, who courageously maintained the peace of Ulster although they were maligned both inside and outside this House by men whose avowed aim was to see Ulster out of the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, to appease Republicanism, that dedicated force was disbanded, and our children have witnessed nothing but death and tragedy ever since.
    If only I could take hon. Members to the homes of the victims. If only they could take the hand of the sorrowing
    528
    widow and see the scars that have been caused by the IRA. If they did, I am sure that they would feel as I do. I do feel passionately about this, because I lost two of my own loved ones who were murdered by the IRA. A young girl of 21, just engaged to be married, went out to show her aunt her engagement ring, proud that she had put it on her finger. Her young brother of 16 went with her. The remains of that 16-year-old boy were scooped up in a plastic bag.
    When I went to identify the body, I witnessed a few bones with some flesh on them. They looked as if they had been savaged by a wild animal. The girl of 21 had half her head blown off and her body burst wide open. The effects of such deaths devastated the family. The mother, who saw them go out but not return—closed coffins came back— at the early age of 41 died last October of a broken heart. That is what is happening in Ulster I assure the House that that is not funny.
    Death is continuing on every hand in our community. The appeal from the people of Ulster, who want to live as part of this family, is, "Stamp out these evil men." Not only is strong action needed in the apprehension of these criminals, but a punishment that fits the crime must he administered. I say now that in the debate on hanging I shall be clearly voting for action that takes these murderers out of circulation for ever. We in Ulster make our choice. I would rather have a dead martyr any day than a living murderer, because a dead martyr cannot shoot someone in the back, fire the gun or set the bomb, whereas a living murderer so often has.
    We in Ulster—I know that hon. Members perhaps feel the same—are sick of looking at such sights. A people's patience is running out. Must they live like this for the rest of their lives? No free people should have to suffer that.
    History proves that Ulster gladly gave its sons and daughters to fight for Britain at the call of duty. We did not need conscription. The history books and the facts show that they went gladly. We love freedom, and, no matter what action we must take to maintain it, we shall never—I say this whether it is liked or not never surrender to these Republicans; nor will we let them win in Ulster.
    Some people are under the misapprehension that the IRA is fighting for its legitimate aspirations and is using violence to counter the repression that it has experienced. Let me lay that myth to rest. The IRA has two aims. The first and the most important aim is to drive the Protestants out of parts of Northern Ireland and eventually to get them out altogether. Then it will be Sinn Fein alone. Isolated farmers are threatened. Members of their families are killed with the sole aim of intimidating the survivors, who have no one to sell the farms to but Republicans, because no one will go into those areas any more. It is nothing short of genocide, and it is happening on a large scale in Mid-Ulster. Secondly, the IRA knows that it can never win its case through the ballot box. So it seeks by violence to pervert the democratic process.
    Her Majesty's Government say in the Gracious Speech:
    "the people of Northern Ireland will continue to be offered a framework for participation in local democracy and political progress on the basis of widespread acceptance throughout the community".
    The Anglo-Irish talks and their insistence on power-sharing give the gunmen the incentive to continue their campaign. As a Unionist, I reject any interference in

    529
    Northern Ireland by the Government of the Irish Republic, who give moral support to the IRA through the continued constitutional claim that they make on British territory, and give physical shelter to the IRA gunmen by refusing to extradite them.
    I earnestly beseech this Government not to go down the road of such dangerous talks. The Unionist population says clearly, "A united Ireland, never." If any in this House are in cloud-cuckoo-land or a dream world, believing that a million Protestants in Ulster will surrender their precious heritage, it would be good for them to awake from their sleep. I assure the House that, after the deaths that have occurred in our Province, we are British, we are proud to be British, it has cost us to remain British, and British by the grace of God we will remain.
    I want to see in our country a fully developed Government, based on British democracy. My party has not tried to wreck the Northern Ireland Assembly. Rather, we have sought to use it to introduce better and more effective government to Northern Ireland. I assure the House that direct rule is and has been a fiasco. We have not gone sulking into the corner, like the SDLP and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), trying to outdo their fellow Republicans, Sinn Fein, in not taking their seats in the Assembly. Neither have we acted like spoilt children, like members of the Official Unionist party who, because all the sweets were not given to them, would not play any more.
    This Government must get away from the idea that a power-sharing solution is possible. The hon. Member for Foyle knows that in Londonderry, where the SDLP is in the majority, it has taken every key post for itself. I am a member of a district council, where the SDLP majority has taken every key post. There is no power-sharing there, none whatsoever. Listening to the hon. Member's speech today, one would have thought that he was a moderate in-between. I remind the House that it was a member of that hon. Gentleman's own party who, when 19 British soldiers were murdered at Warrenpoint, is on record as saying, "I shed no tears over them." That was the day on which Lord Mountbatten himself was murdered. When it was put to the hon. Gentleman that many of those young British soldiers were of his own religion, he said, "But they were not Irish."
    We live in a sad time, but I ask Her Majesty's Government to allow our people to have the rule of their country as a part of the British family. I ask this House and the Government this evening to give us security, to give us democracy, and to allow our people to live in peace.
    8.40 pm
    Mr. Peter Pike: I am grateful for the opportunity that you have given me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make my maiden speech in this debate. I am very aware of the traditions of the House, and of the many excellent maiden speeches made in the debate by other hon. Members. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) on his maiden speech, which he delivered so powerfully.
    It is a great privilege to be elected to the House, and I sincerely thank the people of Burnley for giving me their support and electing me to represent them. It was in 1918 that Burnley first chose a Labour Member to represent it in Parliament, when Dan Irving was elected. In 1931,
    530
    Burnley temporarily left Labour, but it returned to Labour in 1935 and has been represented by Labour continuously since that time. It will be my intention at all times to fight for Burnley and its residents, and I hope that I shall justify their confidence in me.
    Burnley has a long tradition as a constituency, and I am pleased that the name has not been changed, although the boundaries are new. It now includes the whole of the new borough, which, in addition to the urban areas of Burnley and Padiham, also includes six parish wards. Therefore, we have a mix of varied industries and agriculture, terraced houses, new housing, and large and attractive rural areas. In the previous Parliament, the rural areas were part of the Clitheroe constituency and were then represented by the hon. and learned Member for the new constituency of Ribble Valley (Mr. Waddington). I can say in all honesty that, while I was leader of the Burnley council, despite our being poles apart politically, we were always able to get from him a good and co-operative response on the non-political issues facing Burnley. It was much appreciated and was to the advantage of Burnley.
    I pay tribute, however, to the former hon. Member for Burnley for nearly 24 years, Dan Jones. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will, I know, agree that Dan always fought hard and vigorously for Burnley. In the constituency, his service and his availablity to his constituents were second to none. That was why Dan was made a freeman of the borough in 1981. I hope that I can match him in his service to Burnley in the years that lie ahead. I know that the good wishes of all hon. Members will go to Dan for a speedy recovery to good health, a return to his home and a happy retirement.
    I know that by tradition this speech should be non-controversial. That will not be easy, because the Gracious Speech itself is controversial. As a Socialist, I regrettably see nothing in the Gracious Speech that will help to solve the problems of Britain or those of my constituents. The Government's proposals on defence are regrettable. We should be clearly saying no to cruise and no to Trident. I believe that both weapons pose a threat to the security of the country and provide no defence.
    The proposals for the Falkland Islands announced yesterday are a great waste of money when there is so much to be done in Britain, but, as I do not wish to be too controversial, I shall not develop those issues today. Let us hope that the Government will have second thoughts on those issues, and will use the money needed for Trident and fortress Falklands on efforts to get people back to work.
    Burnley has suffered unemployment problems on many occasions. Our traditional industries of coal and cotton have suffered badly over the years. Coal has gone completely and textiles are only a shadow of what they used to be. Even our new industries are struggling — Burco, Prestige, Michelin, Mullard, Lucas and many others have made cuts in their labour forces.
    It is not acceptable for 13·3 per cent. of the population to be unemployed. Although that is lower than the average for the north-west, it is slightly higher than that for the rest of north-east Lancashire. Figures show that one in eight of the workers of Burnley is out of work. The true level is probably nearer one in seven. That cannot be allowed to continue. A change in Government policy is essential if we are to solve the problem.
    The Gracious Speech refers to problems arising from rates, but most industrialists that I have met complain

    531
    about energy costs and little about rates. Burnley has a proud tradition of fighting to retain jobs and attracting new ones and is part of the north-east Lancashire enterprise zone which will start to function later this year. However, an enterprise zone alone is no solution to our problems and will do little to create the new jobs that we want.
    Burnley has a motorway that, when completed, will not link up with the M6 to the west or with anything in the east. I hope that the Government will seriously think about that again and will change their policy and link the M65 with the rest of the motorway network
    There is no direct rail network from Burnley to Manchester or even to Preston which is just over 20 miles away. A journey to Preston takes nearly an hour. We need such a line to be maintained and to receive major improvements. If any of the Serpell recommendations are accepted, we are likely to have no rail link at all. That would be disastrous for north-east Lancashire and Burnley.
    The Government's proposals on rate limitations are undemocratic and unfair. In terms of poundage, Burnley's rate is the highest in Lancashire but, in terms of cash paid per head of the population, its rates are among the lowest in the country. However, in the Government's terms, Burnley is a high spender. Furthermore, the Government recognise Burnley as a deprived area—it received inner urban area designation earlier this year The only way in which to tackle the problem is to spend money. The council has the will and determination to do so. Do the Government intend to back the council and let it get on with the job or do they intend to starve it of money? The Government often seem unaware that it is not simply a case of providing capital for local government, because capital expenditure has revenue implications which must be taken into account if they impose any more restrictions on rates.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. Hughes) referred yesterday to the need to limit rent increases. I agree with him. As nearly 500 houses in Burnley are empty, it is clear that the rents are too high. There are two extreme examples. One is an estate called Kibble Bank which was built in the early 1970s. One quarter of the houses on that estate have been sold to the tenants. Therefore, the houses must be acceptable. As a former tenant of one of those houses, I can assure the House that they are good. While one qt. after of the estate has been sold, another quarter stands empty. Why? Because the rents are too high. People cannot afford to remain tenants as Government policy has forced council house rents ever higher.
    At the other extreme is a pre-war council estate called Bleak House. The houses are basically good, but they urgently need modernisation and a massive injection of capital. Nearly one third of those houses stand empty. The estate, which I represent on the local council, needs urgent attention. An estates management officer has been appointed and the council is giving the problems and possible solutions urgent attention. However, if that problem is tackled, something else that is equally important will have to be deleted from the housing programme. Even an additional HIP allocation would not solve the problem. Housing improvement in the public sector has massive revenue implications for local government. Its cost must be met out of higher rates or higher rents, neither of which is acceptable at the moment.
    532
    The Government must ensure that improvements in public sector housing receive fair treatment, equal to that accorded to the private sector. Many parts of the country would be assisted by an early notification of the future levels of grants for improvements, repairs and the rest. That would ensure continuity of work beyond 31 March next year in the private housing sector. That matter is of great concern to my constituency which has many old but solid stone-built terraced houses.
    I believe that a non-nuclear defence policy based on conventional weapons would not only give us better security and a safer future for our children, but would release the resources necessary to tackle the problems in my constituency and the rest of the country.
    8.50 pm
    Sir Frederic Bennett: The restraints of time prevent my paying the usual tribute to the two maiden speakers who preceded me. I am sure that they will have the opportunity to make their mark. I was particularly grateful to the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) for referring in his closing remarks to the subject of today's debate, although I could not agree with him.
    I have one theme to stress. One of my few regrets that the election was called when it was is that it robbed the House of a promised two-day debate on disarmament and defence. That is a pity and I hope that the Secretary of State and others will not regard today's debate, which has ranged wide, as a substitute for a full two-day debate. We have not given the subject adequate treatment today.
    In that respect the election was like fighting a battle with a ball of cotton wool. I tried to watch all the television broadcasts by spokesmen from the Labour party and the alliance. I was as confused about their policies on defence and deterrence at the end of the campaign as I was at the beginning. I suspect that they were equally confused.
    I have examined today's official Opposition amendment with care. We want to know whether the official Opposition are still in favour of effective action on unilateral nuclear disarmament within the lifetime of this Parliament. I do not mind what the argument is, one way or the other, but we are entitled to know their thoughts. Only if we know can we have a constructive argument. Even those who disagree with me must admit that a muddled series of statements have been made by the official Opposition and by the alliance, which hopes to become the official Opposition.
    I want to analyse the arguments for unilateral nuclear disarmament as I see them. The first involves setting an example. We have had two or three opportunities to see what happens when we set an example. Back in 1957 the British Government decided unilaterally to abandon chemical warfare and announced the destruction of all our stocks and the intention not to build any more. We said that we hoped others would follow that example. The Soviet Union's reaction was to multiply its chemical warfare weaponry tenfold. It now has about 300,000 tonnes, a significant proportion of which is being tried out on the unfortunate inhabitants on the borders of Thailand in south-east Asia and in Afghanistan. The evidence is clear for all to see. So that does not seem to be a good example of how setting a moral example achieves practical results. Furthermore, on the European central front a formidable amount of weaponry and manpower are ready and equipped for chemical warfare against the West.

    533
    A second instance of what happens when one sets an example is to be found in the removal by the United States of a number of tactical land-based nuclear weapons from Europe. Earlier today the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that what we did was to shift our emphasis from land-based weapons to submarine-based weapons, but the figures show—I wish that I had the opportunity to read them to the House—that the Soviet Union's only reaction was to increase its submarine nuclear fleet and, at the same time, to develop its SS20 armaments which now threaten us. At this moment, 1,020 SS20 warheads are directed against the West and, as they are mobile, all the talk about their pointing East or West is irrelevant. Each one of those warheads has 12 times the destructive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima.
    We are told that we must negotiate, but we do not have a single land-based nuclear weapon in Europe — the French have 18 — which could possibly reach the borders of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has from 650 to 1,050 warheads, depending on which figure one cares to use in debate. So the figure for negotiation is somewhere between nought on our side and the figure that I have mentioned for the other side. It is difficult to halve nought. It is difficult to give away a quarter of nought, or a part of nought, but that is the position into which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is being pushed at the moment. Having agreed to the zero option, which is none at all for anyone, we are now being asked to give up something on condition that the number of SS20s is reduced, but so far the only Soviet answer has been to point out that our negotiating position is nought and nothing more. How it is possible to negotiate on nought has yet to be explained to me.
    I must draw to the attention of Opposition Members a subject with which they may not be well acquainted, but one with which all political personalities in Scandinavia are concerned. At a time when a nuclear-free zone for Scandinavia and the Baltic is being advocated, Soviet nuclear-armed submarines are regularly invading the territorial waters of countries around the Baltic sea.
    Another argument is that an adequate balance of weapons, both nuclear and conventional, has been reached and that therefore we have no need to take the steps that the Government are advocating with regard to our nuclear deterrent and the stationing of cruise missiles in Britain. A study of the figures shows that there is no such adequate balance.
    A further argument is that conventional weaponry is preferable to nuclear weaponry. Those countries that have adopted the Opposition's attitude and have thought it better to rely on conventional weapons have suffered 6 million deaths since the war. Those figures are on record. The idea that, because one gives up nuclear weapons, one suddenly inherits an era of peace has no basis at all.
    I must spare a word for the alliance. I am not sure what it wants. As I interpret its position, it is reluctantly—although not vocally or articulately—prepared to accept cruise missiles in Britain and Europe. It is also reluctantly prepared to keep our present nuclear submarine deterrent, but not to agree to any form of modernisation. It is a ludicrous pose when a party says that it is prepared to keep the national nuclear deterrent as a last resort provided that it is obsolescent and increasingly ineffective. That is not only immoral; it is a total fallacy for the possibilities of
    534
    providing any argument that would induce the Soviet Union to enter a constructive discourse on disarmament with the West — something that we are currently engaged upon.
    Because I wish to hear more about that discourse, I readily sit down so that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can provide us with the material and evidence to support what I have said this evening in a short space of time. I do not have the slightest lack of confidence in my right hon. Friend. I know that he will fill the gaps in my speech.
    Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. While I understand the constraints that exist in the debate with so many new Members speaking, I wish to draw your attention to the fact that part of the debate is about Trident, which will be based in Scotland. Yet no Scots from the Conservative Benches have been called in the debate. In addition, some hon. Members were called who were absent from the Chamber for long periods and those—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I explained at the beginning of the debate that it would be difficult to include every hon. Member who wished to speak. If the hon. Gentleman has been here for most of the time, he will have heard some hon. Members speaking for rather longer than others, thereby preventing their colleagues from speaking.
    9.2 pm
    Mr. Eric Heffer: I have to disappoint the hon. Member for Torbay (Sir F. Bennett). I have not yet been appointed Secretary of State for Defence. The hon. Gentleman will have to wait for another half an hour before he hears what his right hon. Friend has to say.
    The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that this was the day of the maidens. There has been a considerable number of maiden speeches and I apologise if I do not know all the constituencies. It is difficult for older Members to fit together new names, faces and constituencies. I found all the maiden speeches interesting. The hon. Member for Clwyd, South-West (Mr. Harvey) clearly has a mind of his own. His Front Bench will take note of what he said about the Falklands. Indeed, the Prime Minister should take note of his remarks.
    I notice that some new hon. Members who have spoken already have the bad habit of disappearing from the Chamber and not returning. Even though they are not present, I must tell them that I hope that that will not be the position in future. When hon. Members make speeches they should stay in the Chamber and listen to other speeches, and should certainly be here to listen to the Front Bench replies to the debate. I find it difficult to be nice to hon. Members who are not here. Perhaps I should ignore the maiden speeches other than those of hon. Members who are in the House.
    The hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) was generous about his two predecessors and especially about Mr. Tony Benn, who is a great loss to the House. I hope that he will be back in the House at the earliest possible moment.
    The flavour of Northern Ireland was brought into the debate in two speeches. One was by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and, although I cannot say that he made

    535
    a maiden speech—because he is a well-known politician in his own right in other assemblies — he made an interesting and moving contribution and what he said about Northern Ireland must be taken on board. There was a lot of truth in what he said, especially when he asked whether psychologically we had opted out of the problem of Northern Ireland. I believe that many hon. Members have done that because they are not certain of the type of solution there should be of the Northern Ireland problem.
    In that connection, the speech of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), if I may be somewhat rude to him, was a rather sectarian contribution and was not too helpful, although I understand absolutely the deep feelings he holds, as does everybody, about the loss of human life, particularly when we are speaking of friends. I fought in the last war along with many good Catholic people from Northern Ireland. Thousands from Southern Ireland also fought and died in the war. In other words, not just Protestants from Ireland fought in the war. That is sometimes forgotten.
    The hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) made an extremely elegant speech. There must be general agreement with his remarks about Trident. The hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson)—who unfortunately is not in his place—and I have known each other for some time. Indeed, we met on a vaporetto in Venice many years ago, long before he became an MEP. We had a friendly argument then about politics and I am sure that we shall have many more in the future. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) made an excellent and interesting speech and I am sure that he will be a great successor to our old friend in the House, Dan Jones.
    The right hon. Member for Down, South said that the two main issues of today's debate—Labour's attitude to and policy for withdrawal from the European Community and our policy on nuclear weapons—had not come to the fore in the general election. I assure him that both subjects were put in clear terms to the electorate on Merseyside, whatever may have happened elsewhere, and on Merseyside the Labour vote not only held up, but showed a swing towards us. There may be a lesson in that for the party as a whole. We put our policies on both subjects in the clearest possible terms.
    The case made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) for an inquiry into the sinking of the Belgrano must be taken seriously by the Government, who must answer the questions put by him today and by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who the other day also called for such an inquiry. I believe that we should have an inquiry. It would benefit the House and the country to have it at the earliest possible moment.
    The Prime Minister's speech on Wednesday had a bossy certainty about it. The right hon. Lady always knows best. She knows what is good for the British people whether they want it or not. Millions of our citizens detest her policies and hate everything for which she and her Government stand. The Government must not allow themselves to be carried away because their party won the election on a reduced vote. It would be wonderful if just once the right hon. Lady showed some humility and admitted that perhaps she could be wrong, that perhaps everything is not right with the country and that her policies are not necessarily the best. Merely to say that things are getting better is not the same as seeing things actually getting better. The right hon. Lady's speech
    536
    contained the element of certainty that all her speeches contain, but it was designed to avoid answering some important questions.
    I noted what the Foreign Secretary said about what I would say about the Common Market. Apparently he is interested in the Common Market and my views on it. I am delighted that someone should be interested in them. The policy of withdrawal from the Common Market that the Labour party advanced during the general election was correct and in the best interests of the British people—
    Dr. Keith Hampson: And ours as well.
    Mr. Heffer: I do not retreat from that policy. I said that five years is a long time and it is obvious that it is. I do not think that one should be criticised for making what the right hon. and learned Gentleman described as a pretty obvious statement. The Labour party fought the election on a good manifesto that contained the right policies. I do not think that we need to make any apologies for it.
    Since Britain has been a member of the Common Market, we have heard consistently from Ministers that progress is being made and that Britain is negotiating a better deal. We are told that we should look forward with confidence to our future in the Common Market. The right hon. Lady said that on Wednesday. She said:
    "There is now a real prospect of an effective, outward-looking organisation of European states, well designed to bring about a more prosperous future for its people and to carry its benefits to a wider world."—[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vo. 44, c. 61.]
    I hope that I shall be forgiven if I express some scepticism about those words. We have heard them all before. We have heard that sort of speech time after time. It is 10 years since we were taken into the Common Market by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his Government. We are now told that we have the prospect—only the prospect—that things will get better in the market and that it might become an effective organisation.
    One thing is certain—that over the past 10 years, despite all that was said by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup and many others, the British people have gained no benefits from our being a member of the European Community. In yesterday's Daily Telegraph an interesting article describes the workings of the CAP and its cost to the British people and the effect that it has on our people.
    We are constantly being asked to accept that the Prime Minister and her Ministers return from the EC with great triumphs. Every time the right hon. Lady and the Foreign Secretary go over there they return claiming that there has been a tremendous success. The latest success has been the budget rebate. If we have many more such triumphs, people will be living permanently on their knees.
    Great Britain asked for £800 million at Stuttgart. It was expected that we would receive £650 million and we actually received £437 million. In effect, that means that the Government have accepted the assertion of other EC countries and officials that the United Kingdom has been overpaid in rebates over the previous years. To get even that we had to give away a great deal. That happens in all EC negotiations.
    Although the Prime Minister has said that she is not in favour of the Community own resources being increased,

    537
    when she was questioned in the House by one of my hon. Friends she did not—nor did the Foreign Secretary today—give a clear commitment that the Government would not agree to an increase in VAT contributions to the Community. She cannot guarantee either that after the six-month schedule agreed for the discussion of financial reforms, which will culminate in the conference in Athens on 6 December, the European Parliament will not vote down the budget proposals. There is absolutely no guarantee on that.
    I was among the group of people who met Mr. Pieter Dankert, the president of the Assembly, the other evening. I received the distinct impression from a brief conversation that there is a possibility that the Parliament will vote the proposals down. Next year there are European elections and the European Assembly will want to flex its muscles, to show how good and strong it is—in fact, where it stands, a bit of machoism. It will take advantage of that, following the Athens meetings. My guess is that it will vote the proposals down. The Government cannot guarantee that they will get the budget rebate that they have been promised.
    We have the solemn declaration on European unity. The House and the British people should know that that declaration is intended to lead to a treaty of European union in five years. That would mean that the European Parliament would have greater powers and that there would be a speeding up of harmonisation on such issues as the social security system and criminal and procedural law in the Community.
    Stuttgart has not been a great victory. It failed to attack the problems of unemployment and industrial decline. There was not one concrete proposal for co-ordinated reflation to create employment in the Community. There was a sell-out on the budget and there is likely to be a sellout on the VAT ceiling. There are prospects of increased powers for the European Parliament at the expense of the House. The moves towards European union are a matter of grave concern. The three-tier system suggested in the Tindemanns report, although it was never formally accepted, is already being put into effect. First, the Heads of Government are meeting, which is not in the treaty of Rome; second, there is the Council of Foreign Ministers; third, other Minsters are making up sub-committees.
    The Prime Minister said:
    "Freedom and justice are our most priceless possessions. We value them for ourselves and aspire to them for others, because the cause of freedom and justice knows no national boundaries." —[Official Report, 22 June 1983; Vol. 44, c. 59–60.]
    That is a wonderful statement. No democrat could disagree with it. However, the unhappy truth is that the Government and the right hon. Lady have double standards. She equates freedom purely with the free enterprise capitalist system. Therefore, it is a qualified freedom. She and all her Ministers say that they support Polish Solidarity and its fight for free trade unions in Poland. We believe that it is right that there should be free trade unions in Poland. Yet at the same time as Ministers say how important it is to have free trade unions in Poland, they are meeting Admiral Merino, a member of the Chilean junta. They are negotiating with him at the very moment when in Chile the trade union movement, which is in chains, is finding that the leaders that it has managed to retain are being put into Chilean gaols.
    538
    It is time that the Government stopped having double standards. Political freedom is indivisible. It is just as right to fight for political freedom in Chile, Turkey, South Africa and black African states as it is in Poland and East Europe. If Tory Members have double standards, we do not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] We do not have double standards. Our people have consistently fought for the right for freedom and democracy in the the Soviet Union. I should like to hear some Conservative Members just once giving their support in the House of Commons to those in El Salvador who are fighting for their freedom, those in Chile and elsewhere.
    The situation in Turkey is interesting. I have been to see Foreign Office Ministers about Turkey, urging them to say that unless democratic rights are restored in that country it will be condemned by NATO and the Council of Europe. Have they taken a stand in NATO? Have they done anything about it? The answer is clear. They have not.
    I refer now to the argument about Labour's defence policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is it?"] I shall tell hon. Members what it is. It was in our manifesto. So that the House knows more accurately what the policy was—not the fantasy of Tory Members — I shall quote the manifesto. We said:
    "Labour believes in effective defence through collective security but rejects the present emphasis on nuclear weapons. Britain and her allies should have sufficient military strength to discourage external aggression and to defend themselves, should they be attacked."
    The Labour party is not and never has been a pacifist party, but, although it wants sufficient conventional weapons so that we can defend ourselves, it is clearly opposed to nuclear weapons. The Labour party's manifesto states:
    "Labour's commitment is to establish a non-nuclear defence policy for this country."
    We said that we would cancel the Trident programme and try to prevent the deployment here and elsewhere in western Europe of the cruise and Pershing missiles.
    So that there is no dubiety, I again quote from the manifesto. It says that this means:
    "The rejection of any fresh nuclear bases or weapons on British soil or in British waters, and the removal of all existing nuclear bases and weapons, thus enabling us to make a direct contribution to an eventually much wider nuclear-free zone in Europe."
    That policy was and would still be right for Britain. I hope that the Government might listen to the Opposition instead of some of their fantasies. Europe is in a dangerous position. The late Earl Mountbatten, in that famous speech in Strasbourg on 11 May 1979, said:
    "Do the frightening facts about the arms race, which show that we are rushing headlong to the precipice, make any of those responsible for this disastrous course pull themselves together and reach for the brakes? The answer is 'No', and I only wish that I could be the bearer of glad tidings that there has been a change of attitude and we are beginning to see a steady rate of disarmament. Alas, that is not the case."
    Alas, it is still not the case.
    The unfortunate truth is that no sooner have the fires of the second world war died than a handful of countries set out to make or improve the atomic bomb. They all wanted security. In that quest for security they sought a bigger and better bomb and so began the biggest, most wasteful and dangerous arms race in human history. Unless we begin the process of withdrawing from the precipice referred to by Earl Mountbatten, we are heading towards the total self-destruction of civilisation. The numbers of nuclear weapons today are such that the world could be destroyed

    539
    again and again. The nuclear defence burden for the British people is too great and it is especially too much for our shaky economy to bear.
    On the one hand, defence spending is increasing. In real terms it will have risen by more than 23 per cent. between 1978–79 and 1983–84. Despite this privileged treatment for defence expenditure, with the extension of cash limits, workers in the naval dockyards at Chatham and Portsmouth are losing their jobs. Tie Government's emphasis on defence has been wrong and, as further expenditure on nuclear weapons is envisaged for the future, it will continue to be wrong.
    During the years, the so-called tactical nuclear weapons have been developed. Leading NATO generals and admirals are making interesting speeches. The Canadian admiral Robert Falls, who is the chairman of NATO's military committee, is reported in The Guardian to have said:
    "If arms control talks don't work then it might become necessary to act unilaterally to reduce—especially battlefield nuclear weapons—because we have perhaps more than we need."
    It would have been far better had Conservative Members listened to the NATO generals and admirals who were telling them another story, instead of going round the country during the election campaign smearing the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, and trying to suggest that the people in CND and the Labour party were agents for Moscow and eastern Europe. It would be better now if the Government would take on board what NATO people are saying and what the Labour party is also saying.
    What is the Minister's response to the Church of England Synod which voted certainly not for unilateral disarmament but that there should be no first use of nuclear weapons? Does he believe that the Synod is right, and can he give a clear assurance today that there will be no first use?
    The Prime Minister came back from Williamsburg with the so-called agreement with President Reagan, but that is suspect for two reasons. First, I understand that it would be unconstitutional for such weapons to be handed over and, secondly, the Atomic Energy Act does not allow President Reagan to do it.
    I conclude by quoting from a report last Sunday by the Sunday Telegraph crime correspondent, Christopher House, about children arrested on the picket line, or whatever one wishes to call it, at Upper Heyford— a part of the country that I know well as I was stationed there with the American Eighth Army air corps during the war years. One of those arrested, a 16-year-old girl, said:
    "Although I was aware of the risk of being arrested, I also believed that I couldn't sit back without showing how much I was opposed to the nuclear threat.
    I don't believe that anyone has the right to pollute our world with weapons capable of mass destruction. Why should anyone have the right to put our future and our world in danger of extinction?".
    To me, the words of that child explain completely and better than anything else the basic attitude of the Labour party to the bomb.
    9.32 pm
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that we have had an extremely wide-ranging debate. Perhaps the most conspicuous impact on today's debate, however, was the quality and coherence of so many maiden speeches from both sides. One new Member after another has
    540
    clearly shown that the election of 1983 has made a notable contribution to the quality of debate in the House. I hope that they will forgive me for not mentioning them individually. As there were so many, it would be invidious to single out any one and impossible to do justice to them all. Having heard so many of them, I add my sincere congratulations to those already extended to them.
    Equally, there are many other contributions to which I cannot respond because the debate has ranged so widely. I hope that the House will therefore forgive me if I concentrate on the defence arguments put before us today.
    Since the end of the second world war, British defence policy has had one objective—the preservation of our people in peace and freedom. Successive Governments have pursued that objective in the same way — by supporting the NATO Alliance of free nations. Britain has made four main contributions to that Alliance. The first has been the defence of our homeland. The second has been to provide powerful land and air forces on the continent of Europe. The third has been the maintenance of strong and flexible naval and maritime air forces. The fourth has been the maintenance of a last resort independent nuclear deterrent under the total control of the British Prime Minister. As a second centre of decision, and as a force committed to the Alliance, it has powerfully reinforced the Alliance's strategy of deterrence.
    For the first time since the war, a genuine choice of defence policies has emerged before the British electorate, because the Labour party's policies have now struck at the heart of the consensus that has been maintained by all Governments since the war. Conversely, the policies for which I am responsible are the logical extension of everything that my predecessors as Secretaries of State for Defence have pursued. We shall maintain our four main defence roles and, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, we are pledged to maintain real increases in defence expenditure up to 1985–86 in line with NATO targets, which will allow us to continue with the modernisation of our conventional forces. Within our budgets, we shall modernise Britain's independent nuclear deterrent by replacing Polaris with Trident.
    That decision involves two issues. The first is whether Britain needs an independent deterrent. That is the critical decision, and it follows that, if it does, a secondary question must be asked about the nature of the weapons system that should make up that independent deterrent. The Labour party criticised Trident, not on its merits as a weapons system but because the party is committed, as the hon. Member for Walton spelt out clearly— with a clarity that escaped many speeches by Labour Members during the election campaign—to pursue a one-sided, non-nuclear policy regardless of the response of the Soviet Union and the threat that it might pose to British interests, and irrespective of the weapons system that we choose as an independent deterrent. That is how the Labour party rejects Trident. It is a reversal of everything that any Labour Secretary of State for Defence since the war has believed.
    Trident, by updating Polaris, will give Britain a credible last-resort deterrent for the 1990s and beyond. As the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) made clear, it will have a greater capability than Polaris, but the scale of Russia's nuclear deployments and the threats that they could pose to our deterrent are larger than those which were faced when Polaris was designed in the 1950s. Therefore, it would be irresponsible of the Government of

    541
    the day to avoid a considered and timely decision to update our Polaris capability. That is as true today as it was when the Labour Governments of Sir Harold Wilson and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) updated Polaris with the Chevaline system. It is as true today in Britain as it is in France, where President Mitterrand has given us the clearest Socialist insight into his willingness to trust the Soviet Union. However, the difference is that the Labour Government of 1974–79 updated Britain's independent deterrent Polaris in secret, fearing the effect of publication upon their Back-Bench Members. The Conservative party has openly proclaimed its policies and put them to the electorate, and it has decisively won the argument with the electorate.
    The right hon. Member for Leeds, East quoted the figures for the Trident programme. During its introduction Trident will cost about £7·5 billion, but that will be during a period when the total defence budget will be more than £250 billion, which puts the matter in a proper perspective. Even in the peak years of expenditure, Trident will cost only 10 per cent. of the equipment budget of my Ministry, and the Government believe that that is a legitimate charge to the cost of our national and NATO defence policies. We were elected on a mandate to proceed—and proceed we shall—to prepare Trident for service in the mid-1990s.
    Mr. Foulkes: That is a lie.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Did I hear the hon. Gentleman use an unparliamentary word? If so, will he withdraw it?
    Mr. Foulkes: Withdraw what, Mr. Speaker?
    Mr. Speaker: I thought that I heard the hon. Gentleman use the word "lie".
    Mr. Foulkes: I withdraw that word, and, if the right hon. Gentleman gives way, I shall explain.
    Mr. Heseltine indicated assent.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is it not the case that more people throughout the United Kingdom voted for parties that wanted to scrap Trident and wanted no cruise missiles on this soil than voted for the Conservatives? Therefore, the Tory party has no mandate for either of these things.
    Mr. Heseltine: I can just hear the hon. Gentleman's reaction to phoney arguments of that sort were a Labour Government on these Benches today.
    As the whole House realises, the deployment of cruise missiles is now a critical matter with which we must deal. It is important to know something of the history and background within which that decision was reached. Five days before the Conservative Government were elected in 1979, the Labour Government of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth committed themselves, along with their NATO allies, to maintain and modernise the nuclear NATO capability. Those right hon. and hon. Members sitting on the Opposition Benches now say that there was no such need for nuclear capability. I notice that they do not shake their heads in disagreement.
    I noticed the Leader of the Opposition shaking his head in disbelief when I referred to the fact that he must have known that the NATO communique in the name of the Government of which he was a prominent member made it absolutely clear that:
    542
    "In their consideration of NATO's requirements, as part of the Long-Term Defence Programme, to modernise theatre nuclear forces, Ministers"—
    of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member—
    "reaffirmed that NATO could not rely on conventional forces alone for credible deterrence in Europe; and that, without increasing dependence on nuclear weapons or prejudicing long-term defence improvements in conventional forces, it would be necessary to maintain and modernise theatre nuclear forces".
    They were the policies of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Michael Foot: I absolutely repudiate the right hon. Gentleman's charge. If he wants all the documents relating to that time published, let him seek proper permission for doing so. He will then understand the matters that were discussed. The charge that he makes has already been repudiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and others. If the right hon. Gentleman wants all the documents relating to that period published — I am strongly in favour of doing so—he will have to seek permission from the proper place.
    Mr. Foulkes: Twister.
    Mr. Speaker: That, too, is an unparliamentary expression. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
    Mr. Foulkes: But, Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman is twisting facts.
    Mr. Speaker: I have asked the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word.
    Mr. Foulkes: If that is your request, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.
    Mr. Heseltine: There is no need to seek further evidence than the press communiqué to which a Minister in the Government to whom I referred gave his name in April 1979. It is on the record, and right hon. Members are now trying to change their minds.
    Mr. Foot rose—
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Heseltine: I did not hear the question, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman giving way?
    Mr. Heseltine: I shall give way to both right hon. Gentlemen.
    Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend will quote in a moment from the document that the right hon. Gentleman is quoting. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to behave properly to the House and the country, he should seek permission to have all these documents published. The right hon. Gentleman is trying to say that a decision was taken by that Government to go ahead on the basis that he said. That has been repudiated on many previous occasions. If he wants to have Cabinet minutes published, let him ask for the proper permission. He cannot quote them in the distorted way that he has done here. My right hon. Friend will now quote the document from which he was quoting. I repudiate entirely the charge that the right hon. Gentleman seeks to make. If he has nothing better to do than that, he had better pack up altogether.
    Mr. Heseltine: I must tell the leader of the Labour party that there is only one candidate for packing up

    543
    altogether, and it is he. The issue is absolutely clear. NATO took a decision that it was necessary to modernise its intermediate range weapons.
    Mr. Healey: No. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has finally made a statement that is totally untrue. The communiquéé to which he refers, which was the communiqué of the NATO nuclear planning group a few days before the general election, on 25 April, says on the subject of the longer-range theatre-based element in NATO forces that
    "No decisions were taken at this stage… consideration of a modernisation effort would need to take full account of arms control possibilities and … these are being studied in further depth by a special group recently set up in NATO for this purpose".
    In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is making a statement that he knows to be untrue when he says that NATO decided then in favour of modernising intermediate range nuclear missiles. The right hon. Gentleman must withdraw that statement, because he knows it to be untrue. I quoted the statement.
    Mr. Heseltine: NATO took a decision —[Interruption.] I have the document.
    Mr. Healey: I have just quoted it.
    Mr. Heseltine: NATO took a decision that it would be necessary to maintain and modernise theatre nuclear forces. After that issue in principle had been resolved by the Labour Government, this Government had to decide on the specific weapon system. That decision led this Government to determine to fulfil the pledge made by the Labour Government about the cruise missile system. That is what happened.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Hon. Members: Give way.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister said that he was not giving way.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not giving way.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has been here a very long time and he well knows that if the Secretary of State does not give way he cannot press his question.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course I respect your ruling, as I always will, but the right hon. Gentleman made a statement that the Labour Government had agreed to modernise intermediate range nuclear forces. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman has now made a different statement. Will he admit now that he was not telling the truth to the House a moment ago?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is clearly not a point of order for me.
    Mr. Heseltine: I have only—[Interruption.] All I have done is to quote from the documents of the previous Labour Government. [Interruption.] I know how embarrassing those documents are, but it does not lie in my gift to withdraw the truth of their own records. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important debate. We must hear the Secretary of State.
    Mr. John Morris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in accordance with the traditions of this House, especially at the beginning of a Session, for a senior Minister to make allegations of the sort that have been made and for him not to give way when the matter is still severely tested?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows that that is frequently done. If the Minister does not give way, he must be allowed to continue his speech.
    Mr. Heseltine rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We are at the beginning of a Session. This is a very important debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope that the House will give a fair hearing to the Secretary of State. Many things are said in this Chamber with which other hon. Members disagree. They may disagree with the Secretary of State, but it is his speech.
    Mr. Foot: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the case that, according to the customs of this House, when a right hon. or hon. Member—particularly a Minister—makes allegations referring to particular documents, the documents should be agreed to be laid before the House? I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is referring not only to the NATO document to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) has referred —I should have thought that on that basis he already owes the House an apology which he has not yet had the grace to make — but is going further and making allegations about what was said by the previous Government. That is a question of Cabinet minutes. If the Secretary of State is to make allegations concerning what happened in the Cabinet, he must have permission to lodge those documents with the House.
    It is not right for the Secretary of State to conic to this House, make wild allegations, and then not be prepared to lay the documents before the House. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am asking, on a point of order, that you give a ruling that all the documents to which the Secretary of State has referred, which must include Cabinet documents, should be laid before the House.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have been trying to listen to what the Secretary of State has been saying. As I understand it, he has been quoting from a public document —I believe a press communiqué—and that is quite in order.
    Mr. Foulkes: Misquoting.
    Mr. Heseltine: I am quoting from a press release—[HON MEMBERS: "Oh"]—which was issued by NATO as a result of the meeting at which Mr. Fred Mulley, the Secretary of State for Defence in the previous Labour Government, represented the Government. The Leader of the Opposition said that I am taking words out of context

    545
    and that I am quoting Ministers without the evidence. Let me try once again to quote from the document which Mr. Mulley approved. [Interruption.] It said:
    "In their consideration of NATO's requirements, as part of the Long-Term Defence Programme, to modernise theatre nuclear forces, Ministers reaffirmed that NATO could not rely on conventional forces alone".
    One of those Ministers was Fred Mulley, the Labour Secretary of State.
    Mr. Healey rose—
    Mr. Speaker: If the Secretary of State does not wish to give way, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) must not persist.
    Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Secretary of State has practically admitted to telling an untruth, will you allow him to take the Mace away again?[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I should like to hear the right hon. Gentleman's point of order.
    Mr. Healey: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, if you were unable to hear my point of order because of the outcry from the Conservative Benches. As the right hon. Gentleman now confesses to having made an untrue statement, will you allow him to take the Mace away once again?
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that in no sense is that a point of order.
    Mr. Heseltine: It is a devastating reflection on the divisions within the Labour party that, throughout the general election campaign, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East tried to hide his party's defence policies. He is now trying to stop me from expounding our defence policy in the House. If we intend to discuss the record of those right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served in the Ministry of Defence, we should remember what the right hon. Member for Leeds, East said when he held my post and what he wrote as a reflection of it in The Guardian of 12 April 1981. [Interruption.] We should understand what the ex-Secretary of State for Defence, who is now the deputy leader of the Labour party, believed. He said:
    "Whether we like it or not, it is the stability of the military balance between NATO and the Warsaw powers which has kept Europe at peace for over 30 years when over 20 million people have been killed in wars outside Europe.
    NATO's nuclear strategy is an essential part of that balance. To threaten to upset it by refusing to let America base any of her nuclear weapons in Britain would make war more likely, not less likely."
    Within two years of saying that, the right hon. Gentleman was campaigning throughout the country to elect a Labour Government who would have driven American nuclear bases out of Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "Take the Mace away again."] I have quoted the right hon. Gentleman's own words. He said that refusing to allow American nuclear weapons in Britain would make war more, not less, likely. Under the apparent unity of the Labour manifesto, there is an irreconcilable division. [Interruption.] During the election campaign, there were ceaseless attempts to put over a range of different defence policies. If a prime objective of defence is to confuse one's
    546
    enemy, the Labour party did a first-class job during the election campaign. However, it did not confuse the British people, who saw through it with devastating clarity.
    I shall conclude with one more quotation:
    "We must have strong defences not for their own sake but to preserve our right to live in freedom. Once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools: we have a heap of cinders."
    Those are the words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East. They are as true today as when he first said them. The first and overriding duty of any British Government is to secure the defence of peace and liberty. The Government will not betray that trust, no matter how much the Opposition now try to betray everything that they have stood for during nearly 30 years in government and opposition. [Interruption.] The Opposition should know that Attlee would not have behaved like this. Harold Wilson would not have behaved like this and nor would the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth. The Labour party has sold out to the Left. The only party that the country can depend on for defence now forms the Government. The Labour party has sold out to the Left. The only party that this country can depend on today for its defence is this Government's party.
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The House divided: Ayes 215, Noes 375.

    Division No. 1]

    [10 pm

    AYES

    Abse, Leo

    Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

    Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

    Cook, Robin (Livingston)

    Alton, David

    Corbett, Robin

    Anderson, Donald

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Archer, Rt Hon Peter

    Cowans, Harry

    Ashdown, Paddy

    Craigen, J. M.

    Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

    Crowther, Stan

    Ashton, Joe

    Dalyell, Tarn

    Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

    Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

    Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

    Barnett, Guy

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

    Barron, Kevin

    Deakins, Eric

    Beckett, Mrs. Margaret

    Dewar, Donald

    Beith, A. J.

    Dixon, Donald

    Bell, Stuart

    Dobson, Frank

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

    Dormand, Jack

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Douglas, Dick

    Bidwell, Sydney

    Dubs, Alfred

    Blair, Anthony

    Duffy, A. E. P.

    Boothroyd, Miss Betty

    Dunwoody, Hon Mrs. G.

    Boyes, Roland

    Eadie, Alex

    Bray, Dr Jeremy

    Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

    Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

    Evans, John (St. Helens N)

    Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

    Ewing, Harry

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

    Fatchett, Derek

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

    Faulds, Andrew

    Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

    Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

    Buchan, Norman

    Fisher, Mark

    Caborn, Richard

    Flannery, Martin

    Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

    Foot, Rt Hon Michael

    Campbell, Ian

    Forrester, John

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)

    Canavan, Dennis

    Foster, Derek

    Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

    Foulkes, George

    Carter-Jones, Lewis

    Fraser, J. (Norwood)

    Cartwright, John

    Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

    Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

    Freud, Clement

    Clarke, Thomas (Monkl'ds W)

    Garrett, W. E.

    Clay, Robert

    George, Bruce

    Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

    Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr. John

    Cohen, Harry

    Godman, Norman

    Coleman, Donald

    Gould, Bryan

    Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

    Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

    Conlan, Bernard

    Hardy, Peter

    547

    Harman, Harriet (Peckham)

    Pavitt, Laurie

    Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

    Pendry, Tom

    Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

    Penhaligon, David

    Haynes, Frank

    Pike, Peter

    Healey, Rt Hon Denis

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

    Heffer, Eric S.

    Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

    Hogg, N. (C'nauld amp; Kilsyth)

    Prescott, John

    Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

    Radice, Giles

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

    Randall, Stuart

    Howells, Geraint

    Redmond, M.

    Hoyle, Douglas

    Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

    Hughes, Mark (Durham)

    Richardson, Jo

    Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

    Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

    Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

    Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

    Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

    Robertson, George

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

    Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

    Janner, Hon Greville

    Rogers, Allan.

    Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

    Rooker, J. W.

    John, Brynmor

    Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

    Kinnock, Neil

    Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

    Lambie, David

    Rowlands, Ted

    Lamond, James

    Ryman, John

    Leadbitter, Ted

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Leighton, Ronald

    Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

    Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

    Shore, Rt Hon Peter

    Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

    Short, Clare (B'ham Ladyw')

    Litherland, Robert

    Short, Mrs H.W'hamp'n NE)

    Lofthouse, Geoffrey

    Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

    Loyden, Edward

    Skinner, Dennis

    McCartney, Hugh

    Smith, C.(lsl'ton S amp; F'bury)

    McCusker, Harold

    Smith, Cynl (Rochdale)

    McDonald, DrOonagh

    Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

    McGuire, Michael

    Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

    MacKay, Allen (Penistone)

    Snape, Peter

    McKelvey, William

    Soley, Clivie

    MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

    Spearing, Nigel

    McNamara, Kevin

    Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

    McTaggart, Robert

    Stott, Roger

    McWilliam, John

    Strang, Gavin

    Madden, Max

    Straw, Jack

    Maginnis, Ken

    Taylor, John (Strangford)

    Marek, Dr John

    Thomas, Dafydd (Merionydd)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Thomas, D' R. (Carmarthen)

    Martin, Michael

    Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

    Mason, Rt Hon Roy

    Thorne, Stan (Preston)

    Maxton, John

    Tinn, James

    Maynard, Miss Joan

    Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

    Meacher, Michael

    Wainwright, R.

    Michie, William

    Wallace, James

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

    Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

    Wareing, Robert

    Miller, Dr M. S. (E. Kilbride)

    Weetch, Ken

    Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

    Welsh, Miciael

    Molyneaux, James

    Wigley, Dafydd

    Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

    Williams, Rt Hon A.

    Nellist, David

    Wilson, Gordon

    Nicolson, J.

    Winnick, David

    Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

    Woodall, Alec

    O'Brien, William

    Wrigglesworth, Ian

    O'Neill, Martin

    Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

    Mr. James Hamilton and

    Park, George

    Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe.

    Patchett, Terry

    NOES

    Adley, Robert

    Baldry, Anthony

    Aitken Jonathan

    Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

    Alexander, Richard

    Batiste, Spencer

    Amery, Rt Hon Julian

    Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

    Amess, David

    Bellingham Henry

    Ancram, Michael

    Bendall, Vivian

    Arnold, Tom

    Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

    Ashby, David

    Benyon, William

    Aspinwall, Jack

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

    Best, Keith

    Atkins Robert (South Ribble)

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

    Biffen, Rt Hon John

    Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

    Biggs-Davison, Sir John

    548

    Blackburn, John

    Gardiner, George (Reigate)

    Blaker, Rt Hon Peter

    Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

    Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

    Garel-Jones, Tristan

    Bottomley, Peter

    Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Bowden, A. (Brighton K'ton)

    Glyn, Dr. Alan

    Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

    Goodhart, Sir Philip

    Boyson, Dr Rhodes

    Goodlad, Alastair

    Braine, Sir Bernard

    Gorst, John

    Brandon-Bravo, Martin

    Gow, Ian

    Bright, Graham

    Gower, Sir Raymond

    Brinton, Tim

    Greenway, Harry

    Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

    Gregory, Conal

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Griffiths, E. (By St Edm'ds)

    Brown, M. (Brigg amp; Cl'thpes)

    Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

    Browne, John

    Grist, Ian

    Bruinvels, Peter

    Ground, Patrick

    Bryan, Sir Paul

    Gummer, John Selwyn

    Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

    Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

    Buck, Antony

    Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

    Budgen, Nick

    Hampson, Dr Keith

    Bulmer, Esmond

    Hanley, Jeremy

    Burt, Alistair

    Hannam,John

    Butterfill, John

    Hargreaves, Kenneth

    Carlisle, John (Luton N)

    Harris, David

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Harvey, Robert

    Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

    Haselhurst, Alan

    Carttiss, Michael

    Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

    Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

    Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

    Chapman, Sydney

    Hawksley, Warren

    Chope, Christopher

    Hayes, J.

    Churchill, W. S.

    Hayhoe, Barney

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

    Hayward, Robert

    Clark, Michael (Rochford)

    Heath, Rt Hon Edward

    Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

    Heathcote-Amery, David

    Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Heddle, John

    Clegg, Sir Walter

    Henderson, Barry

    Cockeram, Eric

    Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

    Colvin, Michael

    Hickmet, Richard

    Conway, Derek

    Hicks, Robert

    Coombs, Simon

    Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

    Cope, John

    Hill, James

    Cormack, Patrick

    Hind, Kenneth

    Corrie, John

    Hirst, Michael

    Couchman, James

    Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

    Cranbourne, Viscount

    Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

    Critchley, Julian

    Holt, Richard

    Crouch, David

    Hooson, Tom

    Currie, Mrs. Edwina

    Hordern, Peter

    Dicks, T.

    Howard, Michael

    Dorrell, Stephen

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

    Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

    Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

    Dover, Denshore

    Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

    Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

    Dunn, Robert

    Howell, Ralph (Norfolk N)

    Dykes, Hugh

    Hubbard-Miles, Peter

    Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

    Hunt, David (Wirral)

    Eggar, Tim

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Hunter, Andrew

    Evennett, David

    Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

    Eyre, Reginald

    Irving, Charles

    Fairbairn, Nicholas

    Jackson, Robert

    Fallon, Michael

    Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

    Farr, John

    Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

    Favell, Anthony

    Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

    Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

    Jones, Robert (Herts W)

    Finsberg, Geoffrey

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Fletcher, Alexander

    Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

    Forman, Nigel

    Kershaw, Sir Anthony

    Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

    Key, Robert

    Forth, Eric

    King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

    Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

    King, Rt Hon Tom

    Fox, Marcus

    Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

    Franks, Cecil

    Knight, Mrs. Jill (Edgbaston)

    Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

    Knowles, Michael

    Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

    Knox, David

    Freeman, Roger

    Lamont, Norman

    Fry, Peter

    Lang, Ian

    Gale, Roger

    Latham, Michael

    Galley, Roy

    Lawler, Geoffrey

    549

    Lawrence, Ivan

    Porter, Barry

    Lee, John (Pendle)

    Powell, William (Corby)

    Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

    Powley, John (Norwich S)

    Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

    Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

    Lestor, Jim

    Price, Sir David

    Lewis, Sir Kenneth

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Lightbown, David

    Proctor, K. Harvey

    Lilley, Peter

    Pym, Rt Hon Francis

    Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

    Raffan, Keith

    Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Lord, Michael

    Rathbone, Tim

    Luce, Richard

    Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Renton, Tim

    McCrea, Rev Robert

    Rhodes James, Robert

    McCrindle, Robert

    Ridley, Hon Nicholas

    McCurley, Mrs Anna

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Macfarlane, Neil

    Rifkind, Malcolm

    MacGregor, John

    Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

    MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

    Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

    MacKay, John (Argyll amp; Bute)

    Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

    Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

    Roe, Mrs Marion

    McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

    Rossi, Hugh

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

    Rost, Peter

    McQuarrie, Albert

    Rowe, Andrew

    Madel, David

    Rumbold, Mrs Angela

    Major, John

    Ryder, Richard

    Mallins, Humphrey

    Sackville, Hon Thomas

    Malone, Gerald

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Maples, John

    St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

    Marland, Paul

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Marlow, Antony

    Scott, Nicholas

    Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Mates, Michael

    Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

    Maude, Francis

    Shelton, William (Streatham)

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

    Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

    Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

    Mayhew, Sir Patrick

    Shersby, Michael

    Mellor, David

    Silvester, Fred

    Merchant, Piers

    Sims, Roger

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Miller, Hal (B'grove)

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    Mills, Ian (Meridan)

    Soames, Hon Nicholas

    Mills, Sir Peter (Devon, West)

    Speed, Keith

    Miscampbell, Norman

    Speller, Tony

    Mitchell, David (Hants, NW)

    Spence, John

    Moate, Roger

    Spencer, D.

    Monro, Sir Hector

    Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Spicer, Michael (Worcs, S)

    Moore, John

    Squire, Robin

    Morris, M. (N'hampton, S.)

    Stanbrook, Ivor

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Stanley, John

    Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

    Steen, Anthony

    Moynihan, Hon C.

    Stern, Michael

    Mudd, David

    Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

    Murphy, Christopher

    Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

    Neale, Gerrard

    Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

    Needham, Richard

    Stewart Andrew (Sherwood)

    Nelson, Anthony

    Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire, N)

    Neubert, Michael

    Stokes, John

    Newton, Tony

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Sumberg, David

    Normanton, Tom

    Tapsell, Peter

    Norris, Steven

    Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

    Onslow, Cranley

    Taylor, John (Solihull)

    Oppenheim, Philip

    Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

    Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Ottaway, Richard

    Terlezki, Stefan

    Page, John (Harrow, W)

    Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

    Page, Richard (Herts, SW)

    Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Thompson, Patrick (N'ich, N)

    Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

    Thorne, Neil (llford, S)

    Parris, Matthew

    Thornton, Malcolm

    Patten, Christopher (Bath)

    Thurnham, Peter

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Townend, John (Bridlington)

    Pattie, Geoffrey

    Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

    Pawsey, James

    Tracey, Richard

    Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

    Trippier, David

    Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

    Trotter, Neville

    Pink, R. Bonner

    Twinn, Dr Ian

    Pollock, Alexander

    van Straubenzee, Sir W.

    550

    Vaughan, Dr Gerard

    Wells, John (Maidstone)

    Viggers, Peter

    Wheeler, John

    Waddington, David

    Whitney, Raymond

    Wakeham, Rt Hon John

    Wiggin, Jerry

    Waldegrave, Hon William

    Wilkinson, John

    Walden, George

    Winterton, Mrs Ann

    Walker, William (T'side N)

    Winterton, Nicholas

    Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

    Wolfson, Mark

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Wood, Timothy

    Waller, Gary

    Woodcock, Michael

    Walters, Dennis

    Yeo, Tim

    Ward, John

    Young, Sir George (Acton)

    Wardle, C. (Boxhill)

    Warren, Kenneth

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Watson, John

    Mr. Carol Mather and

    Watts, John

    Mr. Robert Boscawen.

    Wells, Bowen

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
    Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That the Lords Message of 23rd June, relating to a Joint Committee of both Houses to scrutinise delegated legislation, be now considered.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
Lords message considered accordingly.
Resolved,
That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Deafness
10.20 pm
Mr. James Tinn: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. for the opportunity to bring before the House the importance of the early diagnosis of deafness where it exists in children. My attention was drawn to this problem by Mrs. Kathy Robinson of Marske, which is just outside my constituency of Redcar. However, in the past few weeks I have received moving letters from many other parents with similar tales to tell.
Ever since her own sad experience, Mrs. Robinson has sought to draw public and parliamentary attention to this problem. She has written many articles on the subject and she is writing a book that will tell the story, which is confirmed in many of the letters that I have received. It is a harrowing tale.
Mrs. Robinson's elder daughter, Sarah, was almost three years of age before she was diagnosed and classified as profoundly deaf. That meant that she had never heard her mother's voice. She had no concept of simple, basic words or sounds such as Mum or Daddy. She was, in a way, a prisoner of silence. Apart from the savage irony of the tinnitus sounds in her head, she has heard nothing.
It was small wonder that Sarah was troublesome. She would scream and beat her head against the wall. She often refused to go to bed. It was three years before she was diagnosed as deaf. Sadly, her younger sister, Joanne, was similarly afflicted, although not so severely, and her condition was not diagnosed until she was nearly two years of age. We can only try to imagine the awful pressures on the children and the strain on the parents, devoted as they are.

551
The strains were not eased by the long fight to enable Sarah to attend the local school, which her parents, after much careful thought, decided was in her best interests. Their wisdom has in her case been confirmed by events. I am glad to say that the two girls live a happy and normal school life. They have many friends who take them for themselves as people. They take their deafness for granted and have learnt to communicate with them readily. Most important, they accept the girls for what they are, as individuals.
The girls now feel that they belong. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State's colleague in the Government who is responsible for special schools will take note of what I have said. Not all parents have been successful in this part of their struggle for a normal life for their children.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) on initiating this timely debate. He referred to the considerable importance of integration for handicapped children, not least for deaf children. Integration was one of the principal themes of the International Year of Disabled People, for the good reason that without positive steps to integrate the handicapped they are doubly disadvantaged by, first, their disability and, secondly, by social exclusion from their peers.
As my hon. Friend has said, not all parents have succeeded as Sarah's did in achieving educational integration for their children. I honour them for their dedication and their recognition that exclusion from the society of able-bodied children compounds the handicaps of disabled children when they leave school. Very sadly, the Education Act 1981, which was based on the Warnock report, was not backed by the resources to carry Mary Warnock's recommendations into full effect. It was an Act without any resources.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Interventions should be brief. This is a debate on the Adjournment.
Mr. Morris: I hope that the Minister will say tonight that some resources are available to give meaningful effect to the Education Act 1981.
Mr. Tinn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I want to deal with the importance of the diagnosis of deafness. I know that there is another hon. Member with a direct personal contribution to make and I should be happy to give way to him if he wished to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I have a deaf child. My daughter was born deaf, but I was one of the lucky ones, because my wife was afflicted with rubella and we knew that there was a risk of deafness. As a result, we had the advantage of early diagnosis, treatment and education. There is not the slightest doubt that if the diagnosis is not made early the critical ages of one, two and three, when the right instruction can be given, are missed. The children are often treated as backward. They miss the educational opportunities which would help them to speak and learn to read and write. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) for bringing forward this debate and I hope that the Minister will take full account of the problem, which calls for action.
Mr. Tinn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) for his contribution. It is important to diagnose deafness at the earliest possible opportunity so that the marvellous early months of a child's development are not completely bereft of the aural communication with others which was denied to Sarah and which we know to be important. By the time deafness is diagnosed, it is at present probable that three valuable years will have been lost. From six to 12 months is the age during which a baby develops many information-processing abilities—to use the modern jargon. I am sure that the Minister fully recognises the need. The doubts that I have are about the manner in which his Department proposes to meet the need and the extent to which we are currently failing to do so.
My anxiety is increased by the fact that only half of all the children discovered to be suffering from deafness are diagnosed by their third year. The consequence is that the uphill struggle towards communication and understanding is made even more difficult and the child's adaptation to his or her environment is unfortunately and, I believe, unnecessarily delayed. That is surely the measure of the challenge. I ask the Minister not merely to confirm his commitment — I believe that we can take that for granted—but to demonstrate by action his determination to meet the challenge. We want to hear his proposals.
I am disturbed also by the disparity in the provisions made by responsible authorities in different parts of the country. The senior clinical medical officer for audiology in the community child health services in Liverpool told me that they had been able to reduce the age of diagnosis to under two years, and in the majority of cases to under one year. That is most encouraging. I give full credit for it, but what about the other areas? Will the Minister give us detailed information to enable us to assess the performance of each authority? I do not expect him to provide it tonight, but I trust that he will promise to do so in the near future. We are surely entitled to know the facts. The public in each area are entitled to know how well or badly their authority is performing. That must be the least that the Government can do.
I should like the Minister to do rather more than that. Legislation in this area might not be acceptable to him, but the Government have not usually been reluctant to put pressure on local authorities, so why not a little pressure in this worthy cause on any health authority found to be lagging? In 1981 the Health Visitors Association conducted a survey which, like an earlier one in 1977, showed, among other things, a lack of standardisation in nearly all aspects of screening. There was variation in the age when the screening took place and in the training given to those responsible for the screening. Those disparities exist between regions and within regions. Will the Minister consider some way of enforcing an accepted, standardised procedure? Many people will be anxious to hear and be interested in his answer.
What troubles me most is the fallibility of the present screening tests. I note with concern the finding by the National Deaf Children's Society in a survey that no fewer than 41 per cent. of hearing-impaired children were not correctly diagnosed at their first screening. It is not much use having early screening, for which I am asking, if it is inaccurate. I should be glad to have the Minister's views on the auditory response cradle, which can detect impaired hearing at a very early stage. Evaluation studies are going ahead. When does the Minister think they will be completed? Again, however, a doubt arises. The value of

553
early diagnosis from more precise and dependable techniques operated by skilled personnel is considerably eroded if there is subsequent delay in back-up procedures. At present it can take several months before diagnosis is followed by supportive action. I ask the Minister seriously to find ways of shortening that time lag.
I ask the Minster to consider ways of inducing, persuading and even if necessary pressurising parents to keep appointments that have been made for their child to be examined. I am told that there are a woefully large number of broken appointments. Persuasion is preferable to compulsion, but I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider a sanction, perhaps the withholding of child benefit, when parents deliberately fail to give the health of their child the priority that it deserves.
The Minister has paid close attention. I am grateful to him for that. I am sure that he will be sympathetic in his reply, but the many parents of deaf children who wrote to me will want more than sympathy. We all want effective action, and we look to the Minister to provide it.
10.32 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) for raising this subject, because it is important. It is my first appearance at the Dispatch Box with the duties of Minister responsible for the disabled. I hope that it will be encouraging to the many deaf people and people with deaf children that my first three engagements as Minister have been with organisations concerned with the problems of deaf people.
Last week I attended a reception here, with the right hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley), for the launch of a directory for the disabled, published by the Charities Aid Foundation. On Saturday morning I had a fascinating time, partly on a boat on the Thames, with a large group of deaf people who worked together with many people from ITV and BBC who produce programmes with subtitles and so on for the deaf. It has given me, even in a short space of time, greater insight into the problems that underlie those that the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) has personally experienced, and which the hon. Member for Redcar and the right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) touched on. Therefore, I welcome this opportunity to speak tonight.
I am conscious of the work that the hon. Member for Redcar's constituent Mrs. Robinson has done, in the light of her unhappy and distressing personal experience. Her work in publicising and helping to understand the needs of deaf children has been much appreciated by my Department and by many others. Departmental officials have contacted Mrs. Robinson and they have been much impressed by what she has done. They suggested that she should work with one of the voluntary organisations such as the National Deaf Children's Society which has special expertise in this sphere thereby making the most of the valuable contribution that she has made.
I do not want to underestimate the vital importance in screening all children for hearing defects at an early age and to ensure that action is taken quickly to diagnose, assess and treat any child in whom a hearing loss is suspected. Just as my Department is grateful to Mrs. Robinson for her work as an individual, so are we grateful to the National Deaf Children's Society for its recent
554
report called "Discovering Deafness". Unfortunately, the National Deaf Children's Week, during which the Society had hoped to focus more attention on this topic, took place during the first week of the general election campaign, so attention by politicians and the public was somewhat distracted. I am pleased that we have this early opportunity after the election to discuss the subject. I welcome the chance to acknowledge the contribution that has been made during the years by the National Deaf Children's Society and the other voluntary organisations that are helping the public to understand the needs and problems of hearing impairments in children and that of their parents.
The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) said that the early detection of hearing loss is essential because of the implications that such a loss has on a child's emotional, social and language development, and therefore there is an imperative need, wherever possible, to counter that damage at the earliest possible moment. That is why, along with the National Deaf Children's Society, I welcome what has already been a significant improvement in the services in recent years. In saying that, I do not intend to say to hon. Members or to the public that there is any room for complacency, as there is not. We must ensure that the improvements that have taken place, as acknowledged in the survey by the Health Visitors Association, to which the hon. Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) referred, not only must be maintained but built upon. The Government have given much attention to this topic. "Care in Action", which is the Government's handbook on the policies and priorities for the health and personal social services, and was published in 1981, stressed the importance of health promotion and preventive medicine programmes. It is not easy to ensure adequate coverage in community health service programmes, but hon. Members will be pleased to know that take-up of these preventive child health services continues to improve at an encouraging rate.
The Department stresses the importance of the early detection of hearing loss. In 1980 the Department's paper entitled "Prevention in the Child Health Services" stressed screening for hearing impairment as an essential element of health surveillance. The Department has also endorsed the recommendation made to it in 1981 by the former Advisory Committee on Services for Hearing Impaired People that as a minimum all children should be screened at about eight months old and during the first year at school.
I am pleased that health authorities appear to have adopted a policy of screening all children for hearing loss at about the eight or nine month stage, although in some instances further progress can be made in implementing that policy.
Auditory screening tests on very young children are difficult to perform and we must accept that in the present state of the art, they are not always completely successful. The Department's paper on "Prevention in the Child Health Services" emphasised the need for health visitors to be appropriately trained to carry out screening tests of hearing and vision.
As the hon. Gentleman said, a comparison between surveys conducted by the Health Visitors Association in 1977 and 1981 showed that the provision of routine screening for the under-fives and the training of health visitors to carry out such screening improved considerably between the two dates. There is no doubt, however, that

555
the provision of adequate training is still an area of concern and one to which we must continue to give attention pending developments in new screening techniques.
As the hon. Member for Redcar also said, for some time there has been interest in and speculation about the possibility of detecting hearing impairment at the neonatal stage. As the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members will know, there has recently been a most interesting development in this area. With the help of Government funds, a device has been developed to test the hearing of newly born babies. The Linco Bennett auditory response cradle uses a computer to analyse the baby's response to sounds delivered automatically. It is still at the research and evaluation stage and it will take some time to evaluate it properly because the number of children involved is relatively small so that the period necessary to build up a sufficient sample for a proper evaluation will be quite long. At present there are three such cradles.
Mr. Tinn: Is there no possibility of increasing the number of cradles and thus the number of children tested?
Mr. Newton: Yes, indeed. There are three such cradles already in place and we hope to have a further eight installed shortly, four financed from Department of Industry funds as the techniques involved are of interest to that Department, and four from DHSS funds. I hope that that will give us more experience and allow us to speed up the evaluation process about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned.
Mr. Alfred Morris: Talking of funds, my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Mr. Tinn) rightly placed strong emphasis on the importance of educational integration for Sarah. He wanted more children who are profoundly deaf to be integrated into mainstream education. Does the Minister accept that that is impossible unless more resources are provided for the purposes of the Education Act 1981? If as Minister with responsibility for the disabled he has co-ordinating responsibilities between Whitehall Departments, what action is he taking to secure more resources for that purpose?
Mr. Newton: I was intending 10 touch on the importance of the Education Act 1981, but at this moment I must resist the right hon. Gentleman's assumption that all progress depends on finding additional resources. Of course it is always possible to do more with additional resources, but I believe that is a defeatist approach to assume that nothing can be done within existing resources by education authorities in this matter and health authorities in others examining their own priorities and gearing the way in which they provide services to deal with the problems that the right hon. Gentleman rightly stressed.
Mr. Alfred Morris: It is Warnock's view as well as mine.
Mr. Newton: I do not seek to resist the importance attached to this by the right hon. Gentleman and indeed Mary Warnock, to whose work in preparing the report which led to the Education Act 1981 I pay tribute. In this as in many other matters with which a Minister with responsibility for the disabled or indeed any Minister in any Government has to deal, it is always helpful to be able to find additional resources. I do not deny that, but I must resist the common and, in my view, rather defeatist assumption in some quarters, especially among the
556
Opposition, that no progress can be made without additional resources and that it is not possible to achieve some of the objectives that we all seek by examining the ways in which existing resources are used.
Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister comment on the reconsideration taking place in my area? I understand that Grampian regional council is considering reversing or partly reversing the decision to provide funds for the integration of the Aberdeen School for the Deaf with the Linksfield Academy because the local authority feels that the needs of 60 children compared with the needs of the greater number of children who do not have this problem require it to reconsider committing funds for the integration of the two schools. That suggests that local authorities are finding it necessary to cut back in this area.
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to comment off the cuff about a local education authority, especially one in a part of the country where my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has a particular responsibility. I shall certainly draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman has said, and no doubt he will take note of it.
I had mentioned the importance of securing the fastest possible evaluation of the new Linco Bennet auditory response cradle to which the hon. Member for Redcar referred, and I hope that it was encouraging to him to hear me say that the Department hopes shortly to increase the number of those machines.
In view of the interventions. I must curtail much of what I had hoped to say this evening about the provision of aids once the screening has been done and the diagnosis made. The National Deaf Children's Society report drew attention to disparities between the regions. Our officials are in touch with the society and have asked it for the evidence that it has on, for example, the regional variations in the provisions of hearing aids and in the provision of peripatetic teaching or other educational support. We shall do what we can in the light of those discussions on the evidence produced by the society.
We expect health authorities to accord priority to the provision of aids to children, and in recent years we have extended considerably the standard range of hearing aids available under the National Health Service. We must still improve the range of aids suitable for young children, and I have no doubt that modern micro-electronic technology has an important part to play in that. In this connection, the Department has asked the Medical Research Council to consider the needs of young children in the context of work on design requirements for aids.
It has been a common theme in the speech of the hon. Member for Redcar and in the interventions by other right hon. and hon. Members that one of the most important issues affecting all children, including those who are deaf and disabled, is their education. Those matters are, in the first instance, for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, but I am sure that he would agree that for children suffering from a significant loss of hearing early identification is critical, and the sooner that intervention and education begin, the greater the likelihood of positive and lasting benefit. The Education Act 1981, the remaining provisions of which came into force on 1 April this year, opens the way for educational arrangements to be made without delay wherever they are required. The Act follows the concept

557
recommended by the Warnock committee of making, where necessary, a multi-professional assessment of a child's educational needs as a whole rather than concentrating on his specific disability. Section 10 of the Act places a duty on health authorities to inform the local education authority when they form the opinion that a child under the age of five has, or is likely to have, special educational needs. In the case of the hearing impaired child, that will enable the education authority to take early action, where appropriate, and thereby to minimise some of the consequences of the impairment.
I have taken careful note of the comments of right hon. and hon. Members tonight, and I shall bear them in mind and draw them to the attention of my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department of Education and Science. I hope that it is of some comfort to Opposition Members to
558
know that I was a member of the Committee that discussed the Education Act 1981, that my hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security was then the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science responsible for piloting through the Bill, and that the Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who is sitting behind me, was also a member of that Committee. Hon. Members need have no doubt about our interest in and enthusiasm for seeing the principles of that Act carried through into reality, not only for deaf children, who have been our special concern tonight, but for all the disabled children whom the Act was designed to benefit and whose interests I shall advance in my new job.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o' clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Consumer Credit Licences
  Consumer Credit Licences
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Argentina
  Argentina
ENERGY
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority
  Geothermal Project (Cornwall)
  Geothermal Project (Cornwall)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Hereditary Honours
  Hereditary Honours
  Electoral Reform
  Electoral Reform
  European Community (Own Resources)
  European Community (Own Resources)
  Food Industry (Employment Policy)
  Food Industry (Employment Policy)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Bradford
  Bradford
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Summit Meeting (Stuttgart)
  Summit Meeting (Stuttgart)
  Brunswick Village
  Brunswick Village
  Erdington
  Erdington
  Castlemilk
  Castlemilk
  Minister for London
  Minister for London
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Central Policy Review Staff
  Stubbington
  Stubbington
  Department of Transport
  Department of Transport
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
SCOTLAND
  Caravans (Rating)
  Caravans (Rating)
  Ruchill Hospital
  Ruchill Hospital
  Reema and Bison Building Blocks
  Reema and Bison Building Blocks
  Hospital Admissions
  Hospital Admissions
  Fish Processing
  Fish Processing
WALES
  Dyfed (Mental Health Services)
  Dyfed (Mental Health Services)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Animal Welfare
  Animal Welfare
  Remanded Persons
  Remanded Persons
  Law and Order
  Law and Order
  Attendance Centre Orders
  Attendance Centre Orders
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Cruelty to Animals Act 1876
  Animal Experimentation
  Animal Experimentation
  Mr. Colin Roach
  Mr. Colin Roach
EMPLOYMENT
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  Work Permits (Agriculture)
  Work Permits (Agriculture)
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  United Biscuits (Closure)
  United Biscuits (Closure)
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  European Community (Contributions)
  European Community (Contributions)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Educational Standards
  Educational Standards
ENVIRONMENT
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Home Ownership
  Home Ownership
  Rates
  Rates
  British Waterways Board
  British Waterways Board
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Gleneagles Agreement
  Merseyside Task Force
  Merseyside Task Force
TRANSPORT
  A1 Hatfield
  A1 Hatfield
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  British Rail (Privatisation)
  Hanger Lane and Greenford Roundabout (A40)
  Hanger Lane and Greenford Roundabout (A40)
  Service Areas (M25 and M20)
  Service Areas (M25 and M20)
  M11/M25 (Theydon Garnon)
  M11/M25 (Theydon Garnon)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  United Biscuits (Closure)
  United Biscuits (Closure)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  General Election
  General Election
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Drugs (Parallel Imports)
  Drugs (Parallel Imports)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Retirement Pension
  Retirement Pension
  Overseas Visitors (Health Charges)
  Overseas Visitors (Health Charges)
  Visitors (Kirkby)
  Visitors (Kirkby)
  Health Authorities (Funds)
  Health Authorities (Funds)
  Drug Companies (Profits)
  Drug Companies (Profits)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Pensioners (Christmas Bonus)
  Voluntary Early Retirement
  Voluntary Early Retirement
  Falklands Casualties (Treatment)
  Falklands Casualties (Treatment)
  Pharmaceuticals (Profits)
  Pharmaceuticals (Profits)
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Prescriptions (Charges)
  Prescriptions (Charges)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Doctors (Deputising Services)
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Age of Retirement
  Age of Retirement
  Hospitals (Design)
  Hospitals (Design)
  Pensions (Uprating)
  Pensions (Uprating)
  Breast Milk Substitutes
  Breast Milk Substitutes
  Doctors and Nurses (Unemployment)
  Doctors and Nurses (Unemployment)
  NHS Resources (Trent and Leicestershire)
  NHS Resources (Trent and Leicestershire)
  South London Hospital for Women
  South London Hospital for Women
  Drugs (Overcharging)
  Drugs (Overcharging)
  Black Report
  Black Report
  Funeral Costs
  Funeral Costs
  Housewives Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Housewives Non-contributory Invalidity Pension
  Local Office Staff (Erdington)
  Local Office Staff (Erdington)
  Pilfering (Public Funds)
  Pilfering (Public Funds)
  Guardian's Allowance
  Guardian's Allowance
  Gangmasters (East Anglia)
  Gangmasters (East Anglia)

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

The Falklands: Land Tenure
Lord Molloy: 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 what progress has been made in negotiations with the Falkland Islands Company on the redistribution of land and control of sale prices.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the Falkland Islands Government has recently purchased three farms in West Falkland owned by one company and is in contact with another company with substantial holdings in East Falkland. A number of sub-divided units from the West Falkland farms will be offered on the local market shortly. I would not expect the Falkland Islands Government further to develop its views on land tenure until the response has been assessed. There is no current negotiation with the Falkland Islands Company on the redistribution of land.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive reply. May I ask her whether she is aware of reports that are reaching this country of British families who are being enticed to go to the Falkland Islands and to have 50 and 100-acre plots?
These families have some support from the Falkland Islands Government, but many of them are discovering, so it is alleged, that they have sunk their savings into dubious enterprises. Ought this not to be a matter for concern, if not investigation, by Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot comment without notice on that particular newspaper report. But on the question of land holdings in the Falklands, I should like to make it quite clear that, as was said in another place by my right honourable friend the then Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, the Government favour a gradualist approach to land redistribution under the auspices of the Falkland Islands Development Corporation. In fact, if demand for land exceeded the amount offered for sale on the open market, the Islands Legislative Council would have to reconsider the position and would be in a position to make a compulsory purchase if it were required.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I say further to the noble Baroness that one particular family, the Dow
118
family, and newspapers such as the Sunday Telegraph and the British Farmer and Stockbroker, the farming Association's newspaper, which are responsible newspapers, have supplied the information on which I have put down my Question, which I hope the noble Baroness may agree ought to be looked at.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I will look very carefully in Hansard at what the noble Lord said, when I read the report tomorrow. I will write to him if there is some further information that I can give him on that particular point.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the newspaper referred to by the noble Lord opposite is more usually known as the Farmer and Stockbreeder —not Stockbroker?
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister recognise the importance of the two points made by my noble friend's Question? Will she really take a look at this matter now that she has replaced two of the former Ministers who had some responsibility? Also, will she not be misled by the last comment? This is a serious matter not only because the family referred to is involved, but because other people may be misled into thinking that the prospects there are better than they are. Will she urge the Falkland Islands Government to do something about using their powers to acquire land, which I understand they have the right to do, especially with regard to the monopoly of the FIC, which has 43 per cent, of the land, although this is not the only monolopy which inhibits growth? Will she realise how urgent this matter is if people are not to be misled into going to the Falklands without knowing the whole position and if more are to be brought in with better facilities?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that I take this matter very seriously indeed. As I have already indicated, we believe in a gradualist approach to land distribution. The Civil Commissioner of the Falklands, in his address to the Islands Legislative Council in December, explained that we considered that this was the best course. Sir Rex Hunt also went on to say that, if the results of the questionnaire (of which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, will be aware) showed that the demand for land exceeded the amount offered for sale on the open market, the council would have to reconsider its position. This statement was endorsed unanimously by the Islands Council.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I apologise to the farmers and stockbreeders who, it seems, are infinitely more useful and important people than stockbrokers. May I also ask the noble Baroness, when she makes her examination, to compare what is happening now and what was envisaged in the Shackleton Report, since there seem to be differences which ought to give us all cause for concern?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have said to the noble Lord that I shall look at the point which he raised in his first supplementary question. However, I should like to confirm that the Government's policy is very much in line with what was proposed in the Shackleton Report.

The "General Belgrano"
Lord Hatch of Lusby: 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 what were the times and dates of the receipt by the then Foreign Secretary of the Peruvian-American peace proposals in May 1982; of the communication of those proposals by the Foreign Secretary to the Prime Minister; and of the decision to torpedo the "General Belgrano".
Baroness Young: My Lords, the first intimation that the Government had of the existence of any proposals from the President of Peru came in a series of conversations between the then Foreign Secretary, Mr. Pym, and Mr. Haig in Washington on 2nd May. After necessary clarification of Mr. Haig's ideas, Mr. Pym telegraphed a report to London at just after five o'clock in the afternoon, Washington time—that is, 2215 GMT. The attack on the "General Belgrano" took place over three hours before that.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether or not she agrees that, in view of the fact that the then Foreign Secretary was in Washington in order to try to preserve the peace and that he had had breakfast with Mr. Haig, the then Secretary of State, it would have been a normal and much more constructive procedure if the instruction to torpedo the "General Belgrano" had been taken only after the Prime Minister had consulted with Mr. Pym in Washington?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I would not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has to say. I am quite sure that, as he has studied the question so carefully, he will have read with great care the statement that my right honourable friend Mr. Pym put in a letter to the Daily Mirror on 20th May.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is it not a fact that the sinking of the "General Belgrano" and the panic which this induced in the Argentine Navy contributed to saving many hundreds of British lives?
Baroness Young: My Lords, it is the case that the "General Belgrano" was sunk for military reasons.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, in fairness to the noble Lord's point, could it not also be claimed—as, indeed, some do claim—that because the "General Belgrano" was sunk, this scuppered the peace talks and led to a campaign which was costly and which will continue to be costly? Out of fairness, will the Prime Minister and the Government consider setting up an inquiry into this matter so that the facts can be known on all sides?
Baroness Young: No, my Lords. I am afraid I cannot accept the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. This ground has been gone over many times before and the facts are perfectly clearly set out. Furthermore, the Government see no need for an inquiry.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, when she says that this ground has been gone over many times before, she is quite correct but that on each occasion when this ground has been gone over new facts have been brought out, many of which have contradicted previous statements by members of the Government? May I ask the noble Baroness to take back to her colleagues the proposal of my noble friend Lord Bishopston, that there is sufficient dubiety about the facts concerning what happened on 1st and 2nd May of last year to warrant an independent inquiry into the actual procedures and events of those two days, which undoubtedly made the Falklands war inevitable and caused the deaths of servicemen on both sides?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is making the most absurd allegations. The whole of the history of this matter has been set out in Parliamentary Answers both in your Lordships' House and in another place. I have already given a statement of the facts this afternoon, about which there can be no argument. The fact of the matter is, as I have already indicated, that my right honourable friend Mr. Pym was given no impression during his conversation with Mr. Haig that anything approaching an agreement was at hand. Mr. Haig himself agreed that more time was needed for detailed work. My right honourable friend was therefore in no position to have the ideas transmitted to London before the end of the afternoon of 2nd May—and by that time, the "General Belgrano" had been sunk.
The Government see no reason at all to have an inquiry. As the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has studied this matter so thoroughly, I am sure that he will have read the letter that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has sent to the secretary of the National Union of Seamen setting out the position fully.

Iran: Execution of Baha'is
2.55 p.m.
Lord McNair: 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 will protest in the strongest possible terms and in every available forum against the execution of twelve more Baha'is in Shiraz, Iran, this month.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the Government view with abhorrence recent reports that 16 Baha'is from Shiraz have been executed in Iran. The United Kingdom has on many occasions made clear to the Iranian Government its deep concern at continuing reports of persecution of the Baha'is for their religious beliefs. We are in touch with our partners in the Ten to determine how best to register our strong views with the Iranian authorities and what course of action might best help the considerable Baha'i community in Iran.
Lord McNair: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that clear and forthright Answer, which is only

121
what one would expect of her and from any British Government. May I ask the noble Baroness, further, whether she recalls the very striking speech made in this House by the late Bishop of Guildford shortly before his untimely and much lamented death—a speech in which he showed that it is only by a very dubious, debatable interpretation of the holy Koran that the Iranian theocracy attempts to justify its behaviour? As the Koran is one of the texts which the Baha'is themselves regard as sacred, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she will consider getting in touch with some of the Islamic members of the Commonwealth to see whether they, too, could perhaps make representations in Tehran?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot in honesty say that I recall the particular speech to which the noble Lord has drawn attention. I take note of the suggestion which the noble Lord has made on this matter, but I believe that it would be unwise of me to say more than that at this juncture because we wish to proceed in the best possible way to further the ends of helping the Baha'is but at the same time we must be very careful not to make their position more difficult.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, while joining the noble Baroness in a total condemnation of these monstrous atrocities, may I ask her whether she does not recall the newspaper reports which stated that United Nations had been invited by the Government of Iran to send an envoy to investigate violations of human rights in Iran? Can she confirm whether that was in fact the case, and what has developed from that invitation if it was issued?
Baroness Young: My Lords, there have at times been suggestions that there should be an envoy sent to investigate these matters; but the view of our Government is that the best way we can proceed is that which I set out in my Answer to the Question. We believe that that way is in the best interests of the Baha'is in Iran.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Ayatollah's regime is not a Government but a barbaric organistion deserving of the utmost condemnation? Is she further aware that the last group of Baha'is to be shot in Iran were all young women—two of them teenagers—who were not guilty of any offence other than a belief in their faith? In these circumstances, is it not time that the Government considered whether it is proper for us to continue to have relations with such a regime.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we do of course utterly condemn what has happened to the Baha'is, and other executions, in Iran. At the present time we are represented in Iran by a Head of Mission, who looks after our interests—and, of course, there is the opportunity for him, too, on appropriate occasions, to make protests about what is going on.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Baroness say whether in her opinion the systematic extermination of men and women for refusing to renounce their religion constitutes in international law the crime of genocide?
Baroness Young: My Lords, without notice I could not say whether that is the case; but, of course, all the civilised world condemns what has been happening by these executions.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is it not an unhappy fact that there is no tribunal before which these men can be indicted?
Baroness Young: Yes, my Lords; but your Lordships may know that on 1st March my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, our delegate at the Commission of Human Rights, made a statement in which he expressed his Government's deep concern at reports of the continuing persecution of Baha'is, and on 3rd March our delegation co-sponsored a draft resolution at the commission which urged the Iranian Government to respect the human rights of all individuals under its jurisdiction.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that over 50 years ago this was a crucial question and in some ways a very easy one, except that no one would do anything about it? Is it not time that we now took this matter really seriously and tried to do something about it? There would be many on this side who would help to do this, and I am one of them.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I note what the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has said. The Government have considered very carefully all the options open to them on this matter, and we believe that the best way to help the Baha'is is as I have set out in the Answer to the Question.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she and the Government feel equal concern about the plight of the Kurdish people in the same country, in view of the fact that they are being subjected to even greater persecution and subjection, and particularly in view of the major military offensive against them which was launched on Friday?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that that is another question, but if he cares to put down a Question on that subject I will do my best to answer it.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Commission of Human Rights urged the Secretary-General of the United Nations to send an envoy to Iran on this matter? Did I hear the noble Baroness aright as saying that she was not totally in favour of sending such an envoy? Is she aware that the vast majority of those of us who are deeply concerned about this matter would welcome such a visit, and will the Government press the Secretary-General to send an envoy?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have already indicated what has happened at the Commission of Human Rights. At the session of the United Nations Commission of Human Rights in March 1982 the United Kingdom co-sponsored a draft resolution which urged the Iranians to respect the human rights of all individuals under their jurisdiction. The resolution also called for the United Nations Secretary-General to continue

123
his efforts to ensure that the Baha'is were allowed to enjoy their full human rights and fundamental freedoms, and at the same time to prepare a draft report on the human rights situation in Iran.

Fast Reactor Development Programme
3.4 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: 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 what advice they have now received from the nuclear power industry about the future shape of the fast reactor programme.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, following the policy statement which my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Energy made last November, advice has been received from the Chairman of the Atomic Energy Authority, on behalf of the various interested parties. That advice is under urgent consideration.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that there is a certain urgency about this matter, in that the fast reactor will provide cheap energy because the fuel is re-usable, but that it is a 25 year timescale from getting the project going and proving its safety, and therefore we are liable to be into the phase of series ordering very late on in the early years and middle years of the next century?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed my opening reply to this Question did stress the word "urgency". I would add that the Government have decided to continue with the substantial development programme for the fast reactor based at Dounreay. With regard to the noble Earl's comment on pricing, of course with uranium at the present price I think this lessens rather than increases the rush.
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that there are several fast reactors under construction in other European countries, and that the French fast reactor, the Super Phenix, is likely to be in operation next year? Does he not think that our programme is lagging behind a little?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am indeed aware of the French programme. I do not believe ours is lagging behind. I hope the noble Lord will wait for the Statement as a result of the recent discussions.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, could my noble friend say whether there is any truth in press reports that we are discussing with the French possible collaboration in development after the Super Phenix has come into operation?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid I must reiterate to my noble friend that the advice is at the moment confidential.

Falkland Islands Strategic Airfield
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, a Statement was made in another place yesterday by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence about the Government's decision on the construction of a new strategic airfield in the Falkland Islands. With the leave of the House, I will arrange for the text of the Statement to be included in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to above:
"Mr. Speaker, with permission, I should like to make a Statement about the Government's decision on the construction of a new strategic airfield in the Falkland Islands.
"The Government believe that the defence of the Falkland Islands, the support of the garrison and its reinforcement in emergency depend on permanent and improved airfield facilities; and the Government welcome the recent useful report of the Defence Committee which supports this view.
"The present airfield at RAF Stanley is temporary and operations are restricted by the length and strength of its single runway. Therefore, we have examined the alternatives of improving RAF Stanley or of building a new airfield on a clear site at Mount Pleasant, which is between Stanley and Darwin.
"We have now decided that the right course is to build at Mount Pleasant. This is less expensive, even allowing for the cost of a road between Mount Pleasant and Stanley, and it is much less likely to involve unforeseen delays and interruptions to the construction work. Most important, the use of RAF Stanley by the garrison will not be restricted while the new airfield is being built.
"The new airfield will be able to operate wide-bodied aircraft, civil as well as military. This will enable us to make welcome saving in the running costs of supporting the garrison; it will greatly reduce the amount of time required to reinforce the garrison if need be: and it will give a powerful boost to the economy and infrastructure of the islands.
"Tenders have been received from three consortia of British civil engineering contractors, and a contract for the construction of Mount Pleasant airfield will be placed very shortly by the PSA with the consortium of Mowlem/Laing/Amey Roadstone Construction. The value of the work to be executed under this contract, together with the costs of sub-contracts and shipping, is approximately £190 million; to this will be added the cost of the Stanley to Mount Pleasant road and a separate contract to install Government-furnished communication and navigation aids, making a total of about £215 million.
"This order of cost was allowed for in the additional provision for Falklands expenditure included in the Defence budget, and will not therefore add to planned public expenditure or necessitate offsetting reductions in defence expenditure elsewhere. The labour force will be recruited in this country. Work on the site will begin this autumn—the Falklands spring—and the new main runway should be usable from April 1985, and the whole airfield complex including all the necessary facilities will be complete around February 1986.
"I believe that this Statement will be generally welcome, both in Parliament and in the Falklands, and will be seen as another practical sign of our determination to ensure the security of the islands".

Dinner
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available this evening at the usual time of 7.30.

Medical Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Medical Acts 1956 to 1978 and certain

125
related provisions, with amendments to give effect to recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Value Added Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments related to value added tax. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Car Tax Bill [H.L.]
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the enactments relating to car tax. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Lotteries (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976 so as to abolish certain offences respecting foreign lotteries, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That this Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Irving of Dartford.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Small Charities Bill [H.L.]
Lord Renton: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to enable the property of certain small charities to be expended without regard to restrictions distinguishing between capital and income, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Renton.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

European Communities Committee
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about
126
them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle, and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following be named of the Committee:—

Brimelow, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Faithfull, B.

Gallacher, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Hayter, L.

Kearton, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. (Chairman)

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Nathan, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Oram, L.

Plowden, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Rochdale, V.

Seebohm, L.

Serota, B.

Templeman, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Torrington, V.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and to refer to such Sub-Committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that the Committee have power to appoint the Chairmen of Sub-Committees, but that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman for the purpose of particular enquiries; that two be the quorum of such Sub-Committees;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a Sub-Committee;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committees have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist adviser;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Reports of the Select Committee from time to time shall be printed, notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee or any Sub-Committee from time to time shall, if the Committee think fit, be printed and delivered out;
That the Committee or any Sub-Committee appointed by them have leave to confer and to meet concurrently with any Committee of the Commons on European Legislation, &c. or any Sub-Committee of that Committee for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting; and

127
That any Lord requested by any Committee of the Commons on European Legislation, &c. to attend as a witness before them or before any Sub-Committee appointed by them shall have the leave of this House so to attend, if his Lordship think fit. —(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Science and Technology: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

Adrian, L.

Bessborough, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Flowers, L.

Gregson, L.

Hunter of Newington, L.

Jeger, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Melchett, L.

Nelson of Stafford, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Shackleton, L.

Sherfield, L.

Todd, L. (Chairman)

Tordoff, L.

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Science and Technology: Select Committee

  ADDRESS IN REPLY TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH
  Debate resumed on the Motion moved on Wednesday last by the Duke of Norfolk—namely, That a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows:
  "Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual
  128
  and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament".
  3.10 p.m.
  The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I would suppose that it is a wholesome and civilising practice of Parliament to have a general debate at the beginning of each new Session of Parliament on general topics contained, or not contained, in the gracious Speech. It obviously puts a strain on the ingenuity of the opener of a debate on so varied a range of subjects as that of home and social policies, and an even greater strain on my noble friend who will reply to the debate after 34 speeches, or thereabouts, on an even wider range of subjects.
  I should like to make a few (but I hope connected) remarks which have occurred to me, as the oldest Member of the new Administration after the recent general election, on the subject of our home and social policies. I hope the House will forgive me if, although of course speaking on behalf of my colleagues, I put them in a slightly personal way. I have, I believe, spoken in every general election since 1924, and I therefore have considerable experience of being on the losing side and considerable experience of being on the winning side. Being a good winner is, I think, as difficult as being a good loser. It is perhaps more difficult to be a good winner than a good loser. I still bear the scars of the taunts and jeers which greeted us when we lost. I shall have things to say in my remarks with which many noble Lords will disagree. I shall hope to leave no poison behind in the wound; and I ask them to accept that, although they may not agree with what I say, it is said without malice and with considerable personal affection and respect for those against whom I have been waging political warfare for upwards of 50 years.
  However one views the result of the last election, without in any way belittling the personal achievement of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and without in any way over-emphasising the effect of the double faults served by some senior members of the Labour Party in the course of the campaign, I do not think one can avoid confronting the fact that the effect of the election was a massive vote of no confidence in the Labour manifesto, which was surely one of the most inept political documents of our time. It was inept because of its extremism, inept because of its inconsistency and inept because it failed to achieve the very purpose it was designed to achieve, since quite manifestly the Labour Party wished to fight on the issue of unemployment and succeeded in raising the issues of foreign policy, defence and the Common Market. I must say in all charity to the Labour Members that unless they can rehabilitate the picture of the party as the legitimate successor of the party of Attlee and Bevin, or even of Aneurin Bevan and Sir Stafford Cripps, I believe they will go down gradually to a dwindling and extremist rump, and that the mantle of constructive opposition will fall on the shoulders of my neighbours to my left and the mountaineers who man the Mappin terraces further back. The Labour Party should go back to the drawing-board.

  129
  However, may I turn for a moment to congratulate the mover and the seconder of the humble Address, whose speeches commanded general praise last week. It is no small thing for the Earl Marshal of England, and its premier Duke, to agree to take part in the moving and seconding of the reply to the gracious Speech. We all had great joy in the speech made by my noble friend Lady Airey of Abingdon, and the way in which she put her remarks. I particularly welcomed her reference to that passage in the gracious Speech which refers to the Matrimonial Causes Bill which I hope to introduce very shortly into the House.
  I should also like to join in the chorus of welcome to my noble friend the new Leader of the House and in the general acceptance of the words of praise and affection with which the former Leader, my noble friend Lady Young, was greeted, again very generously, from the Opposition and Liberal Benches as well as from my own. I hope that we may retain the tradition of civilised discussion that we have had under successive Leaders of different parties.
  With respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, said in his speech last week, I do not think that the respective role and influence of the two Houses changes from election to election. The function of the elected Chamber is surely to determine the political colour of the Executive, and with it, of course, the main policies and direction of Government legislation as announced in their political programme. I see no reason why the role of the working House of Lords should constitutionally differ from election to election, and still less why the role should differ in proportion to the magnitude of the election result, which seemed to be the proposition for which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, was arguing. We are an independent second Chamber, but we are not elected. We hold our offices here by inheritance or by nomination. There is something profoundly illogical in the proposition that we were asked to accept: that a party which had fought the election on a manifesto containing a proposal to abolish the House of Lords should now look to the House of Lords to hold its banner aloft in battle.
  I think it is generally accepted that the gracious Speech reflects the contents of our election manifesto. When the manifesto was published it was widely appraised as a very moderate document—moderate in the sense of the modesty of its proposals and not in the sense of a depreciation of its quality. In one sense I fully accept the appraisal of it by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, as the mixture very much as before, but perhaps with a second dose of the same medicine. I therefore gently remind him that it was precisely that for which the great majority in the other place were elected. I think that was generally accepted during the campaign. The main critics of our party tended to agree with it by implication because they were driven to fantasise a secret manifesto which, it was alleged, we would put into effect if successful. There was, of course, no such secret manifesto, and the gracious Speech gives no colour to such imaginings.
  Coming from the general to the particular, I now make a series of specific points. It is agreed that we have been to a great extent successful in the fight against inflation. Of course, we are still conducting that fight. It is a matter for eternal vigilance, like the
  130
  fight for liberty. I would venture to suggest to the House that the battle for recovery and the campaign against unemployment must now go forward. It is rather on that theme that I want to address my next remarks.
  I do not agree with the suggestion which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, made the other day that in the Speech there is no general or determined attack made on unemployment. I genuinely think that this is to misunderstand the difference which exists between the parties in this House and in the country. I do not think that we differ as to aims at all; I think we do differ profoundly as to means. It is on that theme that I wish to speak for a moment. When we come to debate economic affairs tomorrow, I think it will become even more apparent that there is a general belief in the Opposition that lasting gains are to be made in the fight against unemployment by attempting to spend or borrow our way out of recession, whereas we believe, and believe quite simply, that the correct strategy is to make Britain one of the most efficient—I should prefer to say the most efficient—industrial countries in the Western world. This is a difference of method and not a difference in aim. It is this belief which colours not only our economic policy but our whole approach to home and social affairs.
  Speaking for myself, I do not regard unemployment as a single problem or a single evil. On the contrary, I believe it is a complex problem, consisting of a large number of interacting factors requiring a whole battery of policies to defeat it and to recover from it. Although we dealt the other day with foreign policy, I do not, for instance, regard the Common Market as irrelevant to the battle for full employment. I think it has a close connection with it. I shall not go into it again today because we discussed it before. I do not believe that education is foreign to the question of full employment. It is for this reason that we are placing greater emphasis on the quality of teaching and the content of the curriculum, references to which are to be found in and formed part of the gracious Speech. I believe that vocational and industrial training comes into the battle against unemployment, and to that too reference is made, as also to the quality of business management and the teaching of business management.
  I cannot even dissociate the whole question of law and order from the problem of employment. Of course we have other and better reasons for sustaining the battle against crime, but a country riddled with dishonesty and violence, and upholding moral principles which are inadequate to face a modern society, is not likely to be efficient and productive. We cannot afford, therefore, to ignore the material spin-off.
  I believe that modern technology comes into the campaign for more employment (and that is, as a matter of fact, one of the reasons for the reintroduction of the Data Protection Bill—failure to pass which would prevent us from ratifying the European Convention and so breaking into that market) and the encouragement, also referred to in the gracious Speech, of new technology and research. Employment is also concerned with that.

  131
  Public health comes into it. There never was any truth in the scare that we have harboured sinister designs on Health Service expenditure, which, despite financial rigours, has more than doubled in cash terms in the four years in which we have been in office.
  Incentives come into the question of full employment. One of the best incentives surely is to allow people to buy their own houses with their own savings, which has proved an extremely popular policy. Taxation comes into it, and that is why we shall be reintroducing the major tax concessions which fell with the Dissolution owing to an absence of agreement between the two Front Benches. Rating policy comes into the question, and this is surely part of the justification for our rating reforms and our proposals to do away with some of the worst precepting authorities and to curb some of the more preposterous increases imposed on local businesses, which of course have no franchise to vote in local elections. The state of the inner cities comes into the question of unemployment, and hence our strong and continuing commitment to them, again referred to in the manifesto.
  I believe that trade union policy comes into the matter very closely, and that is why we propose to let the cool breeze of real democracy blow away some of the cobwebs, obsolete prejudices and restrictive practices from the stale and backward-looking atmosphere in some of the trade union back-rooms. In tackling unemployment, with great respect, it cannot be for the party opposite to taunt others with lack of determination in dealing with this question when they fought the election on a pledge to leave the Common Market and, as I believe, sought to persuade the electorate that you can protect inefficiency and that you can combat over-manning, excessive wage demands and restrictive practices, with a battery of tariffs and import quotas.
  No, my Lords, I do not believe that there is a difference between us as to aims. I do assert and accept that there is a wide difference between us as to the remedies to be applied.
  If I may refer to some other matters, I do not want to trespass on the economic debate tomorrow. That is not my strong suit. But there are respects in which I think I can assert that social and home policy can be stated in quantitative terms. Perhaps I may look back a little over the years to illustrate that fact. The Lloyd George Budget of 1909 (two years after I was born) was a Budget of £150 million—gold sovereigns of course, but still £150 million. It was a social budget at the time. Between the wars, when I was a young man, the Budget, year by year, was of the order of £800 million in the currency of that time, and, as we were badly neglecting our defences, these were mainly and primarily social budgets.
  Today our Budgets are of the order of £130,000 million in contemporary currency, with an annual borrowing requirement of something of the order of £10,000 million, which, with a 10 per cent. bank rate—and that is the only multiplication table I can manage on my feet—would come to an addition to the taxpayer year by year of a burden of £1,000 million before you get into any returns at all. But this, too, is
  132
  broadly a social budget, because a relatively small proportion of that money is being spent on defence or foreign policy. It is relatively a social budget.
  Only the other day, my noble friend Lord Glenarthur was able to refer to the fact that our projected social security budget is of the order of £35,000 million. In fact our achieved National Health Service and social services budget is £15,000 million in cash terms—twice as much as in 1979. We are spending£3,800 million on the disabled. There are 50,000 more students in higher education than four years ago, and we are spending another £2,000 million on special employment and training measures and the new youth training scheme. I would therefore respectfully submit to the House that all this talk about callousness and lack of compassion is pure self-delusion. We are aiming at improving the society in which we live. It may be, as we think, that we are more conscious of the constraints of international recession and of the impossibility of pulling ourselves up by our own bootstraps. That is a question of means, and not a question of ends.
  So I would go on to say that we really must come to terms—all of us—with the social revolution which has taken place in our generation. When I was first Education Minister (now over 25 years ago) I got into great trouble with the then headmaster of Eton for saying that when the then generation of sixth-form grammar school boys entered their forties and fifties the advantage of a public school tie would to some extent disappear. That has now happened. It is no particular surprise to me to find myself the only old-Etonian in the Cabinet. This is not because the standard of public schools has gone down. I still think that Eton is the most excellent school in the world. It is because the first product of the Butler Education Act has now come into full age when it can expect legitimately to exercise full leadership. The policy of that Act was to provide secondary education for all and a first-class grammar school education to those who wished it and who were in a position to benefit from it. That policy has now begun to produce the mature results of our then far-sightedness. I only hope that, when it produces a generation of those in their forties and fifties, the (to me) less attractive comprehend-sivisation does not reduce the standard which we are beginning to achieve.
  The fact remains—and I think that this is, and ought to be, a matter of general satisfaction—that despite all the talk about polarisation, despite even the wholly lamentable level of unemployment, and despite even the manifest, and to my mind even more lamentable, decline in moral standards and in respect for the authority of law and order, we are not any longer living in the 1930s. The population of this country has never been better fed, better clothed, better educated or better protected against the ill-effects of sickness, old age, handicap or unemployment than it is now. In my lifetime there has never been less differentiation or privilege on the lines of class. Wealth has never been more widely distributed: and I believe that it has been a failure on the part of many of our critics to recognise that fact that has largely contributed to their lack of success in gaining the popular vote.
  We must stop living in the past and try to evaluate the consequences of the social revolution which has

  133
  taken place in our time. I can remember the time at the end of the war when I was considered a dangerous revolutionary because I proclaimed what to me was the obvious truth that in the post-war world every home should have a fridge. But the wage-earner today is more likely to own a car, a television set, a washing machine and a vast range of other expensive consumer durables. His children have never suffered less from poverty-related disease.
  When I first entered public life the agricultural wage was about 30 shillings a week. I have lived to see the day when even the unemployed and the disabled have a standard of life which would have made the skilled worker of my youth, and his family, envious indeed. I thank God that I have lived to see that time. So let us not belittle our achievements in home and social policy: but let us face the fact, which we shall have to examine tomorrow, that without a sound economic policy we shall not be able to sustain our momentum.
  I would ask the House to believe me when I say, on behalf of my colleagues, that although we differ from our opponents as to means, and although we are probably more sensitive to economic constraints than some of our critics would have been had they succeeded in obtaining the position of responsibility which we now hold, we intend to continue in the way in which we have gone over the past 50 years of my lifetime. I am grateful to the House for listening to me so patiently because I know that some of the things that I have said have been mildly controversial—and were intended to be.
  3.33 p.m.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his continued occupation of the Woolsack, to which he has given his own inimitable shape. In his own inimitable fashion he has on the occasion of the debate on the Address embarked upon an election speech. I thought that it was only in America that Presidential campaigns were restarted the morning after the election itself, but the Lord Chancellor, with his youthful and surprising energy, wants to introduce the practice here. We shall be debating the economic situation tomorrow. I think that the last time we debated the Queen's Speech I was reproached by the noble and learned Lord for embarking upon economic questions when we ought to have been talking about home affairs; but the order is now reversed.
  We are grateful for the noble and learned Lord's concern about the future health of the Labour Party. Many, of us have been through worse that this before, and of' course the party will recover because it represents the basic strength of our working people. While on this occasion the noble Lord has been willing to embark upon a party political speech, and while I am in no position to boast the results of the election from my party's point of view, perhaps it should not be forgotten that more than half of those who voted, voted against the Conservative Party and against "Thatcherism". So let there not be this dogma, which is already creeping in. Let there be a little modesty, in particular in the light of the appalling problems that the country still has to face.
  We have made serious criticism—and tomorrow we shall do so again, more profoundly—of the apparent
  134
  complacency about, if not acceptance of as inevitable, the appalling level of unemployment in this country. According to those who are informed of these matters, the total of those who are not able to work when they would wish to do so is now approaching 5 million. It is an appalling state of affairs and, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, it is linked to another grave aspect in our society which I shall speak about in a moment; namely, the serious increase in crime. We on this side of the House believe that unemployment is a major factor contributing to that increase. There are now well over 2 million more people unemployed than there were when the present Government came into office in 1979, and far from that number diminishing, there are indications that it may continue to rise. So I fear will the incidence of crime in our society.
  Two sections of our population have been especially badly hit—the young, and the racial minorities. The blacks find it harder to get a job than do the rest. Forty per cent. of those unemployed in our country today are less than 25 years of age. Two out of three school-leavers cannot find work. In a recent procession a group of them carried a banner stating,
  "We have reached retiring age —16".
  A bitter jest, my Lords.
  A happy feature of our present affairs is that until now the fabric of our society has held fast. In a previous debate on the Address I ventured to draw the attention of the House to the warning given some time ago by the House of Commons all-party Select Committee on Welsh affairs. It reads:
  "The committee warns Parliament of the risks of serious social disorder if chronic levels of unemployment endure, particularly among the young, and stresses that if condemned to suffer the worklessness of the 1930s, Wales is unlikely to respond with the apathy and despair of those days".
  I venture to say that apart from the character and quality of our own people, what has been crucially important during this dangerous period has been the existence of the welfare state. Many of us in this House were at its birth when the postwar Labour Government—and, indeed, others who were like-minded—resolved that the social injustice, unemployment and poverty of the 1920s and the 1930s, with laissez-faire and privatisation at their maximum, should never happen again. It was the new deal that was then created by and for our people in the fields of social security, the health service and education, in which men and women of all parties played a part, that was the basis of our national reconstruction after the war. If we undermine that pattern now, we shall do so at our peril, and there are disturbing signs of that undermining taking place.
  I propose to deal with rather more of the particularities of the problems that arise than did the noble and learned Lord—I say this without offence to him—and it is good to note that once again it falls to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to have responsibility in the House of Home Office matters. To say that my noble friends and I look forward to crossing swords with him again on the Data Protection Bill would be carrying courtesy to the point of incredulity. We were hoping that the revised version of the Bill would be more acceptable than its predecessor, but a glance at it makes that very unlikely. The almost universally

  135
  condemned Clause 28 is still in the Bill. If the clause remains then a Bill that is intended, as the Queen's Speech puts it,
  "to protect personal information held on computers"
  could result in highly confidential and sensitive information being capable of being disclosed to the police, the Inland Revenue, the Customs and Excise and the immigration authorities without any indication on the data protection register that anything of that kind was possible. To this, and the other serious defects in the Bill, we shall return next week.
  Within the domain of the Home Office, the subject to which I have already referred, which has caused the public the greatest concern, has been the increase of crime in recent years. Last year, 3,250,000 notifiable offences were recorded by the police—an increase in the recorded crime rate of 25 per cent. since my colleagues and I had responsibility in this field. The noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, referred to the problem in a speech in 1976 in another place. Incidentally, we greatly hope that the noble Lord will continue to take an active part in discussions in the House on matters relating to the Home Office, particularly in view of the large new Tory intake in another place, apparently bent on turning back the clock in penal and, indeed, many other matters. It is going to be an exhilarating experience to be present in this House in this Parliament because, with that reconstructed Commons it will fall to us rather than to another place to put the Government right from time to time. What the noble Viscount said on that earlier occasion was:
  "A Government that cannot protect its own citizens from attack in the streets of its towns and cities, that cannot protect property from damage or homes from intrusion, had failed to live up to the basic duties of Government".
  Stern words, indeed. If they were justified in 1976, what is to be said of a Government, elected on a law and order platform, whose term of office has been marked by an increase of one quarter in the recorded crime rate? That increase is not the only cause for concern. The situation is worsened because, as the crime rate has increased, the detection and conviction rates have substantially decreased. Yet greater probability of arrest and conviction is surely the most likely way to deter the criminal. A two in three chance of not being caught, which seems to be the position today, is almost an encouragement to the criminal. I understand now that only about 15 per cent. of all crimes in London result in arrest.
  One serious factor which, I fear, is at work is a lack of co-operation between the police and the public, in some areas amounting to alienation of the police from the public. It is good that steps are now being taken by community policing and other endeavours to remedy that position. But the situation gives a clear warning to us that special care must be taken in the proposed Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to ensure that the granting of new powers to the police is balanced by the protection of the legitimate rights of the individual and of the public. If not, increased alienation will result.
  Seldom has a Bill been more roundly and responsibly criticised than that Bill. It is at least reassuring that the new Home Secretary has felt it right to delay introducing it so as to have the opportunity of
  136
  reconsidering the representations that have been made. He is going to have a busy time. It was less than reassuring when he added:
  "I do not wish to give the impression that I am at present persuaded that substantial changes are required".
  If this proves to be the case, the House will have the salutary task of puttiong the matter right in the course of our debates.
  An early example of trying to put the clock back, which seems to be emerging from another place, is the attempt by a number of Members there to restore the death penalty for murder. When we last discussed the matter in this House in December 1974 in the wake of natural anxiety about the terrorism perpetrated by the IRA, along with others I opposed restoring the death penalty, in particular on the ground that it would risk retaliatory violence and ruthless reprisals against our own soldiers in Northern Iireland. We would put their lives at greater risk. It is a very heavy responsibility for Members of Parliament to bear. Yet terrorists are, I believe, unlikely to be deterred by capital punishment. The hunger strikes of 1981 showed that as many as 10 IRA convicts were willing to inflict the death penalty on themselves to the considerable propaganda benefit of the IRA. That benefit would have been all the greater if a British hangman had hanged them. In this connection, we would do well to remember and ponder over Winston Churchill's words:
  "The grass grows green on the battlefield. Under the scaffold, never".
  Two further considerations have influenced my views on this matter. One is the danger of inflicting this terrible and irrevocable punishment on the wrong person. I shall not forget the agony suffered by my old friend and former Home Secretary Chuter Ede having decided not to reprieve Timothy Evans, who was hanged, when later Chuter learned that Timothy Evans was not the murderer. There have been other cases of fatal judicial error. Human judgment is not infallible and errors can occur again.
  Another fact that I learned from my own experience in the courts in those hanging days was that jurors did their utmost to avoid convicting an accused of murder when death on the gallows might result. Therefore, more murderers were acquitted than should have been the case. Apart from these practical considerations, in my view, society diminishes itself whenever it takes the life of a prisoner in captivity. We live in a period when there is a desperate need to restore respect for human life and to foster a deep reverence for it. I do not believe that restoring the death penalty will increase that reverence.
  What will emerge in discussion of this matter in another place—and I make no apology for expressing my views clearly upon the matter today—remains to be seen. But it may be significant to hear in mind that when the European Parliament debated a resolution in June 1981 in favour of the abolition of the death penalty, it was overwhelmingly carried and there was an absolute majority in favour of abolition among the United Kingdom Members of the European Parliament. Since then 15 countries have signed the Sixth Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights, providing in Article 1 that:
  "The death penalty shall he abolished. No one shall he condemned to such penalty or executed".

  137
  As I have said, 15 countries have signed that protocol. France has signed it; the German Federal Republic has signed it and the Scandinavian countries have also signed it. What is our intention? Do we really want to he the only country in Western Europe which proposes to restore the rejected and barbarous weapon of the death penalty?
  On penal policy, it is disturbing that the Queen's Speech makes no reference to the scandalous conditions in our prisons. Overcrowding is infecting every aspect of prison life. The prison population in England and Wales now stands at nearly 44,000–7,000 more than the figure of 37,000 above which the prisons became overcrowded. In addition, there are 400 prisoners being held each day in police custody in police cells in London and the South-East.
  Time and again the prison and borstal governors' branch of the Society of Civil Servants has drawn attention to the gravity of the position. A letter from Mr. Norman Brown, Governor of Strangeways Prison, Manchester, was published in the Daily Telegraph on 30th November 1981. He is a man who is faced with the problem day by day and the letter went as follows:
  "We just cannot go on locking men and women up, many for 23 hours a day. Why do the warnings continually given by the prison service go ignored? We are the people who have to work and contain our inmates in the squalor that we do; we are the people who have to deal with the barricades, the fires, the hunger strikers, the riots, the slopping out. Is it not time that the necessary legislation be introduced to reduce our prison population and restore the morale of the prison staff, allowing us to operate a system with decent standards and dignity, or must we go on being ignored by Parliament and the courts while they carry on talking about overcrowding for yet another 30 years?"
  That is a cri de coeur and yet prison conditions have certainly been ignored in the Queen's Speech.
  The tragedy is that exhortation to the courts by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice and others, has produced only a limited response. Direct action is necessary now to reduce the prison population, otherwise we stand condemned by civilised observers in Europe and elsewhere. First of all, we may indeed need to revert to more legislation on the subject. If I may say so, we on the Opposition side, including the Liberals and noble Lords behind me, did our best in the debate on the Criminal Justice Bill to enable more to be done. But certainly more can be done by executive action by the Home Office now; for example, by the exercise of the Home Secretary's powers of executive release and—whether or not this will need legislation I am not sure—by reducing the parole threshold. The only way to deal with the problem is to reduce the prison population. Building more prisons does no more than make way for the prisons that are now in a state of collapse. It is no answer. Therefore, we shall hope to hear a response to this problem from the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate. There was discussion on an earlier occasion of a code of standards which was to be produced and made available. We should like to know what steps have been taken to bring that about.
  I have turned to sombre themes without apology. In my view, we face a critical phase in the history of our society. To mock at the efforts of those of us who sought, after the war, to set up a new future for our country, does less than justice to my generation, less than justice to the future. If we forget and forego the
  138
  message of compassion that came at that time, we shall regret it. I shall not forget the occasion when the House debated the provision of transport for rural areas, which was carried against the resistance of the Government. My old friend Rab Butler—and he cannot challenge my description now—told me at that time:
  "The trouble with the Tory party is that it has lost its heart".
  If that is so, then the future for the Tory Party is indeed a very bad one.
  3.56 p.m.
  Lord Kennet: My Lords, we on this Bench must reserve our position about the Lord Chancellor's new description of us as "mountaineers" until we have looked into the possibility of an implied analogy with the Mountain in the French Convention of 1789, because I am not sure whether we should accept that or not. In the meantime, mountain or plain, the Alliance parties of course will share his satisfaction in the improved standard of life of the people in his lifetime and in all our lifetimes, and will regret only that it has not been as fast as the improvement in the standard of life of comparable people in other countries.
  We also of course share the horror of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, as regards unemployment, without fully sharing either the diagnosis or the remedies advanced by his party for it. We agree with a great deal of what he said about particular Bills which are coming before this Parliament. The whole House will have been moved and impressed by what he said about the death penalty. Other points which have been raised already will be taken up by later Alliance speakers. The whole House will listen with the greatest expectation and interest to the two maiden speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, my old school contemporary, and the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.
  But before we can logically discuss what the Government intend to do, is it not the case that we ought to take a moment or two to discuss how they got here?
  Until now in British politics, we have been able to discern the meaning of a general election by looking at the Queen's Speech and at the manifesto of the incoming Government party which lies behind it. That party has gone to the people, has stated its intentions, has obtained the approval of the electorate and has been returned to Westminster, and that is that. This time we cannot read the Queen's Speech that way, nor the manifesto which preceded it. The election figures have been well reported, but we must never lose sight of them. The Government received a lower share of the votes cast than they did in 1979. They received a minority of the votes cast and the opposition parties gained a majority. The Conservative Party received 43 per cent. and the opposition parties 54 per cent. We must not mince words at the beginning of a Parliament: the Queen's Speech thus represents the programme of a party which has been rejected in favour of other parties by more than half the voters. In no other West European country could this have happened. In all others the percentage result 43, 28, 26 would have given rise to a coalition or other arrange

  139
  ment among the parties which would, even if roughly, have represented the will of the people.
  In Britain alone does the electoral system make it possible for a party with a minority of the votes cast to stand forth in sole authority in Parliament and to present, without regard to any other party, a programme of its own. We must all hope that the Government remember this when they go abroad, and particularly the Prime Minister, who has said that she is proud to have received the endorsement of the British people. That is precisely what she has not received. Her tendency to confident elation is sometimes justified and valuable, but the Government have not obtained the endorsement of the people; they have a reduced share of the votes, and that reduces their right to speak for Britain abroad.
  These facts are not only well understood in Western countries, where one would expect them to be understood, but also well understood by the Soviet Government, and, it is interesting to see, by so distant an authority as the leader writer of the New Straits Times of Kuala Lumpur.
  The House of Commons does not correctly represent the people. If I say that the degree to which that is now the case is no longer acceptable, I do not mean to brush aside the valiant and unrewarded efforts of campaigners over the last decades for a proper electoral system. The Liberal Party has for long sought a proper system of popular representation. Many of us on this Bench have also done so within the old Labour Party.
  However, the figures themselves tell us of a new urgency. In 1979 the Liberals had 14 per cent. of the vote and 2 per cent. of the seats in the House of Commons. That was a gross distortion all right, but not for all that many people. It was still possible to say, without more than moderate absurdity, "Let them put up with it; 14 per cent. is a reasonable price to pay for the proven virtues of our first-past-the-post system". Now it is no longer the case. Now it is 26 per cent. who have obtained 3½ per cent. of the seats. That is no longer acceptable to any thinking person. I would go further: I do not think it is safe.
  Let us look at what this means in political reality. Behind each Conservative MP there now stand 30,000 people; behind each Labour MP there now stand 40.000 people; and behind each Alliance MP there stand 338,000 people. Parliaments have often been constructed to give some sorts of voters less weight than others, or no weight at all. In the 19th century the democracies of Europe gave people of all sorts more or less weight than others. In various German states, in the Netherlands, in Finland under Russia, in Norway under Sweden, and in Italy, you found examples of votes being weighted according to the voter's occupation—be they clergy, landowners, farmers, and so on—according to their birth (as we still do in this House), according to the extent of their landed or house property, or simply according to their wealth as measured by the tax they paid, or according to whether they lived in town or country and, in one country—Italy—according to whether or not they could read.
  But, of course, between 1899 and 1920 they all introduced proportional representation.
  140
  It also happened in our own Parliament, where at different times tenants, lessees, dependants, all women, young women and even now electors working abroad, have been given no weight in Parliament at all because of their presumed lack of wisdom or importance. It happens in South Africa today that people of different races or race mixtures are given different weights in Parliament.
  This, of course, was all done on purpose. The systems embodied a conscious intention. It remains specifically a modern British problem that we have drifted, without any intention—at least, without any expressed or expressible intention—into weighted voting. This is not weighting on the grounds of class, sex, race or tenure of property; it is weighting on grounds of opinion. The vested inertia of our system has now allotted every voter of the Right 10 times the weight of every centre voter, and every voter of the Left eight times. A system which does that must be compared with those systems of intentional weighting which I have just mentioned.
  We have long given up political discrimination on grounds of class, wealth or sex. That we should now discriminate on grounds of opinion is no less a serious matter because it has happened by inertia rather than by will. Political discrimination is systematic injustice, however it comes about.
  Our system was all right when there were only two opinions—roughly Left and roughly Right. So long as one side got more votes than the other, all agreed that we need not fiddle about with the details, that we should let that side govern. But now there are three sides; and if our democracy is to have the right to claim, and to enforce, the obedience of the people to Parliament, then we must indeed begin to fiddle about with the details.
  What, then, should we do? We may perhaps leave aside certain recent suggestions. One is the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who said that the Alliance should:
  "work hard to gain more seats within the existing rules".
  We now stand at a 10 to 1 loading. I am no statistician, but I think that the existing rules would tolerate up to a 15 to 1 loading against the centre. Would the noble Baroness be happy with that? Then there is the suggestion of Mr. Reg Prentice, who calls on his Conservative colleagues in the Commons to act as a "constructive Opposition" to the Government. At the next election all will be made plain; the Conservatives offer a one-party state; vote Mrs. Thatcher and you get Prentice thrown in free to keep her in order. These suggestions are best regarded as provisional and in need of further discussion.
  In considering the way forward, we in this Chamber should first notice a remarkable new fact. The House of Lords is now, I think for the first time, more representative of the people than is the House of Commons. At the Divisions on amendments to the humble Address last year we voted: Government 115, Labour 44, Alliance 44. In percentage terms that is about 56, 22, 22, which is not too far from the voters' 43, 28, 26. At any rate, it is a great deal nearer than the 61, 32, 3, which shows up in the Commons.
  A particular duty, therefore, devolves on us: not only the normal one imposed on us by our security of

  141
  tenure, which is to put party advantage behind us as far as is humanly possible, but a new one arising from the fact that the Commons are now party advantage institutionalised. They are grave sufferers from the very disease for which only they can enact the cure. Anxiety, even alarm, cannot be confined to the ranks of those who have suffered. I believe there are many here in the Conservative Party and in the Labour Party who can read the signs as well as we do. You do not have to be a martyr to recognise injustice.
  There must, therefore, be an all-party movement in this House as well as in the country to get PR. We know from the most recent opinion poll that a clear majority of the electorate want it. Let us not at this stage spend too much time and energy on debating which of the many systems on offer would suit us best: all would remove the time-bomb constituted by the present skew in representation. Some would have worse side effects than others. We can debate that later. The great thing now is for those who see the danger to come together and start moving.
  Many questions must be answered. Shall it be for the House of Commons first? Shall it be for the European Parliament first, which is actually more urgent, and where we, by our present system, would force injustice on other countries? Shall it be for local government first? Shall it he for all three simultaneously? Should there be a motion debated and voted on first? Or should there be a Bill for a referendum? Or should we go straight to a Bill introducing a new system?
  It would clearly be wrong to rush into action this side of the Summer Recess, but soon after the avalanche should start naturally rolling. We have a new popular understanding of this essential democratic right. We have a new and very welcome group of businessmen led by the noble Viscount, Lord Caldecote, and Sir Graham Wilkins, who want it for the economic and industrial stability which experienced people know has to be achieved. We have the groundwork done over the years by the Liberal Party and by the existing campaigns, one of them led by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech.
  Our preference in the Alliance would be for a referendum held under a referendum Bill. This formula worked for the European Community question. But we shall, of course, come with open minds to the conversations we hope to have with those in the Conservative and Labour Parties and on the Cross-Benches who favour the introduction of proportional representation, and we shall hope to learn from them. My Lords, there is nothing so strong as an idea whose time has come, and there is nothing so dangerous as an injustice against the people denied and brushed out of sight.
  4.13 p.m.
  Lord Quinton: My Lords, in my anxiety to conform my behaviour to the customs and conventions of your Lordships' House I thought it best, in the interests of unprovocativeness, to move in accordance with the promptings of an academic déformation professionelle towards the higher safe ground of abstraction. At the same time this possibly gives rise to expectations of a connected and dangerous aspect of that déformation of which I spoke—the incapacity of persons of long
  142
  academic habit of addressing a group of people for less than 50 minutes at a time. But, in view of the large number of Members of your Lordships' House planning to speak in this debate, I herewith undertake to commit no such atrocity.
  I find it impossible, in rising to make some observations about the gracious Speech, not to give some inkling that it is not an entirely accidental fact that I rise to address your Lordships from this part of the House, but I hope that what I have to say will not be objectionably partisan. It really takes the form of comments on two immediate reactions which the gracious Speech excited. First, that it was, as the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, the mixture as before, and he was not ashamed of that; and secondly—and here I am afraid we have another small French passage—the expression déjà vu was employed.
  So far as the mixture as before is concerned, of course there are conditions of a somewhat intractable kind which require a long drawn-out process of treatment. If I may suggest that our body social has been for a considerable time afflicted by a debility of over-government, it would seem appropriate that that should be treated, not by some miracle of surgery, some instantaneous cure—that is the fantastic ideal behind most projects of violent revolution—but rather by a long and careful procedure of a regular and steadily administered kind—that is of a physiotherapeutic nature—where the congested joints are steadily loosened and the neglected or dried-up blood vessels are rehabituated to a flow of animating liquid.
  As to the other and more brief remark about the contents of the Speech—the programme of parliamentary work outlined in it—that it is déjà vu, what I am going to suggest is that perhaps it has not been vu quite intensely or clearly enough. In the rather terse outline of the programme, there lies embedded, I think, an entirely consistent body of fundamental ideas. Perhaps the most important of these is the fostering and protection of the autonomy of the individual. It would be impertinent of me to do more than briefly remind your Lordships of the history of this remarkable idea.
  To all intents and purposes, it seems to have been invented in Athens two and a half millennia ago. Athens, as someone has remarked, was a town at that time approximately the size of present-day Portsmouth. This notion has, since that time, had its ups and downs, having been somewhat under wraps during the Middle Ages, bursting forth in the Renaissance, undergoing a very thin time indeed in the present century, most terribly and conspicuously of course in the cruder types of totalitarian society where the extinction of individual autonomy is a proclaimed and undisguised object of the régime.
  In our own case, I see it almost as an outcome of wartime exhaustion. Of course a measure of totalitarianism in wartime is not to be objected to, since there is an absolutely unitary public motive driving forward the body social, and the body politic that guides it—a motive which is not to be found, not even reasonably to be expected, in peacetime. Our totalitarianism, or our gentle approximation to it, has

  143
  been a gradual matter of slow ossification. It is the debility that I spoke of a little while ago.
  The legislative programme outlined in the gracious Speech, as I see it, is directed towards protecting the individual, enlivening his autonomy, bringing it to the position it held perhaps a hundred years ago. To this end, five items in the programme command immediate attention. The first is the object of bringing trade unions more under the control of their members so that the trade unions directly serve the interests of the members rather than some perhaps larger and more far-reaching ideological purpose of the official full-time leaders of the unions.
  It is often remarked as a sad thing about our society that we do not have something which exists in the United States—a measure of co-operation between management and workers in a joint conspiracy to enrich themselves together rather than to beat themselves to pieces against one another. This is something difficult to bring about when the primary agendum for a trade union is of a large and broad political nature and not of a limited and industrial variety.
  From trade unions one proceeds directly to house buying. This is something which makes people more flexible. They can move about because they can sell a house much more easily than they can acquire a house through some public authority. It encourages the circulation of people around the community. Also the idea of the proposal to control rate increases aims to leave more money in people's hands for them to spend themselves rather than having it spent for them, often on items which, if they understand what they were, they might be extraordinarily surprised that such things should exist at all. An example would be workshops for curious purposes which I need not develop any further.
  Over and above this, there is the aim of increasing parental choice in schooling, and the fifth of the items that I would mention is that of securing greater value for money from the health service. All these items are directed towards reducing the dependence of people who are not what one might call naturally dependent. Of course there are many people who are naturally dependent because they labour under some extreme disadvantage of circumstance. The trouble with our extremely broadsided method of dealing with it over so many years is that it has turned many people who do not suffer from any specific natural disability of old age or physical or mental handicap into dependent beings. It has caused a kind of infantilism to spread itself amongst the community.
  I stand here as a defender of the consumer society. I want there to be more consumer sovereignty and less state sovereignty. We have around us decaying in our cities great public monuments to the incorrectness of the view that the state always knows best. I am thinking of the tower blocks into which large numbers of our fellow-citizens have been herded and in which they have found it increasingly disagreeable to live.
  I entertain hopes that the sliced factory loaf will soon undergo the same public disapprobation and rejection as the tower block. Already there are signs, even in the most unlikely places—which a certain
  144
  prudishness prevents me from naming because of a slight political implication—of the reappearance of genuinely baked bread in answer to the demand for it.
  This may seem absurd in a way, but there is a great deal to be said for the consumer society. The trouble with it as a phrase is that the idea of consumption suggests eating. "What did you consume?" is a kind of euphemism for a purely material activity, but consumption is what is most important in life. Going out fishing is consumption. Going out fishing in a trawler is production, but going fishing from the side of a stream is consumption. One buys the equipment and what one does with that equipment is an end in itself. One does not mind whether one catches anything. The same is true of art, of philanthropy and of all the activities that are most distinctive and special about human life. Of course, people's work should be enjoyable to them, but, the way things are, few people can have that genuine Ruskinian hope that work is the highest thing in their lives and for few can that be a reality. What work can be is satisfying, agreeable and rewarding to the individual in facilitating his own private individual purposes.
  In closing, I take up just one observation, with which I wholly agree, made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he spoke about the amazingly improved conditions of life for people in this country now compared with the 1930s or further back in the century. The reason for this—perhaps it is impolite of me to say so—is not political activity, but the activity of a number of bright, inventive human beings who have got on with inventing penicillin, television, home electricity, even frozen food, and all sorts of things which enhance the quality of life and have satisfied human needs more cheaply and more easily. What political activity can do is to create the conditions in which that sort of advance takes place. Little can be done directly. That is why I favour what I take to be the underlying principle of the gracious Speech.
  One is naturally tempted to end a set of observations of this kind with a reference to Milton's "Noble and puissant nation rising from its sleep and shaking its invincible locks", but I think that is a little grandiose. So I simply refer to Gulliver as the emblem that I have in mind, awaking in rather curious circumstances to find himself being crawled over by a lot of minute, apparently well-intentioned, excessively busy figures, tying him by hair, ears and fingers to the soil. I hope that by a little heaving and shoving, gently removing the little interfering figures from his surface one by one and separating the strings from his hair so that it is not torn out, leaving horrible, unsightly bald patches, Gulliver will rise up and the innate genius of our community will be able to realise itself more effectively.
  4.25 p.m.
  The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, I count myself fortunate to follow the noble Lord, Lord Quinton. I do not know whether those whose duty it is to arrange this list of speakers appreciate that they have asked a Balliol man to say something about the speech of the President of Trinity. But let me assure the noble Lord that no trace of the traditional

  145
  animosity between the two houses in any way mars my words of appreciation for his maiden speech. I know that your Lordships will join with me in our appreciation for his stimulating, eloquent and enjoyable speech and in saying that we admire his zeal in taking the opportunity to speak so early in his time in your Lordships' House. We look forward eagerly to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
  I wish to speak briefly about one matter referred to in the gracious Speech—namely, the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I am mindful of the many other very important issues which are contained in it and upon which I feel I could properly comment, but I restrict myself to this one, partly for reasons of time and partly because, as the noble and learned Lord Chancellor indicated—and so has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones—so much of what is proposed in the other parts of the gracious Speech depend in the last resort upon our society being under-girded by law and order. Much of what is proposed will be of no avail if that is lacking in our country.
  I think I can speak not only for the Church of England but for the other Churches when I say that we welcome the amendments made in another place. I also wish to take this opportunity of expressing our gratitude for the way in which the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, in his former capacity as Home Secretary, considered the representations which were made to him. We much appreciated the courteous, frank and full replies which he gave to the expressions of our reservations. We were naturally particularly glad of the decision to amend Clause 10 relating to confidential information and documents. We are grateful and believe that this decision will help us to improve our relations with the police, rather than impairing them. Nevertheless, that issue expresses but one aspect of concern about the Bill.
  I would not wish your Lordships to suppose that this matter which affected us personally provided the main substance of our concern about the Bill. We welcome the amendments, though there are still matters to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention this afternoon in the hope that further attention can be given to them by the Government, perhaps before we come to debate the Bill.
  The definitions of "serious arrestable offence" in Clause 74 are a great improvement, but the effect of definitions (a) to (g) is considerably diminished, if not vitiated, by definition (h)—namely, the "prevalence of similar offences". That phrase surely cannot mean offences similar to those listed in (a) to (g), for if it did it would be wholly otiose, because one instance of those would be sufficient to justify the matter being deemed "a serious arrestable offence". Presumably it means the prevalence of a number of similar offences of a different kind to those that are listed there. There is nothing to prevent it being interpreted in that way by a zealous officer in respect of matters of a relatively minor nature.
  I would suggest that Clause 8 does much to vitiate the advantage which has been given us in the earlier definitions. It may be argued that the requirements for stop and search in the first clause of the Bill will prevent abuse of this last subsection of Clause 74; but I doubt it. Might I mention that it is sometimes
  146
  forgotten by the critics of the Bill that, certainly in the metropolitan area, the powers of stop and search have been there since 1839, and in fact the provisions of Clause 1 define and restrict them rather than extend them in an unreserved way. That must be said in fairness to those who believe that the Bill in its present form is right and good.
  I cannot say that I am happy about the provisions for intimate body search without the presence of a doctor, but, and in the light of the discussions which I have had with senior representatives of the police and of what I have learned about the grave problems which are presented by the drug traffic and the problems of drugs, I can understand why this provision is desirable; although I must say that it still gives me a certain concern. I welcome the fact that there is a time limit for the period a person can be detained without charge and that persons must be allowed access to legal representation, but there is a problem here which may lead to difficulties. As a specific time limit is set, there may be real circumstances in which all the allowed time will be used, when in fact, with a sense of urgency, the person could be released or given contact with his family after just a few hours. It is difficult for us at times to realise the grave distress which is caused not only to the person (which, presumably, may be justified, of course) but to his family when he is deprived of contact for any length of time. We have to face the sombre fact that in some areas, to which I shall refer a little later, there is a deep distrust of what happens in police stations, whether it is justified or not; and of that we have to take account in any legislation.
  I must welcome the decision to establish an independent prosecution service, and I can only wish that I were here able to give a similar welcome to proposals for an independent complaints service, which I believe is necessary if confidence and trust between the police and the community is to be encouraged where it exists and to be restored where it has been lost. The problem of this Bill, as I see it, is not how it would be applied by the vast majority of the police throughout the country, but rather how it would be applied by a minority of police in specific parts of the country. The questions raised by the Bill are to do with how it will be applied in Brixton, in Toxteth, in my own diocese in Stoke Newington and in Stepney, and whether the safeguards introduced are sufficient. There are many situations and cases where—one must face it—trust has broken down; and that has then escalated because no one in the local situation has had adequate opportunity of communicating with the public.
  We in the Churches have time—certainly in London; and I know it has been done elsewhere—to build up a network to foster and develop relations between the police and the local community. We shall continue to do that to our utmost. I readily admit that there are groups at work in the community whose ambition it is to divide the police from the community. But they can only aggravate and feed upon the existing distrust and it is, I believe, absolutely essential that everything be done to try to remove that distrust and to foster the right relationship.
  I do not wish in any way to minimise the demands which the police have to face. I was astonished yesterday when I was speaking to the Metropolitan Commis-

  147
  sioner and he told me—and I am sure he is an honourable and truthful man—that the deployable force at his command at the moment, when the number of offences in the metropolitan area is 700,000 a year, is still the same as it was when they numbered 70,000. If that be so (and, as I say, I have his word for it) it indicates something of the pressure which is being put on our police forces, especially in the metropolitan area, of which alone I can speak with first-hand knowledge. For the reasons I have given, I must welcome the provisions in Clause 67 providing for consultative bodies although I would wish that the provisions there could be more specific.
  It is, I believe, important to ensure that all parties who take part in such consultations come with, as it were, a proper degree of autonomy and independence. For them to be there, as it were, merely at the invitation of the police does not help initially to create the right kind of sense of responsibility which should be felt by consultative bodies. It is easy, if one is in a position of selecting those whom one wishes to consult, to select those who are likely to be favourably disposed towards one's own views.
  My Lords, I believe that these points need to be considered if in fact the two aims, which I accept are behind this Bill, are to be achieved: namely, the aim of enabling the police to do their job with greater efficiency and to secure a reduction in crime and the maintenance of law and order; and, at the same time, to do that in the best possible relationship to the community and with the support of the community, which is essential for any good policing.
  4.38 p.m.
  Lord Ogmore: My Lords, this is the first time that I have spoken in your Lordships' House. I do so with temerity and a certain nervousness, but I hope that your Lordships will give me a sympathetic hearing as is the practice with maiden speakers. I follow in the footsteps of my father who, as your Lordships know, was a dedicated parliamentarian and one who, I believe, had a gift for speaking eloquently and knowledgeably in your Lordships' House. I can only hope that my contributions to your Lordships' debates will, in some way, begin to measure up to his standards. I was interested to see that education was mentioned in the gracious Speech and I wish to say a few words on this subject. I declare an interest in it, as I have two daughters in a Church of England comprehensive school.
  I hope that Her Majesty's Government will continue to maintain their commitments to the state system as well as being committed to private education. Standards must be maintained or even, where possible, improved. I also think that teachers should have the opportunity to attend refresher courses periodically throughout their careers. This should have the two-fold advantage of keeping them up to date with modern methods and maintaining the zest for teaching which I know they had after completing their teaching courses at university.
  As a parent, one of the most difficult things to decide is the choice of schools, both primary and secondary. I would not wish to forgo this freedom. I remember a
  148
  good friend of mine, who for many years was a headmaster at a primary school, telling me that a good way of knowing whether a school was any good was to wait outside the school when it closed for the day and watch the pupils leaving for home. If they were cheerful, full of zest and well behaved then, nine times out of ten, it was a good school. My friend maintained a discipline, and there was a happy understanding between him and his pupils, who, for the most part, behaved themselves admirably. Surely, this is the kind of atmosphere that we want in schools. There must be some tolerance and yet a firmness, so that things do not get out of hand.
  I should also like to see adult education continue to flourish. I know of people who have returned to education in their adult life after, perhaps, achieving very little during their school years. They then, several years later, achieved remarkable results, gaining degrees and O and A levels of the General Certificate of Education. This can only be to everyone's advantage, but I think that a lot depends on the tutors who can instil in them the necessary desire to learn. I look forward with interest to hearing more about the Government's proposals for educational improvements.
  4.41 p.m.
  Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I believe that it was in January 1982 that the Procedure Committee issued a report calling your Lordships' attention to the fact that, if there were comments to be made following a maiden speaker, they should be left only to the Peer who followed the maiden speaker. My recollection is that that was no new departure. There had been a previous report some years before on the same matter, but the attention of the House was called to it in order to save time—certainly in long debates.
  So it falls to me to make reference—and I do so very gladly—to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore. Many of us knew his father. Many of us would have liked to see him on this side of the House, instead of with the Liberals. But the fact is that he was an independent person; he had a mind of his own; he did what he thought he ought to do, and one cannot quarrel with that at any time. It is delightful to find that his son is now in your Lordships' House sitting with the Liberal Party and, I imagine from what he said, prepared to carry on his father's tradition. I say to the noble Lord, on behalf of all noble Lords present today, that we congratulate him on his maiden speech. It had many merits, which I shall not take up the time of the House in enumerating. All I would say is that we hope to see him as often as he can attend your Lordships' House, and we hope, in the light of what we have heard today, that he will not hesitate to take part in those debates which are close to his heart.
  I shall not say very much about the Speech from the Throne. It does not depart very much, if at all, from the practice of the Government over the last four years. It merely shows the Government's determination to carry on with the same kind of policies. I want to say that I deplore that when one considers the deplorable effect that they have had on sections of the community, particularly those sections which are less able to look after themselves. I believe—and I have said so in your Lordships' House

  149
  on more than one occasion—that the Government's policies have been a successful prescription for those who are better off in the community, and certainly not for those who are struggling to keep their heads above water.
  Reference was made in your Lordships' House this afternoon to the comparison of life today with life many years ago. But let me say, with the greatest respect, that that is no comparison at all. What we have to do is to compare the lives led today by some people with the lives led by others. When people suggest to me that in the past four years this Government have measured up to their responsibilities, I want to ask why it is that in 1979 one person in five was living in, or on the margins of, poverty, while today the figure is 11 million. I have no reason to doubt the figures that I have been given, but twice as many people are today living in, or on the margins of, poverty compared with 1979. So I do not accept that the Government have discharged their responsibilities to those people in the community who need help most of all.
  The only other reference that I want to make to the Speech from the Throne is to the sentence which reads:
  "My Government will pursue policies designed to increase economic prosperity and to reduce unemployment"
  —almost the same words as were used in 1979. Has that promise been discharged? On the contrary, there are twice as many unemployed people today as there were when the Government took over in 1979. So, whatever we do, let us be honest about this.
  I am not unmindful of the difficulties which Governments encounter, and which this Government encountered from 1979 to 1983. But do not let us have another manifesto which states that that is the intention of the Government when, in fact, they went out of office having made things a jolly sight worse for an increaing number of people. I do not deny that the Government are entitled to feel satisfied with the result of the election. It may well be that we in the Labour Party got what we asked for; I do not know. It may have a very salutary effect—and I hope it does—on the Labour Party.
  The present Government are extremely elated about what they have achieved, but let us look at that. I can improve on the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Do they really have a mandate from the people? Of those who voted, 42 per cent. voted for the Conservative Party, but there were nearly 58 per cent. who voted against the Conservative Party. If you take into account the fact that only 72.7 per cent. of those who were entitled to vote in fact voted and that 27.3 per cent. did not bother to vote at all for any party, your Lordships will see that about 30 per cent. of the total electorate voted for the Conservative Party. I accept that an even lower number voted for the other two main parties, but when we talk about having a mandate from the people let us be quite clear what we are saying. It is not a mandate from the people as a whole: it is a mandate from less than 30 per cent.
  Your Lordships may wonder why I am spending a little time on this aspect. It is for the simple reason that I feel that, when a Government are in office on the votes of such a small percentage of the electorate, they need to pause from time to time and consider whether
  150
  they are doing the right thing. One of the things which has annoyed my friends and me during the last four years has been the intransigence of the Conservative Administration. From time to time, it has refused to listen to reason and has ridden roughshod over suggestions which we have made.
  I want to say to noble Lords opposite that for the first time for many years I believe that Government supporters in this House have a duty to watch very carefully what Bills mean when they come here. It has been said in the other place by Conservative Members of Parliament that they must provide their own opposition to their own Government in order that there shall be really good, reasonable legislation. I believe the same applies in this House, where there is a considerable, built-in Tory majority. I believe it is important for Members on the Government side to watch very carefully the content of the legislation that is put before them. We on this side of the House are very conscious that, time and time again, we have suffered because Ministers have listened and then have completely ignored our suggestions, which have generally been considered to he good suggestions. I want to refer to one particular incident in which I was involved, together with a number of Members from all sides of your Lordships' House.
  On 13th December 1982, some six of seven months ago, I initiated a debate on the Government's intention to reduce the starting salary of probation officer trainees by £1,000. That will be news to most noble Lords who are here today, because they were not there. About five or six noble Lords on the Government side were present during the debate. A decision had been taken by the Home Office to reduce the starting salary of probation officer trainees from £4,551 to £3,551 per annum. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, had the unfortunate task of replying to the debate. We did not see eye to eye on that occasion, nor during the steps which many of us have taken since. The fact is that, during the debate, speakers from all sides of the House, each having personal, practical knowledge of what they were talking about, made not the slightest impression upon the Government. We were told. "There is no problem about getting probation officer recruits". Of course there is no problem when there are nearly 4 million people unemployed. But is that the yardstick you use for determining starting salaries? Is it not the job which should determine what starting salaries must be?
  Subsequently, several of us went to the Home Office, where we saw the junior Minister, who could not have been more helpful, more concerned or more considerate. We had with us the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who for several years was Permanent Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office. There is probably nobody in your Lordships' House who has closer, deeper or greater experience of the Home Office than the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale. We had with us, too, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Nobody in your Lordships' House will doubt that he is an expert on this subject, having been president—and, I may say, an active, working president—for many years of the National Association of Probation Officers. As your Lordships know, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was also chairman of the Parole Board for some time. We also had with us the

  151
  noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I do not have to tell your Lordships about his qualifications, ability and experience. We had others with us, too.
  The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, took part in the debate. For many years he was—I was going to say the supreme commander of the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders. Few people know more about the probation service than does the noble Lord. We had with us also the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, who is a Recorder and who is known to most of your Lordships.
  It did not matter what we said. It was like water off a duck's back. We were listened to, but nothing was done. The amount involved was £90,000. Noble Lords will be told that the amount involved was £300,000. It was £300,000 because the reduction of the starting salary had repercussions on the higher salaries. However, we were concerned about preventing the starting salary reduction of £1,000 a year for probation officer trainees. That comes to about £90,000. All we were told was, "These are difficult times and we have got to make our contribution". If that is the thinking and the attitude of the Home Office, the sooner there is an inquiry into how the Home Office is run, and by whom it is run, the better, because I have very grave doubts—no, perhaps I had better not continue.
  I informed the Leader of your Lordships' House that was going to raise this matter. I saw him last week. He encouraged me to do so, if I may use the word "encouraged". It is my word, not the word of the Leader of the House. He knew that I was going to raise this matter and I make no accusation about or criticism of him. Those of us who have been departmental Ministers—albeit, in my case, a very junior Minister—know that things happen which perhaps ought not to happen. Sometimes I wonder whether decisions are made and are communicated to Ministers at a later date. I may be quite wrong about that, so far as this matter is concerned. However, the point I am trying to make is that I believe that a responsibility is placed upon this House in particular. It is supposed to be a reforming Chamber. In the best sense of the word, it is supposed to be an advisory Chamber. This House ought to fulfil that function more. Therefore, I invite noble Lords opposite, in view of the fact that there is such a numerically strong Government in the other place, to watch legislation very carefully.
  If I may return to the point which exercises my mind, the starting salary of probation officer recruits, an Early Day Motion was put down in the other place by Mr. Charles Irving, who is a very distinguished member of the Conservative Party. I have known Mr. Charles Irving for a good many years and I have great regard and esteem for the work he has done in the field of delinquency. His Early Day Motion was as follows:
  "That this House is astonished and disturbed by the decision of the Home Secretary to cut the rates of pay of trainee probation officers: finds it impossible to reconcile this decision with the Government's declared support for the Probation Service as an integral part of the Criminal Justice System, in particular at a time of critical prison overcrowding and is greatly concerned to protect the future of the Probation Service and alarmed that the future must
  152
  be jeopardised by reducing the pay of its recruits by as much as 25 per cent."
  We shall not see any real improvement in the treatment of delinquents or in the care and supervision of delinquents unless we have an adequate probation service. People go to prison, and when they come out on parole they are supervised by a probation officer. In the case of prisoners who are released early because of good conduct, many of them come under the supervision of a probation officer. There are 10 different kinds of supervision involving probation officers, ranging from those in detention centres to long-term prisoners.
  We shall not be able to deal with this problem if we have a disgruntled probation service. I am sure your Lordships will take it from me when I say that I have never known the probation service to be so aggrieved and so cross as they are at the present moment. I believe that much can be done by your Lordships, when legislation comes before this House, to make clear your own feelings and not allow matters to go by default.
  5.2 p.m.
  Lord O'Neill of the Maine: My,' Lords, I should like first to welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw has become our new Leader. We are most fortunate in this. When the history of these times comes to be written, I believe it will be granted that no one made a greater effort to achieve something in Northern Ireland than he did. It is not his fault that he did not succeed.
  Secondly, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said that he was going to make some remarks which were nevertheless connected. I am afraid, with less abilities than him, that my remarks will be totally disconnected—but I should nevertheless like to make them.
  I was disappointed with the very short reference to Northern Ireland in the Queen's Speech. The most important aspect there is industrial development—and there is no mention of that whatsoever. At the same time, I was slightly alarmed—and I will hand the press cutting I have to my noble friend Lord Elton when I have finished making my few remarks—to read that the Public Accounts Committee was trying to stop the building of the great new bridge in Derry. I happen to know that the origins of that bridge are entirely due to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw. When he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland he had sufficient clout in the Cabinet to hit the noble Lord, Lord Barber, over the head and extract the large sum of money necessary to build that bridge. I hope that this is merely the view of MPs on the Public Accounts Committee and that in fact the bridge will still continue.
  Derry has for many years been a deprived city. One of the achievements of the Northern Ireland Government was the large industrial estate at Maydown, where Du Pont made their first European investment and today employ about three-quarters Romar Catholic workers. It will be a great boost to Derry if the building of the bridge continues. It will assist the flow of traffic between Derry and Donegal, and those two areas were cut off from each other by the Settlement after the First World War.

  153
  I believe that I have said enough to draw attention to this matter and I shall be grateful if my noble friend is able to say something in his remarks at the end of this debate. I fear that I might not be here if the debate continues until it is very late; but this is an important matter and one that must raise anxious queries in Northern Ireland. Even if the Government have made a Statement which I have not seen, there would be no harm in having it repeated in your Lordships' House tonight.
  My second totally disconnected remark relates to something more homely; the pound in our pockets. I wonder whether the Government realise the resistance there is to using the new £1 coin. It is sham gold, but when one views it by artificial light, it turns into sham silver. It is very heavy both for the pocket and the purse. When one remembers that the Americans are perfectly happy to have a dollar—which is worth considerably less than a pound—in the form of a dollar bill, I wonder whether it is really necessary for us to have this heavy coin, which I understand is not being at all appreciated. Again, perhaps that is something which my noble friend might be kind enough to comment upon when he is winding up.
  Lastly, because I have been knocking around in one political world or another for some considerable time, I should like to offer a word of caution. I remember well being in New York in 1959 when the results of Mr. Macmillan's general election came through. He had doubled the majority left to him by Sir Anthony Eden. His first term of premiership had been brilliantly successful, dealing with the aftermath of Suez and one thing or another—but from that moment on, trouble poured in from all directions. I hope the Government will appreciate that a majority even larger than that which Mr. Macmillan achieved for his second Administration may present problems and that caution is necessary.
  Finally, I will not make a speech—as I have done several times—about how desirable it will he one day to change our electoral system. Nevertheless, a European election will be facing the Government before too long, and I hope that the United Kingdom will not he the only European country to fight that election on a non-proportional basis.
  5.13 p.m.
  Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I should first like to apologise to the noble Lord the Minister and to your Lordships because I fear that I may have to leave before the end of this debate. I will, however, read Hansard with great interest tomorrow to learn what the Minister said. I understand that I am no longer allowed to congratulate maiden speakers but I wish to associate myself very strongly with the remarks of my noble friend. I also very much enjoyed listening to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; but nevertheless felt that perhaps part of what he said did rather confirm his own point that it is difficult to win gracefully.
  I will not make a long speech, but wish to put forward one or two ideas. First, it would seem only right to recollect the economic background against which we must judge the offerings in the gracious Speech. Indeed, how else can we judge whether the measures contained in it are the right measures and the
  154
  relevant measures or not? Vital statistics of British economic life have been put forward many times by Government critics and they are well known. Moreover, they are the subject of tomorrow's debate—whereas our concern today is to measure the effects of these statistics in human terms.
  To my mind, there can be no doubt that unemployment and recession, together with Government social policies, have brought in their wake the return of poverty to many of Britain's families. There is undoubted proof that many of the changes which the Government have made to our society have led to the number of families caught in the poverty trap doubling since 1979. It must be right to say that in the gracious Speech there is absolutely nothing about the poor and the need to alleviate their poverty. It says nothing about the need to narrow the gap between the stricken North of England and the relatively well-to-do South; nothing about the ethnic minorities and the need to end their increasing alienation from society; nothing about the inner cities and the need to end the decay and deprivation which is common there. Surely, my Lords, these are the real problems of today. But instead the gracious Speech contains a great number of irrelevant economic measures mainly about privatisation in pursuit of party doctrine. It must be true to say that privatisation is not going to do one single thing to help those fundamental problems, not one single thing to help these human tragedies. All it will do is make big business bigger or make the rich even richer through stock market killings.
  The gracious Speech contains reference to,
  "the right of certain public sector and other tenants to buy their homes".
  There can be no doubt that bad housing is one of the fundamental causes of deprivation. So to extend the possibilities of home ownership, while satisfying the natural and justifiable wish of so many to own their own houses, does nothing to counter that particular source of deprivation. In fact, the very opposite; for once the balance of the country's housing stock is lost through tempting too many tenants to buy, it can only mean there will be insufficient accommodation for those who through financial necessity are forced into low-rent housing. It is clear for all to see that the housing queues for such low-rent accommodation are growing in certain parts of the country.
  So there is surely unequivocal proof that the gracious Speech contains nothing to redress the balance between the well-off and the badly-off. There is nothing that will bring about a lowering of unemployment with the consequent liberation of those families from the poverty trap. There is nothing to provide realistic assistance to one-parent families, who now number one in seven families in the country and whose children have been identified as the least privileged in the land. And there is nothing that will make an attack on the poverty which is felt by so many of our old age pensioners. So in this respect it is as if the gracious Speech were a confirmation that Government policies in recent years have been deliberately moving towards the American pattern of a polarised society with much more extreme inequality, and that this inequality is indeed being seen as necessary in order to stimulate initiative and change.

  155
  There are many others on these Benches who are better qualified than I to make suggestions as to how to help that movement. Therefore, I should like very briefly to touch on one aspect which I find very relevant, and that is regarding the present tax and benefit system operating in this country. I think it would be fair to say that there is general agreement as to the need for reform but little agreement as to the direction that reform should take. It is for that reason that I would urge the Secretary of State for Social Services and the noble Minister opposite to take heed of the report of the investigation of the structure of income taxation and income support carried out recently by the House of Commons Treasury and Civil Service Committee, which was published earlier this month.
  The subject is obviously such a very complex one that I would not wish to go into it in any detail, but simply put forward one or two of the points which in my view seem to be very relevant. First, the report stressed the failure of social insurance to achieve its stated objectives. Thirty-five years after its introduction the national insurance system still does not prevent widespread dependence on means-tested benefits, for many of which the rate of take-up is relatively low. Child benefit has not prevented the persistence of poverty among families, and we now have more than 6 million people at or below supplementary benefit level. Furthermore, increased reliance on means testing has led to the problem of the "poverty trap", or the high marginal tax rates on additional earnings faced by those on means-tested benefits. The main culprit supposedly is the family income supplement. Yet there is little clearcut evidence that the incentive to work had been undermined in this way. But, as the report notes:
  "it is impossible to believe that there is not widespread resentment, confusion, frustration and cynicism"
  resulting from the workings of the present system.
  The report made the point that one reform should not be considered independently of others and that any final reform of the system should be seen in terms of a co-ordinated programme in which each element is designed taking account of other changes. Another feature of the report, which I found of very great importance, was that the effects of the different reforms should be analysed using a sample of actual families. All too often tax and social security policy is discussed in terms of hypothetical families without regard to how representative they are of the actual population. Indeed it was shown that such hypothetical families in the Department of Health and Social Security tax/benefit model tables, widely used in answering Parliamentary Questions, correspond in broad terms to only 4 per cent. of actual families when taking into account family composition, housing circumstances and sources of other income. So, I do think that one of the priorities facing the Minister must be to take note of this important part of injustice and irrelevance which is represented by so much in our tax and benefit system.
  Finally, on a completely different point, I should like to say a few words about the final clause in the gracious Speech, which reads as follows:
  156
  "In Northern Ireland, my Government will continue to give the highest priority to upholding law and order."
  No one could have a higher regard than I for the work of the security forces in Northern Ireland—for the Chief Constable himself, and for the British Army which is stationed there—and it is because of this regard that I am very concerned at the support which appears to be given to the movement for reintroducing capital punishment for terrorist murders.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has already spoken about this matter, but I do feel so personally concerned with this question that I should like to add to what he has said. I do not wish to go into the moral arguments against hanging, nor do I wish to go into what I consider the highly retrogressive nature of bringing this whole issue back into the national debate just at a time when all other Western European countries—also, after all, affected by rising crime waves—have put it behind them. I should merely like briefly to put forward a few points which prove, I should have thought, unequivocally that hanging terrorists, far from creating a deterrent, would also make the task of the security forces, both in Northern and in Southern Ireland, more difficult.
  First, from the point of view of deterrence, surely it must be agreed that those who starve themselves to death, who run a daily risk of death through their own activities, and for whom all respect for human life has had to be suppressed, would not be in the least deterred by the re-introduction of capital punishment. Secondly, from the point of view of the fight against terrorism, many senior Army and police officers in Northern Ireland have been opposed to capital punishment on the grounds that, critically dependent as they are on evidence from the public to bring about convictions, they fear that the restoration of the death penalty might deter many witnesses from giving them this vital information.
  Furthermore, success in defeating terrorism demands the alienation of the community from the terrorist, and the creation of a new generation of martyrs would undoubtedly bring about the very opposite effect. I think it is important to remember that this would apply equally to Southern Ireland, containing, as it does, so many potential recruits to the para-militaries. The Irish security services there would indeed find it impossible to contain the great surge of support to the banner of the Provisional IRA which would undoubtedly follow the execution of even one single Provisional at the hands of the British.
  Finally, purely from the point of view of justice as we know it, it must be unthinkable to impose the death penalty specifically on those who have not had the opportunity of a jury trial, as is the case in Northern Ireland under the necessary existence of the Emergency Provisions Act. So I can only hope that the Back-Benchers of the Government party in the other place will remember those practical points and not allow natural feelings of retribution or revenge to influence their decision. If they do, and thereby bring about the restoration of capital punishment for Irish terrorists, that could prove only to be an inspiration to the para-military cause and not a deterrent. It would bring in its wake untold violence and suffering to many innocent British and Northern Irish people.
  5.20 p.m.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, I was very happy when both the proposer and the seconder of the humble Address mentioned Northern Ireland in their speeches. It is a pleasure to see the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, in her place today. The noble Duke, the Duke of Norfolk, said that he thought injustice and discrimination against the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland had been ended. I fear he may have been just a little too sweeping in his remarks. Of course, much has been done to improve the situation since 1969, but the reports of the Fair Employment Agency, the record of some local authorities and the uneven impact of unemployment on the two sections of the community show that there is still a great deal to be done. I trust that the Government will not forget that. Perhaps I may now take the opportunity—I think I speak for all—of giving our very best wishes to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, as he takes up his new responsibilities in the Northern Ireland Office.
  As an Englishman, I acknowledge our inherited responsibility for many of the wrongs of Ireland. Gladstone, Asquith, Balfour, and Lloyd George in their day did much to repair the damage done by such things as the penal laws, the Ascendency, and the economic superiority of Britain. Those statesmen worked very hard, but, alas, some injustices continued in Northern Ireland. In Britain we were largely either ignorant or indifferent to this until 1969. I therefore apologise for the connivance of my ancestors in politics and policies which divided and ruled. I regret their indifference to human misery and I am sorry that it took me until almost the age of 40 to become interested in these matters.
  To say such things is not to justify in any way nationalist, republican or any other kind of violence. It does not mean that I agree with abstentionism either in the 1920s or at present. I trust that my remarks may pave the way towards mutual forgiveness and may perhaps help the English to look more sympathetically at the historical record. If they should by any chance move some Unionists to admit that there are very considerable problems and move some Nationalists to engage in political dialogue, I shall be more than happy.
  We are faced at present with two and sometimes three or more different and separate cultures in one geographical area. We are also faced with more than one political and religious tradition. In this plural situation, I believe it is our duty—the duty of all of us—to seek accommodation between points of view that are legitimately different.
  That is why today I should like to look at a story of success in most difficult circumstances. I refer to the Londonderry Public and Police Liaison Committee. This committee came into being in December 1970 as a result of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on the police in Northern Ireland. In paragraph 139 of his report, the noble Lord wrote:
  "We found that the representatives of moderate opinion were anxious that a proper relationship between police and public should be created in Derry."
  158
  It then fell to the Londonderry Development Commission to establish this new committee. Its terms of reference were:
  "To provide a formal medium for consultation between the public and the police with a view to achieving the fullest measure of co-operation between them at all times,"
  The commission appointed non-elected and non-party political members broadly representative of the whole community. In 1974, after the reorganisation of local government, some councillors joined the committee. The committee now has a membership of 14: six councillors, seven local community representatives and the Divisional Commander of the Royal Ulster Constabulary's "N" Division, which covers the City of Derry and the immediate surrounds. All five electoral areas are represented, including such areas of possible tension as the Bogside and Shantallow.
  I mention these details because the presence of a senior police officer and of people known for their concern for the good of the community has probably been essential to the survival and success of this committee, through bad times and better times. The privacy and confidential access by the members of the committee to the Divisional Commander has played a major part, in addition to the regular monthly meetings. There have also been local meetings at police sub-stations as a devolution from the main committee. The latter have dealt with all kinds of police and security issues and proved more than just a complaints committee. There is very much a two-way channel of communication. For example, the relatives of arrested people can contact members of the committee, who are also used when the police want a complainant to see a particular police officer.
  It is, of course, a weakness that the SDLP and the Irish Independence Party have never nominated councillors to serve on the committee. Here one can only hope and look for a change in attitude. However, the position in Derry is a great deal better than in Belfast, where there is only one committee serving the whole of a much larger city. In Belfast, the committee also lacks community representatives.
  I therefore ask the Government to study the record of the Derry committee, which had the good fortune of having the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as its godfather and an impartial commission as its parent. Will the current RUC review of local security committees and police liaison committees consider whether the title, composition and procedures of the Derry committee should not be applied much more widely across Ulster? In particular, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, to initiate in the Home Office a review of this matter so that principles that have been tested for 13 years in Northern Ireland might also be applied with great benefit in Britain.
  In our cities in Britain we have seen too many riots, too many deaths in police custody, and we have too little fully applied community policing, for there to be any reason for complacency. I submit that we need to learn from wherever we can both in Britain and in Ireland. As has been said earlier today, good policing is critically important for civilised life, particularly in the cities. In areas of tension, it can make or mar community relations. Let us therefore examine the achievements of Derry just as we do those of, for instance, Handsworth or Exeter.
  5.29 p.m.
  Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in opening this part of the debate invited us to commiserate with the Minister, my noble friend Lord Elton, who is to reply at the end of the debate, because of the different subjects that are bound to be canvassed in it. I am going to switch rather starkly from the previous speakers speaking about Ireland and hanging and refer to other matters concerning law reform.
  It was 120 years ago, in 1864, when old Lord Palmerston was asked what was going to be in the Queen's Speech and the extent of the legislative programme that he had in mind, that he replied, "Oh, there's really nothing to be done. We can't go on adding to the statute book ad infinitum. Perhaps we can have a little law reform, but we can't go on legislating for ever". That was nonchalant old "Pam", whom Dizzy a little earlier, your Lordships will remember, described, however, as "ginger beer, not champagne" and "old painted pantaloon". Nevertheless I believe that "Pam" had a point, especially with regard to law reform and especially at the start of a new Parliament. But it does provide a great opportunity to tackle some of the urgent problems which are arising in the administration of the law.
  With the present Cabinet, which has, apart from the Lord Chancellor, three leading members—the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and the Chief Secretary—all of whom are distinguished lawyers, I should have thought that ought to be a quartet able to squeeze out of the Government business managers sufficient parliamentary time for a really substantial programme of law reform. I do not mean revolution in the law but energetic and realistic advances and improvements, especially in the administration and procedure of the courts.
  I know that this is of little attraction to the professional politician, yet it is very often of very great importance to the citizen, and it is not healthy for society to live with a complex and confused statute book or with overworked and understaffed courts and with fields of law which patently require change. With regard to law reform, in the gracious Speech, apart from the hangover from last Session of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (which I shall come to and in respect of which I think there has been a lot of distortion and unfair comment), as I understand it, the only real suggestion for law reform this Session is the improvement in family law.
  The United Kingdom parliamentary system is not the most apt to afford clear and precise law making. In my view it is excellent for debate, for the questioning of Ministers and for demonstrating grievances, but I suggest that its weakness lies in the manner of making law. I personally am not convinced that the maintenance of the adversarial system across the Chamber throughout the whole of the legislative process is the best way. There should be, in my view, certainly at some stage, more round table discussion. On that, having served for 23 years in another place, it certainly satisfied me that for law making to have only a single Chamber—as was proposed by noble Lords opposite in their manifesto—with the legislature
  160
  organised as it at present is, would be totally impossible for a coherent law making body. I leave apart, if you did have this one single all-powerful Chamber, the dangers to an independent judiciary and the dangers from its unilateral power to prolong a Parliament's life. A second Chamber is imperative. But I trust that real thought and study, if not decision, at official levels should be made to ensure that this does continue, because we shall not be forgiven if we leave it too late.
  The process of good law making and administration is also not improved by the division of responsibility between the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's department: the anomalies whereby the Home Office is responsible for criminal law, and even legal aid in magistrates' courts, and the Lord Chancellor for the civil law and legal aid generally. We have to appreciate that the Lord Chancellor's department is now a major spending department of state. From the Supply Estimates for the year ending 31st March 1984, the gross provision for the administration of justice in England and Wales comes to £174.3 million; legal aid is some £324 million—a far cry from the days when the Lord Chancellor's office was an agreeable place, where a few gentlemen discussed which of their friends should be recommended for appointment to the score or so judgeships and, as an alternative, they decided which banquet they should despatch their Lord Chancellor to speak at.
  Now the administration of justice, the provision of courts and the supply of good judges is of great demand. It has always, and still does, go to the very heart of the duty of a state. It has to receive adequate resources. It is not sufficient to supply funds to the police unless it is matched with sufficient and proper expenditure on the courts and the law. This is a Government who hold themselves out as dedicated to providing an efficient system of law and order, and that demands great attention and great resources towards the administration of justice.
  First, there is the provision of the courts: more courts of the right kind and not the vast palaces which were established, for instance, at Winchester. I remember when I was Attorney-General going with the then Director of Public Prosecutions to look around that vast building, with its enormous great corridors behind the courts. It was a tremendous waste of space and totally unnecessary. Now if you go to somewhere like the fresh courts in Fetter Lane you see courts of adequate and sensible size. But more are required.
  Then there are judges: those who sit and preside in those courts. There has been a vast increase, especially in the lower judiciary. When I first began to practise at the bar, the Central Criminal Court in 1946 was, I think, staffed by four; now I think there are at least 26. But there are demonstrably too few judges in the superior courts, especially in the Court of Appeal. As a result, it is necessary constantly to use part-time-duty retired judges, especially in the Court of Appeal. Of course, they are distinguished and experienced judges who have given, and still give, very good service, but in principle surely that is not satisfactory. Parliament has laid down a retiring age for judges of 75—although there are greatly loved and much admired exceptions. There always will be, and perhaps ought to be.

  161
  Nevertheless, where a retiring age is laid down, is the part-time recall of those judges to serve in the Court of Appeal right? I appreciate that it is presently impossible to man the Court of Appeal and deal with the business of the Court of Appeal without the help of those retired judges, but it is a defect of the system and surely there should be sufficient full-time judges to cope with the business. The Master of the Rolls should be given sufficient judges to staff his important court.
  I also trust that the heads of division are given really adequate administrative back-up and help. We are fortunate to have an energetic and very highly regarded Lord Chief Justice, but he must be under tremendous pressure combining the judicial and the administrative work.
  With regard to the junior appointments, in the system of appointing deputy judges and assistant recorders it is essential to afford the opportunity for people to be tested for their judicial qualities; but who gives the reports thereon to see whether they have displayed sufficient and proper judicial qualities? There is some anxiety at the Bar over this. Apart from being a law officer, I had the good fortune to have the experience of being leader of a circuit and chairman of the whole Bar of England and Wales. I believe that help might be obtained—and perhaps this ought to be examined by the Lord Chancellor—by having official committees of circuits reporting to leaders of circuits, who could officially pass that on to the Lord Chancellor. It is better than the suspicion that there is some sort of back-stage reporting upon these temporary and assistant judges as to their judicial qualities.
  I come now to juries and the vital role that they play in the maintaining of the criminal law. I am not satisfied that sufficient attention is everywhere paid to their guidance, their interest and their convenience. Unfortunate accounts are given of lack of organisation when they are summoned to arrive, naturally in a state of some bewilderment, in ignorance of their duties. But there is a lack of system. In court the judges treat them certainly with sensible understanding, but greater attention should be given by the administrators to see that jurors are properly treated when they report for duty and that their duties are properly explained to them by somebody with sufficient official knowledge so that they can carry them out properly. I ask, why is no juries Bill referred to in the Queen's speech? We had considerable debate on the matter in the last Session. Do we not want to exclude from juries those who have previously been convicted?—because they certainly ought to be excluded.
  With regard to civil juries, I should like, if I may, to mention a matter in which I was personally involved with counsel. It was a case in which there were six months of evidence and 100 witnesses were called. A jury heard the evidence and added the rider that the movement upon which it was making a decision was a political organisation, not a religious one. That was the decision of the jury, having heard all the evidence, and having sat for that length of time. But apparently the state of charities law is such that it has not been possible to take any action. Clearly there is here the need for an inquiry with a view to bringing about serious reform.
  162
  I now turn to the question of the prosecuting authority which is to be introduced. During the election campaign there has been much distortion in regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, as well as grossly unfair reflections upon my noble friend the Leader of the House in regard to when he was Home Secretary, and on the present Solicitor-General. As I understood it, the Bill's object, following the recommendation of the Royal Commission, was to rationalise powers, many of which are presently enjoyed, and even to reduce some, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London has pointed out. The Bill is also to deal with the controversial Judges' Rules. It included the recommendation regarding an independent prosecuting service. Personally I am not attracted to a local prosecuting service. I fear that a shadow of local politics could hang somewhere over such a proposal. I should prefer an extension of the Director of Public Prosecutions system, by having regional directors answerable to the director, who is in turn answerable to the Attorney-General. I accept that that would change and enlarge the office of the director, but I believe that it is important to organise the matter in that way and retain the link with the Director of Public Prosecutions, who is answerable to the Attorney-General. This is the most important part of the Attorney-General's role.
  I know, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, knows, of the constant demands that a Cabinet and Government make on an Attorney-General to engage in the advisory parts of his duties. He is of course counsel to the Cabinet. But it is important to recollect that his most important duty is that of responsibility for prosecutions. I am glad that the proposal to move the chambers of the Attorney-General from the Law Courts to Whitehall has been rejected. Similarly, the appearance of Law Officers in court, representing the Crown, is of such vital importance. They are the counsel for the Crown, and the prosecutor. They should appear in the superior appellate courts, and in the circuit courts wherever possible.
  I believe that in Scotland there has been a suggestion for a pilot scheme for a public defender. I am not sure about that. The great strength of the United Kingdom system is that, with few exceptions, advocates participate by way of both prosecuting and defending. In my view, that creates an advocate of a more independent frame of mind, with a better sense of balance and greater fairness.
  I now turn to the question of legal aid. Nowadays a large percentage of the livelihood of the average barrister arises from publicly-funded fees. I suggest that we need carefully to review the question of where the legal aid scheme is going. The purpose of the legal aid scheme was to provide advice and advocacy for those who otherwise were unable to afford it. I can, of course, understand the need which must be imposed on every spending department to control expenditure. The legal aid service cannot wholly match a privately-funded service, because, as in every professional and other service to free society, the ablest are naturally sought out, and in the case of advocates are briefed by the privately-funded sector. In legal aid a proper element is the public service aspect, which is

  163
  represented by the lower fee. But if the publicly-funded fees are too low, if the differential is too great, that will lead to two standards. I emphasise that if criminal legal aid is reduced artificially too far below the market level, problems will arise.
  Has not the time come to extend legal aid to tribunals? Modern conflicts continuously arise between citizen and state, impinging on the lives of so very many, often involving complex matters of law and fact, in an area where a citizen often requires professional help. It is an area where the citizen's interests are grievously affected. The present Lord Chief Justice has made great strides in development of administrative law, with the extension of the judicial review, and I hope that the Government will see their way to extend legal aid to tribunals.
  I welcome the suggestion regarding improvement in family law. There have been distortions and injustices. To the ordinary citizen in certain circumstances conduct must play an important part in a fair adjudication upon the breakdown of marriage.
  I hope that the Government will take the opportunity of this new Parliament to take very seriously the duty and the need to advance law reform, and not to concentrate solely upon the political issues, important as I know they are. I hope that they will make major strides in the improvement in the administration of justice. For a very long time the administration of justice in these islands has excited the admiration of informed observers all over the world. But the price of excellence is inevitably constant inquiry, followed by energy in execution, to provide for changing need in a fluid society, to modify what served well yesterday but which may not be apt for today, and to ensure that what is good is made better.
  5.47 p.m.
  Lord Hunt: My Lords, I should like to begin by differing from my noble friend Lord Kennet, by accepting, in a strictly personal capacity, with modest alacrity, the reference of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to Members of this Bench as mountaineers. It is presumptuous of me to think so, but I believe that when he made that remark he looked in my direction. If my new noble colleague Lord Ogmore had been in his seat at this moment I should have liked to assure him, bearing in mind what he said about how nervous he felt, that even after all the years that I have been in your Lordships' House, standing at this altitude and beginning to make a speech, I have an absolute horror of heights.
  It is inevitable that by this stage in a long debate on the Queen's Speech numerous references should have been made to the all-important subject of law and order, and one or two remarks that I shall make will do little more than dot the i's and cross the t's of speeches, more able than mine, which have been made from these and other Benches. However, I should like to take the opportunity to say with what personal pleasure I welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, to this House, because for many years I have had such happy contacts with him on the general subject of law and order.
  164
  The Government's intention—I think that I am quoting the Speech—to support,
  "the services which maintain law and order"
  will command universal support throughout this House and outside. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, it is below that lofty expression of intent that the differences begin to appear—differences of perception as to the causes of crime and delinquency and the circumstances in which it arises, differences in perception as to the policies to apply to those circumstances, and in particular differences as to the methods of dealing with the crime itself.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, spoke of the importance of balance—the balance to be maintained between the rights of the citizen, on the one hand, and the requirements of an orderly society, on the other. There is another and crucially important aspect to this matter of the balance between freedom and order. It is one that is not incumbent on the state but on every individual citizen. It is the balance to be struck between rights and responsibilities. Among the responsibilities is surely that of playing an appropriate part in support of law and order. This is the reverse side of the coin to that of the Government's explicit commitment to support the services of law and order. For that reason, I would place, at the top of any agenda for combating crime, measures to prevent its occurrence in the first instance.
  The all-party penal affairs group is about to produce a report on this subject that addresses itself to individual citizens as well as to a number of Government departments. There are many preventive measures, social or relating to a particular situation, that can be taken or improved upon involving private, public and commercial property owners. Perhaps the most important point that we shall make in the report is the need for local communities to act together in crime prevention—in the streets, on the housing estates and elsewhere in our inner cities. There are now many examples of this community collaboration in support of the services that maintain law and order. They need and deserve every support at the level of local and central Government.
  Community preventive action includes security measures. It also includes what has been called "proaction"—positive and constructive schemes in support of the probation, police, education and social services to improve leisure interests and activities, especially for young people. Intermediate treatment, as it has come to be known, is beginning to take off. It is just as important that the Government should support this as it is that they should support the law and order services directly.
  Several references have been made to the connection between unemployment and crime. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others have mentioned this. That was only to be expected. It is fundamental to the whole question of reducing crime that the level of unemployment should be greatly reduced. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is precious little hope, while maintaining that essential balance to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, referred, of causing a descent in the

  165
  crime graph until or unless there is a reduction in the level of unemployment.
  The relevance of unemployment to crime is well established by research. A United Kingdom study last year entitled Economics and the rising prisoner population, by McLintock, showed that a 100 per cent. rise in unemployment resulted in a 25 per cent. rise in delinquency and that for every 1,000 young people unemployed, 23 more have been sent to prison. Conversely, in a North American study by Fleischer, it was shown that a 1 per cent. decline in unemployment has resulted in about a 2.5 per cent. decrease in delinquency.
  I was interested to hear the references by the right reverend Prelate to the efforts to bring the police and the general public into a closer understanding in London. No one would dispute the importance of restoring the traditional relationship between the police and the public. Mutual respect and confidence have suffered in recent years. There is a certain amount of blame to be attached to both sides. I was reminded once again during a tour in Tower Hamlets and Brixton last week of the awesome difficulties that face the police in some of our inner city areas. I was again impressed by the fact that, by and large, they do their job outstandingly well. The more difficult the social environment and the economic circumstances in which the police have to work, the more important it is to back the police.
  Of all the recommendations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his report on the Brixton disorders, the most important, I believe, was his recommendation that more police officers must be brought back on to the beat in the streets and on the housing estates.
  A reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to the probation service. I hope very much that, as part of their intention to support the law and order services, the Government will expand the probation service well above the planned 1 per cent. growth. I see this as a test of the sincerity of the Government in their expressed desire to reduce the prison population and to encourage the use of more non-custodial measures. Some of us will be debating this matter on Thursday evening. I shall say no more now than that the probation service stands ready to take on the new and more exacting job that the Criminal Justice Act of last year empowers. But the service is already heavily burdened. The additional powers will over-stretch its resources, including the planned increase.
  I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I devote a few words to the subject of parole. Among the measures in the new Act which, when implemented, will add to the burdens of the probation service, Section 33 includes the proposed reduction of the threshold for eligibility to parole. I hope very much, encouraged by a reference in The Times today, that the new Home Secretary will implement that section as soon as possible, provided that it is done commensurate with an increase in the establishment and resources available to the probation service. I am convinced that the parole system has made a positive and constructive contribution to law and order. We, on this side, during the passage of the Bill, argued
  166
  strongly for the threshold to be reduced to six months rather than the nine months being contemplated in the Home Office under the previous Parliament.
  There is one other form of service towards law and order that deserves maximum support from the Government. I refer to the service due to the victims of crime. There are now, I am told, about 150 victim support schemes. They deserve every encouragement. The new Act makes possible various forms of restitution. There is a lot of mileage to be made out of conciliation schemes with a mediator between the victim and the offender in which the probation and social services and, in some cases, no doubt, the police, will play a part. I believe that all these schemes will be valuable weapons in our penal armoury.
  These are some of the recipes for the support which the Government promise to the services that maintain law and order. It has been asserted that the Social Democratic Party is soft on crime. With the greatest respect, I refute that. It is not soft to seek, as a general policy, to reduce resort to custody and to give shorter sentences. There is plenty of good precedent for it elsewhere. It is not soft to develop constructive schemes in local communities and to enlist maximum public support. That is plain common sense. I am encouraged in the belief that more members of the public, not least those who have been the victims of crime themselves, support this view. A survey made last year shows clearly that the tide is moving in a much more helpful and constructive direction.
  5.59 p.m.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, usually the Queen's Speech gives us enough to talk about and a great deal to do. However, at the outset of a new Parliament, we really need a Queen's Speech for a Parliament rather than only for a Session. We want to lengthen our perspective when we are beginning a new Parliament especially when the Government have such a secure majority as the present one. We should aim in every Parliament to bring under review some areas of our institutions which are candidates for change and reform. I do not know whether this Government have within their machinery a committee known as the Committee for Future Legislation, but it is worthwhile for any Government to have a programme for the whole of their term to foresee the measures that they will bring forward from time to time.
  I attach great importance to the efficiency of our institutional life, and in that area there is a considerable amount of conservatism and apathy among members of the public. We tend to take what there is and to work within what there is and we do very little about changing the institutions which are the framework of our political, social and industrial life.
  I would have several candidates for the waiting-room for change and reform. I am surprised that so little mention has been made, for example, of the future of this House. There has been mention of the electoral system, but I have a few other candidates, some of which probably are on the list for attention, such as building societies. There is also the question of charities, which I do not think are on the list, and trade

  167
  unions, of which we are probably hearing rather too much. It must surely be the case that a Conservative Government today claims to be a reforming government and not merely a conserving government.
  I listened with great interest to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Rawlinson, as regards his proposal that there should be a comprehensive programme of law reform. That is another side of our institutional life which is constantly in need of attention in changing times.
  There is nothing in the Queen's Speech about the future of this House and there is no hint that in this Parliament something might be done about it. But we are always being talked about, we are always either being promised something or we are being threatened with something. It may be that even quite a number of Members of the Labour Party in this House are relieved that pressures for the abolition of the House of Lords or serious curtailment of the range of our activities, are for the time being removed—probably for ever. Certainly there is an increasing awareness in the mind of the public about the need for a second chamber.
  The idea of having single chamber government where a majority of one might be enough and where slovenly legislation might easily get through, is quite enough to convince the public that some second chamber is necessary under our system of government, otherwise we need a Bill of Rights or a constitution, some protection which is over and above the caprice of the legislature from time to time, except on the strongest mandate from the people.
  I welcome, along with the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, the appointment of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, as the new Leader of the House. With his vigour and boisterous temperament I sincerely hope that he will see that there is something to be done about the House of Lords. He must have been reading his old hymn book recently in which he will find the following two lines:
  "There is room for new creations
  In that upper place of bliss".;
  but, may I say, not overly many of them and not any more, if we can help it, which extend the hereditary principle. We have to be careful not to damage the repute which this House is gaining in public estimation by resuming that aspect of our composition which probably has least public support. I will say no more about that, but I believe that the Government have a duty to do something about the House of Lords.
  The House of Lords has committed two grave errors in my lifetime. One was to throw out the people's budget in 1909 which led to the Parliament Act in 1911. The other was to reject the Rhodesian order for the renewal of sanctions in the late 1960s which led Sir Harold Wilson, the then Prime Minister, to throw overboard the co-operation of the Conservative Opposition in the programme for the reform of the House of Lords. It was a great pity that that happened. I believe that we came as near then as we have been for 70 years to an agreed reform of the House of Lords. The opportunity was lost by impulsiveness on both sides and I deeply regret it.
  Lord Somers: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? I do not think that to make two mistakes since 1909 is a bad record. I wonder how that compares with the number of mistakes made in the other place.
  Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, we shall probably make a few more yet. Secondly, I should like to mention the electoral system to which several noble Lords have made reference. I say to my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell that if we are to examine the theory of the mandate, look at the total votes cast and relate the total poll for particular parties to the number of seats that they have in the House of Commons, then we have to carry that discussion to its logical conclusion and look at the question of changing the electoral system. The question of the mandate can crop up with any government. If there had been a Labour Government committed to the shift of power from one section of the community to another, it would probably have been done with a substantial parliamentary majority resting on no greater mandatory strength than that of the present Government.
  So the question of changing the electoral system is now of great public importance and of great importance, too, to the future of our parliamentary system. I was hoping that the Government would be willing to encourage the closest investigation and study of our electoral system, the criticisms that are made of it and the references that are made to systems in other countries, to see whether some of the fears about a change in our system would be well founded either on the experience of others or on the study of the possibilities of our own arrangements.
  At the last election we heard a good deal about tactical voting. That is becoming a kind of do-it-yourself system of voting first for your second preference so that you can bring about the alternative to what might otherwise happen. There is a better system than that in existence in other countries at present. If governments are going to claim that they have mandates, then they really must be prepared to rest their claim upon substantial public support. It will have to come to that in the end; we shall probably have to have a referendum about it; we will certainly have to have a wide public discussion on this change. After all, if there is nothing else that is going to bring it to our notice, with our continued membership of the EEC—which again I am glad to see is assured—we will have to change our electoral system to conform to the general pattern for elections to the European Parliament. We cannot stand out from the general system adopted by our partners in the EEC without distorting the political composition of the European Parliament itself. So we want to hear from the Government what they have in mind to do about the discussion of the changes in the electoral system; whether they are prepared to sponsor a public inquiry, committee or commission—some body which can bring together the talents to make an intellectual as well as a practical study of electoral systems.
  Incidentally—and I refer now to the Parliament of 1910 and 1911—the Parliament Act was passed in 1911 by a hung Parliament; at that time the Liberals did not have an overall majority in the House of Commons. There are some things that can be done by

  169
  a hung Parliament that cannot be done by a Parliament with a single party having a majority.
  Turning to the other elements in my little programme of institutional study and reform, I had expected something to be said about building societies. Not long ago we had a debate on building societies. Surely they are candidates for pretty early attention. Probably some preparatory work is already being done on new legislation. These societies have grown enormously in recent years. They began as locally created movements for mutual help for house purchase and now they have become the institutions in charge of the nation's housing policy.
  Some of them hear the names of their origins and have probably given notoriety and fame to places in Britain which would not have enjoyed such public esteem had they not had their building society. An example is Halifax, which is noted for Mackintosh's toffee and the Halifax Building Society. Who would have heard of Burnley, one might ask, had it not been for the Burnley Building Society? These locally created institutions are our national mortgage broking enterprises on a vast scale. Notwithstanding the terrific expansion in the work and power of building societies in the economic and social system, their range of activity and their constitutional arrangements are very much the same as they were in the beginning. There are so many interests involved in what will happen to the mortgage interest rate, and whether investors will get more and borrowers will have to pay more that we now hang on meetings of the Building Societies' Association more closely than we hang on the meetings of the Court of the Bank of England.
  There is no doubt that a combination of cheap money and tax reliefs has brought about a revolution in home ownership in this country, and it has largely been brought about by the building societies. That is why we have a very close interest in how they run their affairs, who is controlling them, and to whom they are accountable. Their constitutions are not suited to the size and the importance of their activities at the present time. Are we to be given a White Paper about building societies? There has been no public discussion on the changes needed in building societies, except in meetings of building societies and in some sections of the press. But where do we find the case for change in the structure, in the range of activities and in the control of building societies, so that we know where we are hoping or expecting to go?
  Another large area of social activity is charities, which is regulated by many societies with out-of-date constitutions which belong to the Victorian period. I am talking now of the voluntary societies (not the charitable trusts or foundations) which are soliciting funds from the public and which in some cases have considerable membership, large numbers of voluntary workers and considerable payrolls of one kind or another.
  Some of these societies have become rich and powerful. Some of them are standing in aid of Government services; a number of the voluntary services are married up to the state provision, especially in the field of care of children. Therefore, they are a very important annexe to the state services. What do we plan to do about charities? A very notable report was
  170
  produced some years ago by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, but I think that the present Government have shown quite noticeable indifference to the changes in charity law.
  Finally, I come to the question of the trade unions—and the Government have quite a lot in mind to do about them. I think that there is a very significant danger in linking the aim of greater democracy and control within the trade unions with the political objects of trade unions. If the political levy, which I think contains numerous irregularities and unsatisfactory features, is to come under consideration in relation to the options and choice of members of trade unions, consideration must at the same time be given to the effect upon the finances of one of our major political parties. I have referred to this before, but we go on talking about the political levy as though it were solely a trade union matter. It is not.
  The political levy is now the substantial source of funds to the Labour Party, and one cannot interfere with the one without damaging the other. I think that the future of a political party must not be a football in the controversy about trade union democracy and trade union activities. It really brings us to the question of state aid. In other countries, state aid to political parties was introduced in order to end unsatisfactory features of the voluntary system. In West Germany, state aid came in when donations from business to one of the political parties, with tax reliefs, became so great as to distort the financial resources of the political system in that country. The result was that the West German Government ended the tax reliefs to company and business donations to political parties and introduced state aid in order to give all parties a quota of financial help in their activities.
  When state aid was introduced in Austria it was to end the system that the ruling party always had a rake-off from government contracts for its own funds. There is corruption in all systems of voluntary aid to political parties. It is almost impossible to escape from it. No private money goes into political parties without strings being attached, either seen or unseen. If you look at history you will see how corrupt that became at one time in our affairs.
  Similarly with the trade union levy. While opportunities exist for manipulating the voting strength at a political party conference by reference to contributions from the political levy, there are bound to be irregularities and unsatisfactory features. I think that the aim should be to reduce the heavy dependence of our political parties at the present time upon their traditional sources of financial aid, and to bring the state in to inject enough support to relieve the political parties of dependence upon those features of voluntary help which give rise to the most serious questions about their origins and their purpose.
  I should hope that this sort of programme would offer the opportunity of attention by a reforming Government for the next five years, and that we may from time to time get the opportunity of returning to these subjects. I sincerely hope so. If any information can be given by the Minister as to whether the Government have intentions beyond the present Session on matters that have not been mentioned in the Queen's Speech, that might help some of us to make our own arrangements for the future.
  6.20 p.m.
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, although it is already well known in your Lordships' House that I am an elected member of the Greater London Council. I would begin formally by declaring an interest. I am now in my 10th year of service on that authority. Among my opponents in the 1977 and 1981 GLC elections was a candidate fighting under the banner "Abolish the GLC". In 1977 he obtained 297 votes out of the 31,848 votes cast. In 1981, of the total votes cast then of 29,526, his vote had risen to 330. An increase of 33 votes in four years. Four years of a Conservative-controlled Greater London Council. Four years in which the rate precept had risen by an average of 9.8 per cent. a year; far less than the rate of inflation.
  Contrast that with the fact that the GLC precept has more than doubled in the last two years. Contrast, too, that 330 votes to abolish the GLC with the recent general election vote for a candidate in whose manifesto the same pledge was contained, who obtained 26,456 votes; that was the Conservative candidate for almost the same seat. This illustrates how rapidly the GLC has become discredited since the 1981 GLC election when the then moderate leader of the Labour Pary was ousted by the Left-wing within 24 hours of victory.
  Since then policies have been implemented which have alarmed Londoners, both the resident electors and those responsible for businesses, who find that the profligate expenditure of the present GLC and the consequent rate rises are forcing them out of London. The GLC precept this year is over 39p, almost 40p. The inner city are hardest hit as they are additionally burdened with an inner London education authority precept of 77p. Is it surprising that the public have demanded the abolition of the GLC? The Government have rightly responded to this demand through the Conservative manifesto and now in the Queen's Speech, and I note that the transport authority is to be set up very soon.
  I welcome the wording in the Queen's Speech and I am glad that 1986 is the date set for the end of the GLC, as that gives time for the research, planning, and appraisal necessary in this complex process. It is essential that whatever follows the GLC gives better value for money to the ratepayers, and that the solution does not simply make us worse off.
  I have been sufficiently directly involved in the last two health service reorganisations to be rather sceptical of reorganisations in general. Each new structure seems to have lost out on the financial savings envisaged and ended up as a no more satisfactory. organisation. The abolition of the GLC is a wholly attractive idea and seems to promise a solution to all our local financial problems. This view is not merely simplistic but almost naive, and the public reaction has made clear how little understanding people have of the way in which local government works, and of the immensity of the dismantling task.
  Accepting the abolition as a starting point, how does one begin the process? Presumably all functions which can reasonably be transferred to the boroughs will be so transferred. That will still leave many which are
  172
  strategic functions and not specific to any one borough but cover the whole of London. Examples are flood prevention; strategic planning, including strategic road networks; fire brigade; highways and highway planning powers; and waste disposal. How would we deal with these? Centralise them all under various Government departments? Is this Conservative policy? It never has been. We have always supported the autonomy of local government, and our belief in democracy convinces us of the value of a directly-elected body.
  One little appreciated function of the present GLC is its equalisation effect across the boroughs. Personally—and I have spoken here before on this point—I have always felt that the equalisation levy currently paid by Westminster and the City to the so-called poorer boroughs is very unfair, but that is not the equalisation I am speaking about. That is quite a different matter. If functions were transferred to the boroughs how would this be done? Would the matching staff be transferred? Interesting situations could arise. Give Bromley Council Crystal Palace, which serves the whole of London and areas outside London, and it would cost them £1.43 million a year, instead of the £36,500 share that they now produce through the precept. This is an example of what I mean by the equalising effect of the regional authority.
  There are, of course, many mechanical problems. The last Secretary of State for the Environment suggested that 9,000 local authority jobs could be shed throughout the country—possibly 4,000 of those from the GLC. That would still leave about 18,000 staff. How would they be dispersed? On a basis pro rata to the rate base? Or pro rata to population? The consequences of that decision could result in a massive rate increase for all boroughs but the two cities of London and Westminster. Those cities might well be faced with funding or building large new offices to house the staff that would be transferred to them.
  I would remind your Lordships that the housing function was gradually transferred from the Greater London Council to the boroughs by the Conservative GLC. This process began in 1980 and is almost completed. This was carried out because it was considered that housing was properly the responsibility of the individual boroughs, and that they were in a better position to know and to meet local needs. The transfer of housing was the result of a policy decision, and I believe it was the right decision. It was, however, not based on any attempt to save money. It was realised at the time that it would be an expensive business, and this certainly proved true. When a conscious decision was made to transfer, acceptance of the massive costs that went with the decision was understood. We would be well advised to study that operation and benefit from the experience that was gained then.
  The other alternative to staff transfer is the creation of staff redundancies. I shall not go into this, but it would mean costs of tens of millions of pounds. Then, too, there is a very substantial GLC debt. What of this?
  Thought must be given to many matters, of which these are just a few. We shall have time in the next three years to consider these matters in detail. I would make no comment on the metropolitan authorities save to remark that I do not consider their situation in

  173
  any way a parallel to the Greater London Council's, and my comments refer specifically to the Greater London Council.
  There is another paragraph in the Queen's Speech which I consider relevant to my comments on the GLC. I refer to the following sentence:
  "Legislation will be brought forward to provide a selective scheme to curb excessive rate increases by individual local authorities".
  The ratepayers of London will welcome this as an effective and immediate way of controlling the way in which the GLC are throwing away ratepayers' money on projects which are, at best, only marginally within their control. Just this morning I sat on a committee which proposes to pay expenses such as those for baby-sitting incurred by women who wish to participate in the meetings. The solicitor to the Council pointed out in his report that, under the legislation claimed to permit this, it was essential that those being paid should actually be participating in the meeting, not just members of the public attending. I asked the chairman to define how this participation was to be assessed and I was informed that one could participate simply by being present. When asked how these participants differed from any other person present, no answer could be produced. Surely this is simply paying the public to attend a council meeting. If so, it is surely a most unfortunate precedent.
  The same committee was considering grants for child care and day care groups and there were recommendations with high priority for 67 projects for Islington, forwarded to the GLC by Islington Borough Council, which preferred to pass the costs on to the regional authority, although they were rightly local authority matters. No other borough in the whole of London has sought to milk that committee of the GLC to this extent.
  Lambeth appeared to be the runner-up, with 16 projects in the same high priority classification. Questioning of the Chair revealed that a special consultation meeting had taken place between the leader of the GLC and the leaders of some boroughs and that advice was sought and given as to how boroughs could obtain maximum grants from the GLC. Is it the fact that the colour of the flag flown by Islington council matches Ken's colour that has given Islington such an advantage over all other London boroughs?
  More and more expenditure which should be for the borough to fund or refuse is being pushed through the GLC. The Inner London Education Authority is also pushing its projects through the GLC, which is unfair to outer London ratepayers. In view of these abuses, misuses of power, it is indeed not surprising that the public have demanded the abolition of the GLC.
  Lord Mishcon: Public, my Lords?
  Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The public have demanded the abolition of the GLC, my Lords. In my two years in your Lordships' House, I have often mentioned the presently unsatisfactory situation at County Hall and the financial eflects—in particular, the effect on individual domestic ratepayers and on businesses, which are vacating centrally situated offices at an alarming rate. The number of vacant
  174
  office premises in the City of Westminster now has caused a dramatic fall in the rate base and must cause a rise in the rates for those who remain. I am relieved to see that the Conservative manifesto commitment to stop the rating of empty industrial property was not included in the gracious Speech, as this could have a disastrous effect on inner London. Firms would simply be able to vacate premises and leave them to stand empty without a thought of finding tenants to succeed them. Areas could become desolated. The gracious Speech included the phrase,
  "measures to improve the rating system".
  I hope these measures will be able to reconcile the need to retain a rate base in the cities and. at the same time, prevent destruction of properties such as roof removal, which I hear is practised elsewhere to remove the rating burden.
  There is public anger and frustration now over the GLC and the rate burden. I appreciate this and indeed share this feeling. I must apologise to your Lordships that my fiduciary duty obliges me to leave the House before the end of the debate to take part in today's GLC meeting.
  My comments today are intended to set your Lordships thinking: what should be done? How should it be done? Do we need some type of directly-elected voice to speak for London? Do we want more hoards or quangos? Do we aim to centralise many functions? How can we protect the London boroughs from the new problems? Let us beware of any repeat of the non-accountable Thames Water Authority, with its right of unlimited precept, or of a series of mini-ILEAs, as the Inner London Education Authority—I speak here as the parent of a current pupil—is not satisfactory and is not accountable to any direct electorate.
  There is time to think. It will take all the time we have to work out the right answers. Your Lordships' House will have the opportunity to discuss these matters fully. I know of the great wisdom in this Chamber that will be of such help in determining these outcomes. But the important thing at the end of all of this is that we must be sure that Londoners do not end up paving even more than they do now.
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord Banks: My Lords, may I say at the outset that, like other noble Lords, I may have to leave before the end of this debate—in my case to catch a train. If that should happen I hope that I shall be forgiven.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has raised some very pertinent questions relating to the abolition of the GLC. I am sure that some very careful thought will have to be given to the points she has raised. I hope that she will not mind if I turn now to two different subjects—first, to the level of pensions to which the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred in passing when she was making those justified criticisms of the present social security system; and, secondly, to the need for electoral reform, about which my noble friend. Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have spoken so forcefully. I regret that there is no reference in the gracious Speech to either of these important current issues.

  175
  During the election there were some alarming reports about the Government's intentions in the field of social security. According to Colin Brown, writing in the Guardian on 25th May,
  "A Cabinet committee have been considering proposals to privatise national insurance".
  The rest of that report referred only to unemployment benefit, but pensions are very much part of national insurance. However, I take it that the Government have no intention of seeking to privatise the state pension. It is true that the basic state pension is inadequate. The Third Report from the Social Services Committee in another place for the Session 1981–82 issued last October said this:
  "Nobody pretends that the present basic state pension of around 20 per cent. of male average earnings for a single person and 30 per cent. for a married couple is adequate; as the sole source of income—which it is for several million pensioners—it is so inadequate as to need almost automatic supplementation by supplementary benefit."
  It is true that the earnings-related pension, the second half of the state pension, will effectively supplement the basic pension substantially; but, as the Select Committee said, it will not bring full relief for many years. For those who retired before 1978 the earnings-related pension brings no relief. For those retiring now it brings only marginal relief, and full relief will be enjoyed only after 1998 by those retiring then and subsequently. All pensioners will not be on the full rate until well into the next century.
  As I said in this House on 24th June 1975, when we considered the Social Security Benefits Bill of that year, the oldest will be the poorest until all those born before 1933 are dead. It is not surprising that the report of the social services committee in another place says that the future of these pensioners is a major concern.
  I take an example which is given in that report: the case of a single male retiring at age 65 in 1982 with an earnings-related addition to his basic pension of £3 per week. At constant prices a similar male retiring in 1998, when today's retirer will be 81, will be receiving an additional component nearer £30. The question is whether society will tolerate such a difference in the pensions being received by those who have retired, particularly when it is the oldest who will be receiving the least. The Select Committee said:
  "We are convinced that some sort of assistance for older and poorer pensioners is inevitable".
  I should like to ask what the Government intend to do about this serious problem. One solution would be to pay a supplement to all pensioners but to have earnings-related pensions offset against it so that for every £1 of earnings-related pension there would be £1 knocked off the supplement. The full supplement would go to those with no earnings-related pension.
  It is clear that to pay a supplement of that kind would be costly because half the amount of the social security budget of £35 billion goes on the elderly so that it would not be cheap to do it. But it would be a reducing liability, one that would gradually work itself off—which is quite the opposite of most of the liabilities which Governments incur. What is more, we should only be paying today's pensioners what we have permitted ourselves to pay tomorrow's pensioners.
  176
  An alternative course would be to take the age allowance, or part of the age allowance, or the difference between the age allowance and the personal income tax allowance, and turn that into a positive cash credit in exactly the same way as has been done with child benefit. That would bring help to the poorer at no additional cost to the Government; although, of course, it would involve re-distribution. A more drastic solution would be so to increase the basic pension as to phase out the earnings-related pension altogether. But whatever solution is adopted, there is bound to be re-distribution of income. I think that we have to face that. We in the Liberal Party have put forward tax credit proposals, which are one possible way in which this re-distribution might be carried out; and I should like to ask whether in this new Parliament the Government are prepared to look again at the tax credit concept.
  I turn to electoral reform. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made it very clear that the general election demonstrated once again the stark absurdity of our electoral system. The Conservative vote has declined, as we have heard, by nearly 2 per cent. since 1979; and it was actually a lower percentage than when the Conservatives lost the general election in 1964. Yet the Conservative Party have been rewarded with a trebled majority. The Alliance polled nearly as many votes as the Labour Party; yet attained 10 per cent. of Labour's seats. The Government are supported by a minority of those who voted; yet they have a landslide victory. The Government, having less than 50 per cent. of those voting, have, in my opinion, no mandate for anything; yet the result is interpreted as an endorsement of Government policy.
  It has been interesting—if exasperating—to listen to arguments advanced in support of the present electoral system even in the face of these results. The Prime Minister has said that we cannot have proportional representation because we need clear and decisive government. Surely, to take one example, over the years West Germany, with proportional representation, has had clear and decisive government. Leaving that on one side, what the Prime Minister is saying is that democracy can be permitted only if it produces a certain end. If it does not or if it is thought that it will not—and I think that is very important—the system must be distorted until it is thought that it will. In other words, the will of the people is not the first priority. Mr. Hattersley has said to the Alliance. "Don't complain about the rules after the game!" But of course we have protested about the rules before every election for years. We do not challenge the validity of the general election result; we are pointing out how grotesquely unrepresentative it is and asking for reform before the next election.
  Another argument which is addressed to the Alliance is this. "Labour managed to emerge under the present system. Why can't you?" But of course Labour had the benefit of concentrated support in particular areas. The electoral handicap under which the Alliance suffers is that it draws its votes evenly throughout the country and among different classes. That is why, with almost equal votes, there is such a discrepancy today between the numbers of seats of the Labour Party and of the Alliance. But why should concentration of support be considered a virtue to be

  177
  rewarded? Surely, if there is any virtue in the distribution of votes it is to be found in securing support evenly from all different classes. Then, Mr. Norman Tebbit said that proportional representation means coalition and coalition would not be good. I am bound to ask, "Who is Norman Tebbit to decide when the will of the people must be thwarted for the sake of what Mr. Tebbit considers to be the general good?" Finally, there is the hoary old fiction that people are choosing an individual to represent them in their own constituency and are voting for the man rather than the party. Except in a handful of constituencies, it is clear that people are voting for national parties and national leaders, and are influenced overwhelmingly by the national campaign. Flow absurd, then, that their preferences between those parties should be so completely distorted!
  I heard the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say on television the day after polling day that nobody has said what system of proportional representation they wanted. That may well have been true of that particular programme; but I am quite sure that the noble and learned Lord is fully aware that we on these Benches have argued for years for the single transferable vote this time and that that was the system to which the Alliance was committed in its manifesto. But of course we would consider carefully any alternative proposals which any Government thought fit to put forward. At the very least, in our view, the Government should hold a referendum to test the opinion of the electorate on the need for change, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has said. Although the plight of today's pensioners and the unsatisfactory nature of our present electoral system are not mentioned in the gracious Speech, I hope that they will not be the subject of Government neglect in the months ahead.
  6.49 p.m.
  Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, I want to refer briefly to five items in the gracious Speech. The first is the statement that:
  "Legislation will be brought forward to provide a selective scheme to curb excessive rate increases by individual local authorities, and to provide a general power, to be used if necessary, for the limitation of rate increases for all authorities".
  I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, welcomed that. I merely want to say this. Rates was an issue during the whole of the last Parliament. In fact, it seems destined to be an issue again in this Parliament. But the problem of local government finances is not just an issue of rates. It is a major constitutional issue. The right to make decisions on levels of taxation goes hand in hand with the right to fix spending levels. You cannot have the one without the other. So curbing the one means curbing the other. It means taking away from local people the right to decide how many policemen or firemen they want in their area, the standard of education in their schools, how many teachers and how many home helps they wish to employ. These are all local issues and. if they have to decide on those issues, they must decide on how to pay for them.
  What is required is not less democracy for local government. but more. What is required is an extension of the powers of local authorities over local
  178
  taxation. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, has heard me on more than one occasion in County Hall say that what we need is a local income tax, and I do not believe that you necessarily have to abolish the rates in order to have local income tax. I believe that local authorities can have both and they should be able to levy both.
  Moreover—and this is my real criticism of the Government—this Government have shown a lamentable unwillingness to shoulder their share of local government expenditure. I was looking at the percentage of relevant expenditure met by the rate support grant over the last few years. It was 59.1 per cent. in 1981–82, it was 56.1 per cent. in 1982–83, and it is proposed that it shall be 52.1 per cent. in 1983–84. In other words, there has been a steady reduction in the willingness of central Government to make their contribution to the cost of local expenditure.
  Moreover, central Government have taken power to penalise heavy spenders. What does this power involve? It involves withdrawing central Government contributions. What does that mean? It means increasing the rate burden. I live in Hampstead and I pay a lot more rates than I ought to pay, simply because central Government have steadily reduced the percentage of their contribution to local government expenditure. They have proceeded to penalise the Greater London Council for overspending, and I have to pay for it. They have penalised the Inner London Education Authority for overspending, and I have to pay for it. They have penalised Camden council for overspending, and I have to pay for it. Some noble Lords may think that that is fair. I think it is unjust. There was an article in the Guardian yesterday headed "Hasty plans which ratepayers could repent at leisure". I think it will repay careful reading.
  The second issue on which I intend to comment is the proposal to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. I am laughing, because I was at County Hall in 1963 and I was then a member of the London County Council. We tried very hard to persuade the then Conservative Government not to establish the Greater London Council. But there was this great argument that we needed an overriding authority which could deal with problems that affect London as a whole: there was no such authority and one needed to be established.
  I do not know to what extent the situation has changed. According to the popular press, what has happened is that the Government are planning to introduce legislation which will reduce Ken Livingstone down to size. I cannot really believe that any Government would be contemplating legislation, merely in order to "do in the eye" somebody who is temporarily leading an authority. After all, leaders come and go and it would seem to be a very absurd base on which to legislate.
  In 1963 I came to a conclusion as to the reasons for the abolition of the London County Council and the establishment of the Greater London Council. The conclusion to which I came then was that the Tories assessed that they could not win the London County Council and therefore decided to abolish it. The trouble now is that they have discovered that the

  179
  authority which they created is one that they cannot always win, so they are now proposing to abolish that, too. In fact, I suspect that they formed the same opinion of the metropolitan county councils in 1983 as they formed of the London County Council in 1963, and are therefore adopting the same solution. I sincerely hope that the Government will give a lot of thought before they embark on this course.
  The next sentence to which I want to refer states:
  "Legislation will be introduced to extend the right of certain public sector and other tenants to buy their homes."
  The funny thing is that that is the only reference to housing in the gracious Speech, but it could hardly be described as a policy for coping with the severe housing crisis which faces this country. In 1977 the Government's housing policy review concluded that we needed to build 300,000 houses every year to meet the housing shortage which then existed and to provide for new households. The year1977 was the last year in which we built 300,000 houses. We built 304,000 in that year; in 1978 we built 280,000; in 1979 we built 244,000; in 1980 we built 234,000; in 1981 we built 198,000, and in 1982 we built 171,000. In other words, we have an accumulated deficit of 322,000 houses, if we are to meet the target that we set in 1977.
  But that is not all. Nearly 14,000 households in England and Wales applied to local authorities in the year which ended in April 1982, under the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act. Moreover, because of the loophole created by the amendment to that Act, which I am happy to say I opposed in this House, there are many authorities that are telling people that they have made themselves intentionally homeless and are refusing to rehouse them. Furthermore, nearly one-quarter of the housing stock in England and Wales is in a bad condition. There are 1.2 million dwellings which have been declared unfit for human habitation: 1.1 million dwellings, both fit and unfit, require repairs costing over £7,000, with 300,000 of those requiring repairs costing more than £14,000, and more than 4.1 million dwellings require repairs costing £2,500. Nearly 1 million dwellings lack one or more of the basic amenities—that is, bath or inside toilet—and 500,000 lack both a bath and an inside toilet. What is required is not just a gimmick but a serious housing policy. We require another Harold Macmillan. I hope that the new Minister for Housing will turn out to be another Harold Macmillan.
  I was glad that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London commented on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill: it saves me having to make much of a comment upon it. I want to make just one point. If in fact it is decided that the police are to be given additional powers, every effort must be made to improve police discipline and, so far as possible, to prevent the police from abusing those powers. We all know that there is plenty of evidence that the police abuse the powers they now have. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Elton, will tell his right honourable friend, who happens to be a friend of mine for whom I have the very highest regard, that he ought to go through the Bill with a fine toothcomb and remove all the obnoxious elements contained in it. If, as I said earlier, more powers must in the final analysis be given to the police, the question of police discipline and an
  180
  improvement in the complaints procedure will become of the utmost importance. I hope that the noble Lord will take back that message to his right honourable friend.
  Finally, I want to deal with another issue in the gracious Speech:
  "Further action will be taken to ensure that patients receive the best value for the money spent on the National Health Service".
  On more than one occasion many noble Lords have heard me raise the question of the need to finance certain services centrally. Today I shall take just a couple of minutes to illustrate that point. I will use as my reference the renal service. I have strong personal reasons for using the renal service as my illustration. Of 32 countries which were surveyed last year, the United Kingdom was seventeenth in the number of patients per million treated by dialysis. The number of centres per million averaged 2.8 for all 32 countries. The United Kingdom has 1.1 centres per million—in other words, less than half the average. It is difficult to say which patients are left out, but, at a guess, the over fifties will probably find that treatment is difficult to obtain. I am sure that people like me and most of your Lordships will not receive such treatment, because we are over 65.
  But that is not all. Nowadays there is need for a great deal of short-term renal support for patients. Many of the new drugs and many of the new procedures bring on acute renal crisis. The anti-tumour drugs, upon which great hope is placed in dealing with cancer, tend to bring on acute renal crisis. Much of the great, adventurous surgery, in particular vascular surgery, which is carried out today has as a side effect the production of acute renal failure. That being so, the work of any renal unit is very much increased. What is worse, there is need for a great deal of research into the prevention of chronic renal failure. Therefore, in addition to the need to double the number of units which we now have, there is need for the allocation of specific funds for research into the prevention of chronic renal failure. I have gone into this problem in detail in order to illustrate the point I am making.
  This particular service cannot be funded by the district. It needs either central funding or, at the very least, regional funding. I hope that the Government will take this matter on board. It is important not only that we get value for money in terms of the services that we render to patients—I am all in favour of that—but that we should allocate the funds in a way which will enable us to provide the maximum good for patients.
  This Parliament promises to be a very exciting one. A great deal will depend upon the way in which this House operates. I hope that all of us will prove worthy of the challenge.
  7.7 p.m.
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor opened our debate this afternoon, he referred to the recent general election and pointed out, as one possible interpretation of the results, that it might lead to the substitution for the Labour Party of the Alliance as the more formidable opposition. If this were to happen—and I agree that this is a possible interpretation of those results—I

  181
  could only comment that it will not happen if the Alliance make a change in our electoral system the principal theme of their political activity: first because I believe that, whatever may be said in answer to public opinion polls, there is an enormous residual preference for the single member constituency system. Secondly, though it is possible—as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, did—to point to West Germany as a country where instability has not been the consequence of one form of proportional representation, it is equally easy to point to the unfortunate position in which our friends in Italy find themselves today, where another general election has produced another probably unmanageable Parliament. If the Alliance is to progress as it hopes, it will do so by showing that it has real answers to the real problems—not the institutional framework but the real problems, economic and social, (and today we are concerned with social issues)—with which the country finds itself faced.
  In this debate, one very important such issue has been raised by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. It seems to me that everything she said was more than borne out by the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Pitt of Hampstead, who revealed that, unsatisfied even with the resources available for exploitation by the three extravagant authorities within whose area he finds himself, he is willing, rather than curb their extravagance, to give them yet further sources of revenue. If anything could have persuaded me how right Her Majesty's Government would be to abolish the Greater London Council, the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Pitt of Hampstead, has made further convincing unnecessary.
  I should like to talk about a related though different subject—the future of our educational system. Education has been referred to in the gracious Speech in rather quiet and modest terms—the kind of thing which the noble Lord. Lord Ogmore, talked about in his welcome speech: welcome not only for its brevity but also for its content. But there are issues, beyond parental choice and minor improvements here and there in the system, which I believe will have to be faced now that we have a Government with a long period ahead of them in which to face those issues. If, of course, the election had gone the other way, the position would have been very different.
  That is why, unfortunately from some points of view, education did not figure much in the election debate, because it was perfectly evident that, supposing we had had a Labour Government, its defence policy would have been of such a kind that the only educational problem would have been the number of hours of compulsory Russian taught in schools. But now we can look seriously at education—and there is general agreement (by no means on only one side of the House) that there must be a large and steady improvement in our education system, not only because we should be able to take pride in it ourselves but because, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor reminded us, it is inseparably connected with our economic recovery.
  There are here issues of principle which are more important in the end than the question of parental choice, because parental choice assumes that parents
  182
  will choose between institutions of equal merit according to the particular dispositions of their own children. But, if the schools are of unequal merit or are of no merit, then parental choice is not of great assistance. Nor do I believe that parental choice can in itself exercise the necessary pressure for some forms of improvement, if only because the children who may most require an improved or different form of schooling may, well come from homes where parents are less exercised on these matters than some others would be.
  So we are faced with a curious situation in which there are two elements directly and primarily concerned with education. One is the individual child and the individual children for whom we wish to see provided the best education that is within our resources—and the children must come first in any education policy. And. although I realise that they do not like it, "children" in this case embraces also those in further and higher education. Secondly, we have the providers of that education on the ground; that is to say, the teaching profession. It is a profession organised into a number of trade unions and other organisations which seem to me to have been failing the nation by their lack of response to some of the problems that we face and by their persistent belief that only increasing expenditure will enable them properly to fulfil the task the nation expects of them.
  We have a nation that requires a higher standard of education; we have the children who deserve it; we have the teaching profession, which I believe requires better leadership than it has; and we have also—and this is where what I have to say links up with the remarks of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes—the local authorities which are responsible under the law for the provision of education. One difficulty that faces Her Majesty's Government in rethinking our education provision is that local authorities (or some of them) have not shown themselves to be up to the demands which should now be made upon them.
  We are told, and rightly, that, when the GLC is abolished, some consequential arrangements will have to be made about education for inner London because the present ILEA is constituted on the basis of the existence of a GLC. But, as my noble friend said about the GLC, it is equally important that proper thought is given to the way in which education for the children of our capital city can be best provided. I do not see that we can simply, in the name of local autonomy and because of the persistence in the majority party in the present ILEA of views about education which I believe are contrary to the interests of the children and the interests of the nation alike, acquiesce in some of the disadvantages which children in London have as against children in other local education authorities.
  Since I do not wish this to be thought of as merely a party point, it is my view that a number of Conservative councils in the country—although less guilty in performance and though not commited to the ideological absurdities of the majority in ILEA—have also not fully realised their responsibilities. This is perhaps more through indifference or lack of commitment than through commitment to the wrong things; one can suffer as much from apathy as from enthusiasm.
  Lord Mishcon: My. Lords, I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Beloff, will forgive me for interrupting such an excellent speech, but will he. as a great authority on politics, inform the House why it is that it is an absurdity for the electors of London to have elected the ILEA and the GLC to carry out their policies, whereas it is so wise of the electorate to have elected so recently his own Government?
  Lord Beloff: My Lords, I believe that would take me fairly far from the substance of my speech. I will just point out that the ILEA itself is not directly elected: that—as the noble Lord very well knows—the number of those who vote in local elections is considerably less than those who vote in national elections; and that, although education ought perhaps to be at the forefront of voters' minds in local elections, it is not necessarily always so. I am not at all sure that we might not be thinking eventually—and here I am thinking dangerous thoughts, because, although the CPRS may have gone, dangerous thoughts will go on—about some form of directly-elected local school boards on the American model. If we must insist upon some form of local autonomy, that might be better than entrusting it to bodies which have general purposes.
  So far as one can see, the Government—understandably at this early stage—are proceeding by indirection. by the offer of finance to assist local authorities with particular programmes to which the Government attach importance on national grounds. It is interesting and revealing that both the local authorities and the teaching profession are very unenthusiastic about this, although, for someone looking at this from the point of view of the national interest, it would seem a not unreasonable measure by any Government which had, after all, the primary responsibility for seeing that the education provision matched the national need.
  I should like, in conclusion, to say only that the real driving force of what I am trying to put before this House is that we have, in the educational world at any rate, if not in other aspects of our affairs, to reconsider some fundamental issues about the relationship between central and local responsibilities, and that these cannot merely be passed off as a by-product of arguments about extravagence or the lack of it, about more or less expenditure. These are fundamental institutional questions, and to my mind, if I may say so, of more immediate relevance to more people than some of the institutional questions which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, asked us to address ourselves to.
  7.21 p.m.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, like other speakers, I have a considerable sympathy with the noble Lord. Lord Elton, in having to answer so wide-ranging a debate; but, even so, I propose to extend its scope just a little bit further by saying that it is a matter of some regret to me, even if no great surprise, that so far I have heard nothing from official quarters of possible changes in the law relating to compensation for personal injuries. It would obviously be quite inappropriate for me this evening to attempt to tackle this vast subject in any comprehensive way, but I should like to touch on one or two topics where the
  184
  Government in the past have made pronouncements which have left some of us a little puzzled and perhaps a little unhappy. They are topics which although different in character all come within the general scope of injuries suffered by individuals.
  The trouble is that the various problems dealt with in the report of the Royal Commission on this subject will not just go away and solve themselves of their own accord. I would like first to say just a word about industrial injuries. In 1980 the Government issued a discussion document about possible amendments to the Industrial Injuries Scheme, and in the following year they followed that up by issuing a White Paper. There could be differences of view about some of the proposals in that White Paper, but it had the great merit of proposing some shifting in the distribution of resources from the more trivial cases to the more serious cases, and in a part of the White Paper flecked with green it proposed a most desirable amendment of the Law Reform (Personal Injuries) Act 1948 so as to end duplication between social security payments and damages paid in compensation.
  The White Paper said that the proposals would be the subject of a Bill to be introduced as soon as possible, and that the idea was to implement the main scheme by a target date of 1984. Well, here we are within sight, legislatively speaking, of 1984. Where is the proposed Bill? I wonder what has happened and what the prospects are.
  I should like next to refer to quite a different subject. That is the possibility of introducing a special allowance in respect of severely handicapped children. When the noble Lord. Lord Trefgarne, was defending with his customary skill what I really believe was the indefensible decision to do nothing about the Vaccine Damage Payments Act—a topic to which I hope we shall return one day—he indicated that as resources permitted the Government saw the way forward as providing benefit for handicapped people in general, however the handicap was caused. The reference is to column 364 of Hansard of 27th January last. Since then, alas, we have heard no more.
  As Chairman of Mencap—and I must take this first opportunity of thanking the Government for their recent grant towards Mencap for the next three years—as well as a member of the Royal Commission. I have been much impressed by the burdens put on a family with a severely handicapped child. The whole pattern of life of the family can be gravely affected in ways about which money can do nothing, but there is almost always extra expense too. There are perhaps 100,000 children in the country with really severe handicap. And, in the light of research by York University, the Royal Commission was convinced that there was a case for an extra allowance of £4 a week at 1977 prices. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was good enough to volunteer on 1st December last (col. 1265) that the updated equivalent then would be about £7.50 a week, or £30 million a year. It is not a vast sum to meet a real need compared with the figures for the social security budget as a whole, referred to by the noble and learned Lord in his opening speech today. One would like to know whether there are any real prospects of the resources referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, being made available in the foreseeable future. Action would

  185
  be even more acceptable than words of comfort and encouragement.
  Then, just one word about one aspect of product-liability. The Government some time ago took a decision to allow the defence by companies of development risks in tort actions brought against them for negligence. This was a decision which ran contrary to the findings of the Law Commissions, the Royal Commission, and the Council of Europe Convention, and also a draft EEC Directive in the form it was in when we last debated it. It is a decision which is particularly relevant in regard to drugs. It would mean, if implemented, that if, notwithstanding all the precautions about new drugs, there was now another thalidomide tragedy, the individual would have precious little prospect of bringing a successful action against the manufacturers, and it would be the individual citizen who would be left to carry the risks.
  As I understand it, the West Germans legislated some time ago to put the onus on the drug companies, but when this issue was last raised in this House, almost exactly two years ago, it appeared that our Government was trying to persuade the other EEC countries to come into line with us and to abandon the West German approach. It was not a very promising prospect it seemed to me. I realise that this is a topic on which the European Parliament has been expressing views, but I wonder what is the present state of play. It really would be undesirable if in this respect we ended up out of step with the rest of Europe.
  Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is to wind up, I cannot refrain from raising very briefly one point directly affecting the Home Office. The criminal injuries compensation scheme was introduced—I think I am right—in 1964 on an experimental basis. It is now nearly 20 years and several millions of pounds later but there is still no sign of putting the scheme on a statutory basis. Are we really to go through yet another Session without seeing a long overdue Bill dealing with this scheme and giving it a statutory position?
  Finally, I come to road traffic accidents. This is an area where the defects of the present system of tort actions are especially apparent: that is, the delays, the cost, the difficulty of getting reliable witnesses, and so forth. It is an area where the Royal Commission plumped for a "no-fault" type of scheme. I am a little puzzled on what are the Government's views. I have read again such exchanges as there have been in Parliament, and although the Government have certainly not said "yes", they have not really said "no", either.
  I have seen letters emanating from official quarters which suggest it would be a mistake to pick out one particular group of victims for compensation. But that is an argument which, it seems to me overlooks two facts. First, that Parliament has long recognised the unique feature of motor vehicle injury by requiring compulsory insurance against third party risks; and, secondly, that we already pick out the victims of work accidents for a special "no-fault" scheme. I have also seen various ingenious attempts by lawyers to think up possible anomalies which could arise under a "no-fault" scheme for traffic accidents; but that is a rather dangerous game to play. If there were a contest on which scheme involves the greater risk of anomalies, the present tort scheme would win hands down.
  186
  I have had talks with quite a number of lawyers, not only those on the Royal Commission, who think there is a strong case for change. I heard with great interest what a leading silk, Mr. Robert Alexander, had to say on a recent television programme. He has no objection to my referring to his remarks. He said that it was his view that the present rules for resolving disputes about traffic accidents were far from satisfactory and that he was attracted to the idea of avoiding this gladiatorial process by following the route of no-fault liability. It was only people who had been involved, he said, who realised the uncertainty, the emotional energy and the anxiety which went into litigation.
  There is no doubt that there is considerable disquiet among those who have been affected by the failure to tackle some of the problems on which I have touched. The experience of the National Association of Compensation Claimants shows that there is a very large number of ordinary and rather inarticulate people who are baffled and frustrated. I receive a fairly steady stream of heart-rending letters from individuals who, at great personal cost, have discovered the difficulties of the present laws.
  I have no doubt that in time changes will come. The present system simply cannot be defended for ever. We cannot go on ignoring what has been happening in other parts of the world. Whether progress of any kind will be made in this Session remains to be seen. I recognise the problems of Whitehall in that the issues straddle a number of departments and that there is no one department in overall lead. The trouble is that as time goes on too many members of the community are finding out for themselves what is wrong with the present system. Stress, misery, frustration and hardship are being experienced on too great a scale for comfort in the compassionate society on which we pride ourselves.
  7.35 p.m.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, after having heard the most effective speech of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, I wonder whether I have made a mistake. I have decided not to pursue the two points that in my 12 minutes I intended to make when I asked for my name to be added to the list because at the end of the day this is a debating Chamber. I think the effectiveness of Parliament is by debate; and I feel that there were one or two points which, if allowed to go without some kind of antidote, would do more damage in the long term. Therefore, I hope that in presuming to do just that I am doing the right thing.
  What gave me the most confidence that the gracious Speech was on the right lines was the speech made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. In my estimation he is one of the most astute and experienced parliamentarians in either House. What gave me confidence was that he could find nothing in the gracious Speech to be critical about. He went on to other things, and that is what I want to come to now. I know that if there had been any fundamental weakness in the gracious Speech that ought to be aired he would have seen it. He would have seized upon it; and, with that great skill of his, it would have been in the headlines. He did not do that because there was no weakness there.

  187
  But what he did do was what he accused the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of doing. He made very friendly comments on the introductory speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor but said that he was fighting the next election. He said that the noble and learned Lord did not speak on the gracious Speech. I have a feeling that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was fighting the arguments which in strict parliamentary terms have not yet started. As is always the case with him, he was so effective and persuasive that it worries me when I just as genuinely have a different view of what might happen.
  Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I would not be so vain as to invite the noble Lord to read my speech tomorrow; but if he does me the honour of doing so he will see that I pointed out what I alleged to be were serious omissions from the gracious Speech. There is the issue of the condition of prisons and, above all, that of unemployment. I rashly contended that it indicated the Government had no policy for unemployment. It is very dangerous on the noble Lord's part to invite such an intervention as this because the House listened patiently to me then for long enough.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: But, my Lords, we know the noble and learned Lord well enough to know that of course he had an alibi up his sleeve. That is why I referred to him as being experienced and astute. But the main burden of the 22 minutes that he took, and which were very effective, had nothing whatever to do with the gracious Speech but had a lot to do with what he expected would be the problems we would be debating in the future. There is no doubt about that.
  What did the noble and learned Lord say? He was very effective in pointing out the increase in crime, the dangers of it and the awful consequences that could flow from it if nothing is done. That was right, and that is where we are all agreed. But then he went on to imply that new Members in another place were remiss in suggesting that something new and slightly more stern should be applied. Indeed, when he referred to that he called it "putting the clock back". I believe those were the words he used. However, if that kind of appeal is suggesting that the options that have been used over the past five or 10 years—which I suppose compared with what he had in mind when he commented on the new Members of the other place—are the soft options, can he or anyone say that they have produced much success?
  We do not yet know What the stern measures will be; but when the alternative to possible stern measures has been in operation we have seen the terrific climb in the crime figures to which the noble and learned Lord so eloquently referred. I believe that we must be prepared to face up to the great menace which is engulfing not only this country but the whole of the Western world. When we are thinking of some way to combat it we should not feel we must be loyal to past methods when it is clear that they have not produced the answer. I am rather worried by the fact that the noble and learned Lord seemed to give the impression that in combating crime we must go down the same road as we have gone down in recent years. The noble and learned Lord's
  188
  eloquence has great appeal, but we need to meet the problem with something more effective and practical when we attempt to put legislation on to the statute book to deal with it.
  I always seem to get on the wrong side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, but I really am one of his greatest admirers. I felt that he fell a little below his own level. It may well have been because he feels strongly about the issue, and let me say how much I admire him for feeling strongly. For example, in talking about capital punishment he said that we knew that Timothy Evans was innocent. We do not. What we know is that had we at the time of the trial known of the obscenities and horrible things that had happened during the Christie occupancy of the same house, it is doubtful whether Timothy Evans would have had to face capital punishment. But, if one reads the evidence, there is no question of being able to say with the certainty that the noble and learned Lord did that Timothy Evans was innocent. I use that to say that I do not think that we have to—
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt for one moment to remind the noble Lord that there was a judicial inquiry by a judge after it was all over. I am not sure whether he is aware of the findings in that inquiry.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think that the findings of that inquiry were that justice had not been done, but not that Timothy Evans, on the evidence that came before the original trial, had been shown to be not guilty.
  Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords. I do not want to pursue this, but in fact the findings went further than that. Noble Lords may recall that a posthumous free pardon was granted to Timothy Evans.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I thought I had met that point. Absolutely. If the evidence that came out later in the following trials had been there for the original trial, there is little doubt that he would not have been found guilty in those terms. There is no doubt about that. All I am saying is that it is not in accordance with the evidence that existed then to use that in an argument to state positively that we ought never to consider the possible reintroduction of capital punishment for any grade of crime in any way. As I have said, I believe that we ought to approach it in a more open-minded fashion.
  Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I hesitate to step in where angels fear to tread, but I think I am right in saying that the issue of capital punishment was not mentioned in the gracious Speech at all.
  Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me, that is precisely what I said. I said that the matters that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, spoke on so eloquently and so effectively had nothing whatever to do with it. If that had been in the gracious Speech he would have been on to it like a shot. This issue is anticipating a debate that is to come. It is a debate that we shall have to face up to. I merely want to suggest that when we come to approach it we

  189
  approach it in the light of all the evidence, and not feeling loyalty to the past out of sheer loyalty to the past. I know that the noble and learned Lord would be the first to accept that proposition.
  The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that our electoral system was unfair and should be reformed. That again is not a matter that was in the gracious Speech, and there again it is preparing the ground for later arguments. If you can get the atmosphere right before you start producing your evidence, it helps people to accept your version of the evidence. I wish to ask just this one question. When people talk about being fair or unfair, fair to whom? Have we to approach the issue on the basis of being fair to a self-appointed group who claim to be—and perhaps are—a party, or of being fair to the nation? I feel that it is the duty of people in either House of Parliament to give priority to being fair to the nation and to have a system which will give the nation its best chance to get the best share of the good things that are going in the world.
  I should like to remind your Lordships of what would have happened in the last election had we had either of the systems being recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and the noble Lord, Lord Banks: we should have had roughly 300 Conservative Members, 170 Lahour and 160 Alliance. What happened was in the best interests of the country: within 24 hours of the last count the world—our friends and possible business associates everywhere—knew who would be the members of the Cabinet, who would be setting the general climate in which things would have to work. Within 24 hours they knew the manifesto upon which any future legislation would be based. For them to know who they would be dealing with and the manifesto on which policies would be based cleared away any uncertainties. What was preventing investment in the country on the scale available in the world were the uncertainties. In 24 hours they had been removed.
  If the system recommended by the noble Lords had been in operation, resulting in the figures that I have given as to possible membership, I venture to suggest it would have taken weeks for people to decide who would coalesce with whom and which personality should have what post in the Government to bring about a situation that was considered fair to deal with legislation upon which the country's climate would eventually depend. I believe that it would have perpetuated an uncertainty which in economic terms would have been very dangerous indeed for this country in trying to get out of its economic problems, involving high unemployment and all that goes with it.
  At the moment there are hundreds of millions of pounds waiting to be invested in any country that has the protection of the Common Market tariff barriers. Foreign investors prefer this country in many instances because they understand the language and are impressed with our stability, if you like, part of which flows from our electoral system. If the people wishing to invest still did not know with whom they would be dealing, the policies they would have to counteract and so on, I believe that our possible recovery would have been slowed down to a truly dangerous point. On the evidence of the last election, had we been encumbered with proportional voting, which would have meant
  190
  coalitions, negotiations, bargaining for position and all the things that go with it, I doubt whether we should have had the credibility, or the creditability that we need, to attract the investment which is the only thing which can get us out of our problems.
  I truly believe that some of the speeches that we have heard today on the gracious Speech have been concerned with preparing the way to bring about changes without any real thought, in order to serve some kind of self-interest, and so some balance must be struck. It is quite likely that the SDP—and the Alliance—may grow to be the possible alternative Government. If the SDP wants that, and if in order to maintain a healthy system we get that, the SDP ought to do it in exactly the same way as the Labour Party did it with the Liberal Party in the 1920s. The Labour Party then proved to have more effective policies and leadership, and so it replaced the Liberals. If the SDP proves that it has greater efficiency and greater stability to offer than the present Labour Party, it will replace Labour.
  If the time comes when the Conservative Party, or any other party, under any other title produces policies that are as out of touch regarding the good of the country and what the people want, as those of the Labour Party in the last election, then the Conservative Party—if it ever does that—also deserves to be overtaken by somebody else. In the meantime when we consider whether or not we do such things, let us forget our past loyalties and past feelings. We are starting a new world, where we are facing new problems, and I believe that we must all pool our thinking to try to get the right answer.
  7.51 p.m.
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I am awfully pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is going to put aside his own prejudices and start again. This will be very nice for all of us, because we are very used to those prejudices, we know them very well, we have heard them very often. The noble Lord told the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, that he was not going to follow him because he was going to make a political speech in relation to the debate. He is perfectly entitled to do so, but I find political debate of this kind extremely boring and I am not going to reply in that way.
  However, I must make one political point. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff (who I notice is not in his seat) said that it would be terrible for us if in an election we obtained the same kind of result as the Italians are experiencing from proportional representation. He seemed to forget that the majority of the voters of this country, who voted against the Tory Government, think that our election was a terrible disaster, too. So you pays your money and you takes your choice. However, I am not going to enter into an argument on proportional representation; we are going to have a great deal of this. A very careful statement was made earlier by my noble friend, and a number of much less careful criticisms were made by the noble Lord opposite. That is my opinion, though not necessarily everyone else's; but I am not going on with the point.
  It seems to me that the arrival of a Government with a huge majority, under whatever system it is obtained, is an occasion which gives us the right to expect some

  191
  brave and imaginative action in one or two areas which do not usually get it. Neither of the points that I have in mind got into the Queen's Speech, but that is not a reason for not talking about them. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, very properly pointed out, omissions from the gracious Speech are a matter of interest. It seems to me that the Government are steeling themselves to be beastly to us in many ways which they think essential, and I am sure that they will, alas! have the courage to back their own convictions, however wrong and however unpopular. Yet I want them to pluck up their courage in a positive way, and not only in a negative way. I want them bravely to make two major changes in two very different fields in which difficult problems have been with us for a long time and will not go away without major changes.
  The first one concerns the prisons. The noble and learned Lord dealt with the matter very well, and additional thought was given to it by my noble friend Lord Hunt. Therefore I shall deal with it cursorily, bearing in mind also that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate knows as well as I do all the arguments for drastic action, and so it would be boring to go into them in too much detail.
  Basically, the noble Lord will not dispute the case put up by the noble and learned Lord that the present situation, which is one of crisis, is not really tolerable, and he will not dispute the comments of his own Chief Inspector. I shall quote one comment of the Chief Inspector that the noble Lord did not quote. It is that,
  "By no stretch of the imagination can these conditions be regarded as humane or proper. They are unacceptable. They certainly fall short of the standards set by Rule 5.3 of the European Standard Minimum Rules Indeed, we doubt if this standard can be said to have been reached in any of our local prisons".
  The Chief Inspector pointed out that the building programme cannot help overcrowding for another four years or so, and he stated:
  "The net result is therefore likely to be a worsening of overcrowding".
  Nor will the Minister dispute the fact that each night there are some 400 prisoners kept in police cells in conditions which are very hard to defend.
  I do not think I am saying anything that the Minister does not know, and I do not think that I am expressing sentiments with which in general he does not agree. The point is that we have a situation which is unacceptable. We believe that it can be dealt with without legislation, and we believe that it should be dealt with without legislation. That is the point I wish to make, and I think that I can make it fairly quickly.
  The best and simplest way of reducing the prison population is to have shorter sentences. On the whole, we have practically the longest sentences in Europe, and it is reckoned that if in England and Wales we could reduce the average length of sentences to those in Scotland, we should halve the prison population in a year or two. It is a very interesting point, not usually known. Our noble Leader the late Home Secretary tried very hard to do this, with the help of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice, and in 1980 he met with some success. But that was swamped by about 4,000 more prison sentences than previously, and the situation has since
  192
  in no way improved. So I think that the new Home Secretary, whom I warmly welcome to his exacting task, should try again and should promise that if the courts will undertake to reduce all sentences by a stated amount—10 per cent., 20 per cent., or whatever is thought to be the right amount—for a year, he will monitor the effect carefully and not go on with the scheme if it produces unacceptable results. I do not believe that it would, and I do not believe that the courts would refuse to co-operate in a once-for-all effort to end this blot on our democracy.
  Secondly, last year's Criminal Justice Act gave the Home Secretary powers of executive release by which he could release certain categories of non-violent offender up to six months early. His Minister of State told us that it would be used "only as a last resort". If all non-violent prisoners serving under three years were given three months' remission, not six months, there could be a reduction in the prison population of about 3,000. It seems to me that a prolonged and unacceptable situation, which we now have, can properly be regarded as a last resort, and I hope very much that we shall hear something about this matter, if not today, within quite a short time.
  I come now to the third point, about which my noble friend Lord Hunt also spoke. The Criminal Justice Act also empowers the Home Secretary to reduce the 12-month minimum period before parole can be granted. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, has told us in this House that the Government were persuaded of the desirability of doing this if it were possible, and the usual prolonged consultations are taking place. I do not want to go into too much detail, but one of the objections to such action is based on grounds of expenditure. However the expenditure is very largely estimated to relate to increasing the number of prison and probation officers, which is rather desirable. It is about £2¼million net.
  The possible saving of about £100 per head per night, which the prison service pays to the police for 400 men at the moment—sometimes more, sometimes fewer—spread over a year would amount to an astronomical figure. A big saving is possible here. None of these things requires legislation. The noble Viscount who was Home Secretary had the wisdom to make these things potentially available in the last Act. The time has therefore come when some action should be taken. That action must be positive and immediate. This area has been in crisis for the whole of the period in which the Government have been in office and for a long time before.
  I should also like to say a few words about capital punishment although it does not appear, as has been pointed out, in the gracious Speech. Whatever the Prison Officers' Association may say, there is no doubt that capital punishment would have a very disturbing effect on senior management throughout the prisons. I do not think that anyone, including, I believe, the Home Office, doubts this. Its reintroduction would affect morale very badly. I hope therefore that there will be a debate in this House before a vote is taken in another place.
  The other subject—I can deal with it quickly—is very different. I am asking for a major increase in the financing of the arts so that the endless diversion of

  193
  artistic endeavour from producing the best to producing the least expensive is at last brought to an end. The arguments are overwhelming, the cost is very small and the ensuing advantages to our society are immeasurably greater than any of the costs involved. Positive encouragement of this kind would be popular. I need not say much about this. It does not feature in the Queen's Speech. No one else has referred to it, but it is an important part of home affairs.
  I should like merely to point out that each year 50 million ordinary citizens go to our galleries and museums and 40 million to our historic houses—figures that compare favourably with the 22 million who attend football matches. The arts enrich our lives. As leisure increases, as it is bound to do through unemployment and early retirement, the arts will become more important than ever. I shall not elaborate further today. The details of the argument are set out with irresistible clarity in Sir Claus Moser's excellent Robbins lecture of last year, "The Arts in a Cold Climate" on which I have drawn freely today.
  We spend £8 per head. Germany spends £39. France spends £13. Let us not preen ourselves on putting our expenditure up to £9. That would not be imaginative or bold for a new and powerful Government. Let us at least equal France and raise the figure to £13 per head. It would affect our overall expenditure so little as to be unnoticeable, and the benefits would be enormous. I have deliberately made no suggestion of how such an increase should be distributed. I should like, however, to insist that some money is injected into the rather depressed area of art education in schools.
  The fact that the arts need a major rise in assistance to prosper is irrefutable. If they do not prosper but go on sliding, we shall all be the sufferers. I wish to welcome the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, to his post as Minister for the Arts. I am glad that the tradition by which the right honourable Paul Channon and myself were first tested in Northern Ireland and then, having stood up respectably to the hard realities over there, were thought reliable enough to be let loose in the dangerous and unquantifiable area of the arts, has been once again followed. Northern Ireland's loss will be our gain. I wish him every success, our first poet Minister, and, above all, I beg the Government to have the courage to give him proper backing.
  8.5 p.m.
  Lord Rea: My Lords, I regret that I was not able to be present at the beginning of the debate. I apologise in advance if I repeat some points that have already been made. It seems to me that today's debate has been mainly centred on topics related to law and order. But this is also the place to raise matters to do with a more expensive edifice than the law. I refer to the National Health Service. The Speech from the Throne contained only a short paragraph on health. It stated:
  "Further action will he taken to ensure that patients receive the best value for the money spent on the National Health Service".
  This was amplified a few days later by the Secretary of State for Social Services in his speech to the National Association of Health Authorities, in Harrogate, and yesterday in another place. He implied, as we really knew, despite the non-controversial nature of the wording in the gracious
  194
  Speech, that this meant increasing private involvement at various points in the National Health Service. But one thing he did say was that the present method of financing the National Health Service would remain. This Government, committed to hardheaded, business efficiency, have found in fact that private insurance cannot deal with most of the activities of the National Health Service. So by default, in fact, the Government have admitted that the National Health Service is good value for money now, as it stands.
  Of course, we would all like to see a better, more effective and more efficient National Health Service. We, on these Benches, will, I know, work hard towards this end. But we have pointed out from time to time the well-known fact that of all industrial countries, the United Kingdom spends a lower proportion of its gross national product on health than any other, and still has a health service second to none. "Value for money" implies efficiency and effectiveness—in other words, that the enterprise, whatever it is, should do what it sets out to do well and economically and that there should be high cost effectiveness.
  Economists and health planners have for many years discussed how this should best be applied to the complicated issue of health service administration. This was, in fact, the subject of the 1971 Rock Carling Fellowship monograph written by Professor Archie Cochrane, the director of the Medical Research Council's epidemiology unit in Cardiff. This short book is well worth the reading by anyone responsible for the administration of health care. It is, of course, well known to the permanent officials in the DHSS. The essence of his argument is that many medical activities, which were thought to he effective and essential, are not necessarily so. This applies to many accepted orthodox medical activities, let alone new or alternative methods of medicine that are now trying to get recognition and to play a part in the National Health Service.
  His main message is that all procedures, new or old and established, need to he subject to randomised controls—in other words, they need to be objectively and scientifically evaluated in a way that tends to eliminate bias. This is easier when applied to specific clinical treatments for particular diseases. It is less easy when applied to the board, lodging and "tender loving care" aspects of health services.
  One meaning of value for money in the present Government's eyes, as Mr. Fowler has confirmed, is that many supportive services such as laundry, catering and cleaning might be more economically provided if they were let out to private firms. Nobody could really complain if these services were more efficient and less costly than those provided at present by the health authorities. But, even if this were so, the fact remains that someone will be making a profit while providing these services. Efficient management within the National Health Service could do the job without the extra cost of this profit for which the taxpayer pays. Effective management is not the prerogative of private industry. An example is British Telecom, which makes a handsome profit at the moment, and is of course a ripe plum that is about to be reached for.

  195
  We are also told that the National Health Service may be asked to pay for the occasional use of expensive equipment that is the property of private hospitals and health organisations. Up till now, private patients have more often come to the National Health Service in order to obtain expensive help because the capital cost of some equipment, for example, in radiotherapy, is too high for the private sector. It is now proposed that the National Health Service will pay the private sector for the use of various facilities which they own.
  This might be fair if, when the boot is on the other foot, it can also be seen that the full cost of National Health Service facilities is borne by private patients when they use them. Unfortunately, this has not always been the case and is the main reason for the anger of health service workers about private practice, and the wish to end pay-beds within the National Health Service hospitals. There is a feeling, with some justification, that private patients are getting services on the cheap from the National Health Service. Until all aspects of private care in National Health Service hospitals are very carefully scrutinised, all talk of cooperation between the public and private sectors will he regarded with a certain amount of suspicion by health service workers.
  Overall, however, the "hotel" aspects of the National Health Service are not so basic in the consideration of value for money as the costs of the procedures, drugs and treatments which the National Health Service provides. As we discussed in this House about two months ago in the debate on the private/public mix which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunter, each doctor disposes of some £20,000, if he is a general practitioner. and £¼ million, if he is a hospital consultant, of National Health Service money. Drugs, at a cost of some £2 billion, constitute a major part of this cost. There are in fact several openings for a reduction in this large sum and the Greenfield Report from the DHSS shows how generic substitution by pharmacists for the proprietary drugs which doctors prescribe could save a considerable sum which might amount to some £200 million per annum, or 10 per cent. of present drug costs.
  Major economies in hospital expenditure could be achieved by general practitioners taking back much of the work of hospital out-patient departments, and a co-ordinated "day care" or early discharge policy would enable patients to get back to their own homes much earlier, saving costly hospital beds. There is a form of analysis, which is carried out by most hospitals, called hospital activity analysis, which looks in detail at many things which go on. If this could be extended to indicate how much hospital care, both in-patient and out-patient, is received by the patients of every general practitioner in the country, and if the results were fed back to those GPs, wide differences would be revealed and the resulting discussion, in my view, would have a very interesting effect and might eventually result in a considerable reduction in hospital expenditure which, as we know, absorbs far the greatest share of the National Health Service budget.
  The DHSS is aleady financing a number of studies looking at innovative aspects of care of this type which
  196
  will free resources for new developments. These studies need to be extended and acted upon. Different and more economical methods of care need to be subjected to the randomised controlled trials which Professor Cochrane has suggested. Many of these will test the effect of transferring resources from the hospital to the community, from the out-patient department to the general practitioner's surgery or health centre. This shift would be popular with patients since much care now carried out in hospital would be available nearer the patient's own home. I have suggested before that the Government should provide incentives to those doctors who are providing a good standard of care and vet can be seen to be economising in the use of the scarce resources of the National Health Service.
  In summary, I would like to point out that, if private firms are brought in to deal with certain sections of the National Health Service, great care should be used in assessing that they really are more cost-effective and provide as good a service. Will the services that they provide really be more economical, and will the National Health Service not be in danger of falling into the hands of opportunists? If the National Health Service is to pay private agencies for services, then private patients must in return pay the full cost of any National Health Service facilities that they use. There is a very big scope for looking carefully at present medical practices and organization, and constantly encouraging and testing innovative procedures and ideas.
  8.15 p.m.
  Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, the hour is getting very late, and I hope therefore to be brief. However, I should like to mention some of the young people of this country. Let me begin with education. I had planned to deal with that matter in a certain amount of depth, but my noble friend Lord Beloff has made such a very interesting speech on that subject that I shall make only one comment on it.
  The gracious Speech says that it is the intention to improve the standards of education. As education is, in my view, the basis of the future of children of this country, it is obviously vitally important that the standards of education should be as high as possible. However, it has been brought to my notice on several occasions that, although we and the ratepayers think that the young people of this country are being educated, because of truancy, in a great number of cases young people are not receiving the education for which the ratepayers are paying.
  Indeed, during the last election campaign one of the candidates in a large town went up to some young boys whose votes he hoped to win. They all turned out to be 18 years of age. There were six of them and he asked them what they were doing. In every case they were doing nothing. He asked them what qualifications they had gained at their schools, and between the six of them there was only one qualification. He asked them why that was so—they appeared to him to be reasonably intelligent—and in every case they said that the school, was too boring and therefore they had not attended and had not gained any qualifications. I should like to ask the Government whether, through the Department of Education and Science, they could

  197
  bring to the notice of local authorities the fact that they should do more to ensure that the pupils whom they are supposed to be educating actually attend school.
  Another part of the gracious Speech mentioned the right to buy homes. That is a major principle with which, on the whole, most of us would agree. But I am sure that all members of your Lordships' House would understand that someone who is unemployed is unlikely to be able to buy a home. If someone is unemployed in the North of the country, it is possible that he will come South to try to get a job and he will be greeted here by having no home. There are hostels and lodging houses and such people are able to sleep rough. There are a number of organisations that are financed voluntarily and sometimes they receive a small amount of money from the local authorities. However, I am reliably informed that in our city there are a very great number of people who are without a home. On one night within the last 10 days there were 55 people sleeping rough under Hungerford Bridge. We all know that in this great city of ours there are a very great number of bridges.
  The picture emerges from a charity with which I have a certain amount to do, that the local authorities not only do not care but are also dodging their responsibilities and are not providing homes—indeed, roofs—for the people who are part of their city. I am asking the Government whether, in the not too distant future, they will institute a survey to find out how many people in our city are not only without homes but without roofs as well. I am afraid that the numbers are increasing because, as I have said, the people from the North are coming South to look for work, not knowing that it is almost impossible to find a roof.
  Having said that, I feel very strongly that the young people expect more from us, the legislators of this country, than we have given them to date. I think that we should take far more initiative in providing leisure pursuits for them. Many years ago 1 was able to play most games for my county, so I was of a fairly high standard but not high enough. I suggest that there are a great number of ways in which, with some organisation, leadership, imagination and enterprise, we could collect some of the young people who are now doing absolutely nothing and put them on the soccer field, the hockey field, the cricket field—and, who knows, perhaps even encourage them to take up basketball or swimming. We might have a Sobers on Merseyside or a Pele in Brixton, It would be marvellous if we could find more leisure pursuits for these people.
  I think that the Government are doing a wonderful job in training the young people for jobs for which of course they have not been trained before. But, as we all know, at the end of the road they do not always get a job. Therefore, in my view it is very important that these young people's lives should not be wasted. In fact, I think it is our duty to provide facilities, encouragement and leadership. During the last part of this Government's tenure of office the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Neil Macfarlane, was given the job of going round the country to find playing fields and to encourage local authorities to help young people participate in sports. When the noble Lord, the Minister, winds up perhaps he can assure me that in actual fact this Minister—who I see
  198
  has been reappointed—will have the same responsibility because I thought that this was imaginative.
  A very great number of people who retire at 55 years of age would love to have the opportunity to get back on the soccer field to teach sports to young people. It is good for the young; it uses their surplus energy and makes them friends. I sincerely ask the Government to do their best to promote this, even to a greater degree than was done in the past. That is my small contribution, but I wanted to say a few words about trying to encourage the young people.
  8.23 p.m.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, in her Majesty's most gracious Speech it is stated that legislation will be brought forward to modernise the law on police powers. There is concern that the police might be given powers to search people's internal anatomy. In cases of concealed drugs or other smuggling, this may be necessary, but I hope that the Government will reassure your Lordships' House that this most intimate job will be undertaken by doctors or nurses who have been adequately trained. I am sure that many people will welcome the statement that measures will be brought forward to protect personal information held on computers.
  As family law is quoted in the most gracious Speech, may I now quote from a letter which I have just received from the Catholic Child Welfare Council about the new adoption agency regulations. The letter says:
  "I think you will agree that the reference to religious upbringing is really very slight and could well he ignored in practice".
  The wish is to have at least reinstated the existing regulations, which were clearer than these which have just been issued. In 1975 I was one of the Members of your Lordships' House who helped in getting the religious clause inserted into the Children and Young Persons Act, but we were also given strong assurances by the Government that the matter would be dealt with appropriately in the regulations. This point may seem very unimportant in this modern day and age, but to some people who respect and honour the sacraments of the Christian Churches this is an important matter. Up and down the country there are many children placed in children's homes, community homes and penal institutions who are the casualties of broken homes. If the Ten Commandments were respected, we would have a more stable and less violent society. Our present-day situation is the result of veering off course.
  The gracious Speech stresses the support for the services which maintain law and order. I should like to ask the Government a question about the secure unit at the community home at Redhill in Surrey. I am told that this special unit, which caters for children between the ages of 14 and 16 who have severe problems and have committed serious offences such as arson, murder and rape, is shortly to close. What is to become of these children? Are they to be placed in ordinary prisons?
  This very difficult problem seems to be tossed periodically from the Department of Health and Social Security to the Home Office like an unpopular

  199
  football. If these young adolescents are to be placed in prison without special treatment and education, do noble Lords not think that they may not come out eventually as more dangerous individuals, embittered or depressed, who will be an even greater risk to society? Instead of trying to push this problem to one side, should not the DHSS and the Home Office come together and share the challenge of coping? Is it not true to say here:
  "Problems shared would be problems halved"?
  I am pleased that the gracious Speech put emphasis on the patients so that they will receive the best value for the money spent on the National Health Service. Sometimes in the past, when the National Health Service has been in the headlines, the patients have not been the first priority. It will take a long time to forget the terrible days of the strikes which put patients in a very vulnerable position. In Aberdeen cancer patients who were dying had no clean linen, and friends and relations were not allowed to bring it in. The only specially equipped ambulance with an incubator for transferring critically ill babies to specialised treatment on populated Teesside was blacked. I hope that a way to prevent such situations ever arising again will be found.
  Competition is never a bad thing unless it puts too much pressure on a situation. It is to be hoped that it is a way of raising much needed standards. When one reads that a new variety of bacterium resistant to all the common antibiotic drugs is invading hospitals, it must be of the utmost importance to have the highest possible standards of hygiene. I also hope that priority will be given to painting some of the old and gloomy wards. Clean, attractive walls and ceilings help to raise morale. When I visited a friend suffering from leukaemia last year who was in one of the most famous teaching hospitals in London I noticed that the paint was peeling off the ceiling.
  The Government have said that they are putting priority on the mentally ill, the mentally handicapped and the elderly. I feel that many of the mentally handicapped and elderly should not be taking beds up in the National Health Service if they are not ill. If they are in need of care and support this could be better provided in a more community situation. It needs careful thought and planning. After years of living together in institutions patients cannot just be plonked back into the community without support. In some districts there is not good enough co-operation and joint planning and funding between the social services departments and the health authorities. Very often the problem seems to be that the social services accommodation does not provide adequate nursing care, so some elderly people have to go miles from their homes into a total hospital situation which could have been avoided if some compromise had been available. I hope that the Government will encourage cooperation between health and social services.
  I hope that the Government will come around to realising that a balance has to be kept within the National Health Service. If casualty departments are not kept at reasonably high standards, then disasters will arise. I visited the casualty department at Pontefract General Hospital a few weeks ago. This department has now become totally inadequate for the
  200
  changing situation which has come about due to having two busy new motorways which have opened on either side of the hospital. The reorganised district has to cope with a large mining population spread over a wide, populated area.
  There are six beds in the casualty department, no recovery area, a very busy fracture clinic next door and a tiny waiting area. The hospital has no intensive care unit and the patients have to be transferred to the wards, sometimes having to use three different lifts. If people die in casualty the bodies have to be removed by taking them past the waiting patients. The staff are really worried, and say that on a Thursday night it is almost unbearable chaos. Regional health authorities have many priorities to meet but if casualty departments are inadequate there will be more lives lost and more long-term handicap sustained.
  I should like to end by saying how loyal and splendid are the many volunteers who work and give such useful supplements to the National Health Service hospitals. To give just one example, at the small district general hospital in Northallerton in North Yorkshire my branch of the British Red Cross Society runs a canteen with volunteer helpers. Each year thousands of pounds profit is raised, and this goes back into the hospital towards buying up-to-date medical equipment for that hospital.
  I applaud sharing if it helps with caring for patients who will benefit from the results. It is most interesting to hear about the National Health Service and BUPA combining to run a special new kidney machine. If the Lithotripter is as good as it sounds, it may prevent much pain and suffering to patients, as well as saving the National Health Service much needed money. I hope that the department will evaluate this procedure carefully, and if it is successful I hope that all regions that need one will be able to have it.
  Something which costs no money and which every hospital needs is TLC. I hope, with all the high technology and expertise, that tender, loving care will not be forgotten.
  8.35 p.m.
  Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before I turn to what I believe may be the most important contribution that I shall make to this debate, concerning the penultimate sentence of the gracious Speech, there are one or two other points which I feel should be developed in this debate on home and social affairs. My first point relates to the remoulding of the telecommunications system, and I particularly refer to the telephone system. The Bill when it is published will, I imagine, be a revised edition of the proposals which have already received the attention of this House, but the point I wish to emphasise particularly in reference to the subject of this debate is the social aspect of the availability of the telephone.
  I chose to call my challenge and appeal an appeal for "Granny up the glen". That is an easy phrase, but it might be granny in the high rise flat, or it might be the handicapped person in any basement or cottage. It might be the sick or the bereaved. Please may we come to treat the telephone, as one of my supporters has said, so that in our civilisation it is be as important a part of a dwelling as hot and cold water, or a water

  201
  closet? This element in the whole concept is not a commercial factor in terms of the telephone system. It is a social factor, and should be included and financed as such, and that is my appeal.
  As for an independent prosecution service, which is referred to in the gracious Speech, prudent as such a proposal indubitably is, let no one fail to appreciate the serious complications which will arise throughout the system South of the Border. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord who is to follow me may be thinking of making some mention of this problem.
  Turning to the National Health Service, it amazes me that the Opposition and the media, especially the BBC, seem to miss no opportunity to decry the National Health Service's obvious and manifest success. They do not seem to listen to the figures given by the Ministry of the increased contributions to staffing, and the like. They will not dig into the real difficulties which beset the problem: difficulties of overmanning; difficulties of the hypochondriac; difficulties of busybodies; difficulties of the diehard, so much determined to die hard. The enormous advantage which stemmed from the co-operation of private medicine is decried.
  The gracious Speech refers to ensuring that,
  "patients receive the best value for the money spent".
  Certainly that is to he praised. May I remind the Ministry that as the supply of fully qualified chiropractors is being steadily increased by the output of the Anglo-European college in Bournemouth, the manifest financial advantages of the profession's manipulative therapy should be rendered available to patients of the National Health Service within the provisions thereof. The potential savings not only in money terms but in mercy terms and in workers' productivity terms are so substantial that BUPA and the like must soon trim their sails to this wind of change in the treatment of back pain.
  My next point is the reference to the Scottish roads on the last page of the paper. I do not quite know what is meant by "reform of the law". I do not know whether this refers to motoring laws, but I do know that Scotland's needs from the road system and the overall service which the system provides require a thorough and radical reassessment in terms of return for money spent. Now that the A9 highway has been more or less modernised, what about the road expenditure on massive road development such as the M9 which is not properly used? It is ahead of its time quite considerably as is the magnificient road complex in the Ardrossan, Saltcoats, Troon and Prestwick areas. Many millions of pounds have been spent ahead of the need. All this time Edinburgh, which should have had an outer bypass 20 years ago, is still resisting the completion of the task which has produced half a by-pass. It is a splendid road which I understand is already carrying 16,000 vehicles a day.
  The region is fiddling about with ridiculous proposals which are set out in an article in today's Scotsman, that has come to my hand. It is an extravagance to which I believe, because of what is mentioned in the gracious Speech, the Government should apply themselves to see that proper use is made of the information at hand and the money available. Despite the fact that, set out in the current plan, the by-pass is
  202
  due for completion in 1991, should we not be sure that it is done in time for the Commonwealth Games in 1986 as part of the whole national problem? One item is missing which is mentioned in the article. It is something that should be borne in mind by the Government in their approach to the subject of roads around Edinburgh, and that is that the original concept included provisions which would enormously assist the use of public transport.
  My final contribution on this matter is something about which I have serious misgivings. I refer to the penultimate sentence in the gracious Speech:
  "Other measures will be laid before you".
  This will have to he reappraised. It is the problem of reporting Parliament to the public. I make no apology for raising it again if only by virtue of the experience of the recent election—an election which made manifest the extent to which the radio and television broadcasts now take a prominent place in the conduct of our parliamentary democracy. This came on top of the BBC's action in curtailing and restricting its long-established programmes "Today" and "Yesterday in Parliament". It has acted strictly within its rights. It has proved in its analysis of its ratings that it is obsessed by the idea of entertainment and is not committed to the political service which was foreseen by the late John Reith.
  Would that Portland Place had the conscience of Bush House. I heard on a recent overseas programme the comments of a Continental listener who said that after all the BBC now belongs to the whole world: Bush House, yes; Broadcasting House, no. I think I am right in saying that I am not alone in resisting the complacency with which some people are content to swallow the diktats of the BBC. Of course it is for the other place to take the first steps, but let the process not be delayed.
  Two items have come up in the debate which I feel are worth mentioning. One is the reference to capital punishment. The Lord Harris of Greenwich has put a Motion on the Order Paper. As we talked about proportional representation I felt that we were rather deafened by the grinding of an axe on this subject, because there is very strong resistance to the idea of proportional representation. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls outlined one very good reason. If it is agreed that neither the Conservatives nor Labour will have anything to do with proportional representation, would it not be wise for the political experts to approach the question of the possibility of the Double Ballot system? I feel that if both sides say they will not have proportional representation and our friends opposite say we must have electoral reform, then let us try to see if there is not a middle course towards electoral reform. If not, the Double Ballot system might meet the demands of the people who sincerely believe that some measure of reform is necessary.
  8.47 p.m.
  Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, we mountaineers on this Bench, as I think we are now entitled to call ourselves—if my title is perhaps not impressive, that of the noble Lord on my right carries a great deal of weight—are not disposed more than most to disagree with one another, but I disagreed with my noble friend

  203
  Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge when he said that he found the arguments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, boring. I enjoyed Lord Harmar-Nicholls's speech more than quite a number of others that I have listened to this afternoon. I wished for a moment that I had been following him as I would have enjoyed the political fisticuffs. I disagreed entirely with the arguments he supported on both heads to which he spoke, namely, law and order—with particular reference to capital punishment—and electoral reform. I will not pursue them, however, because it might bore your Lordships as apparently it bored my noble friend.
  I voted against capital punishment when it came up because, in the last resort, I did not think it would reduce the number of killings by criminals. That would be the basis of any judgment which I would reach on this matter. My experience, for what it is worth, was that whenever we discussed this matter in public there were the opinion pollsters talking to the man or woman in the street and asking, "Are you for hanging?" The immediate emotional reaction would tend to be. "Yes"—in the immortal words of our unworthy judge, the late Lord Braxfield, who would say. "Some of that lot would be nain the waur o' a hangin'." But when one deployed the arguments fully on both sides, my experience always was that the judgment was much more balanced and that a quite different result was obtained from the immediate emotional reaction. That is all I want to by about that.
  In the context of law and order a certain amount has been said in this debate, and a good deal more has been said from time to time outside by the media, about the difficulties of our penal establishments; the great shortcomings and the great difficulties under which staff have to work in so many of them. I thought I would mention—by way of contrast to that; because I know that there is much validity in these criticisms—that just a few weeks ago I visited a young offenders' penal establishment, a joint establishment with one wing devoted to the short, sharp sentence—something which we have had in Scotland for at least 20 years, 1 think—and the other wing devoted to the longer-term prisoners. I have not visited a penal establishment for. I suppose, some 15 years. Prior to that, in the course of my duty I have visited many establishments, prisons, borstals, what we used to call approved schools, and so on. I was impressed immensely by what I saw at Glen Ochill in Perthshire. I do not by that it was perfect; I do not by that there was not a limitation in what one can see in one day's visit. But I did not come away depressed as, 15 years ago. I almost invariably did. I came away with a very considerable respect for the staff of these institutions, the warden. the governor and his staff, and the contribution which they were making to the problem which was theirs. I came away with some hope. I got the impression, for what it is worth, that things were better than they had been there, certainly when I had first known them.
  With regard to law and order otherwise, I listened with immense interest to the speech of my noble friend Lord Hunt, because he spoke from an extensive experience in many of the law and order fields of
  204
  which I have little or no first-hand knowledge or experience. He was absolutely right when he said that what we must try to aim at is prevention. This reminded me that when I had to deal with them in the courts, we used to claim—with what validity, I do not know—that the sheriff's court at Glasgow was the biggest criminal court in Europe. No one contradicted it. What I always felt then as they came before us day after day—and we did not deal only with criminal cases but with other matters as well—was that the odds that we could deal with them successfully, that is to say, to stop them from committing crimes, were very much against us. There is no doubt that it is prevention that should be our aim. I should like, if I may, to reinforce Lord Hunt's urging on the Government of these recipes for prevention. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be able to tell us of the Government's real commitment to such recipes.
  I should like to emphasise, too, that we in the Social Democratic Party, as Lord Hunt has said, certainly are not soft on criminals—whatever that means. But one should have the unfailing faith that there is treasure, if only one can find it, at the heart of every man. These are not my words. They are the less often quoted words of a great Home Secretary, Winston Churchill. That is the sort of approach which must be our guide. I have often thought that if these words of Winston Churchill were quoted more often at gatherings of the Conservative Party, then the approach of the rank and file—not the wise leaders and Ministers of the Conservative Government but that of the rank and file—to this problem of crime and prevention would be better appreciated. When I had responsibilities in this field I had the greatest difficulty in persuading the then Shadow Home Secretary that I was just as much concerned as he to protect the public against the depredations of the criminal, and that the first duty of Government in this context is to look to the safety of the victim or the possible victim. That is the first priority.
  But we must take a broader view than that kind of Churchillian view—not literally; because there are some criminals who, because they are prone to behave like wild animals, must be restrained. There is no doubt about that. These are all matters of which we are perfectly well aware. If we could get down to prevention on the lines outlined by Lord Hunt, we might make some better progress. I am sure that the great benefit of the failure of Conservative Governments in this field of law and order will have humbled them a bit, so that they are left a little more humble and perhaps a little wiser in their approach to this immensely difficult area.
  I have spoken for ten minutes. I have to say that there is one only one other matter to which I wish to turn and that is electoral reform. The case for this was always strong. I should have thought, in the light of the speech of my noble friend Lord Kennet, and that of Lord Banks from the Liberal Benches, that it would be accepted by most people that the case for such reform was unanswerable. It will present difficulties, of course, some of which were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, but the case on the merits, however we achieve it. I should have thought was unanswerable.
  8.58 p.m.
  Baroness Cox: My Lords, there are many aspects of the gracious Speech for which I should like to express my support. However, I will confine myself to the reference to education. I was delighted to hear that the Government will.
  "pursue policies for improving standards of education and widening parental choice and influence in relation to schools".
  I strongly support this commitment for two reasons. First, because in many schools standards of educational attainment and standards of behaviour, leave much to be desired and, secondly, because I firmly believe that it is parents, rather than politicians or bureaucrats, who know what is best for their children and that parental influence is one of the best ways of making schools and teachers more accountable.
  I should like briefly to amplify these two points. First, on the question of standards, a considerable body of research is now available (and more will be published later this week) which shows that in many schools pupils are not achieving satisfactory standards of attainment. I give two examples of studies to illustrate this point. The Institute of Mathematics undertook a survey in which 8,000 fifth-year secondary-school children were given a test to assess the most basic mathematical skills, the sort of skills needed for everyday life. The questions were designed so that virtually every pupil should have been able to answer them correctly. However, the results were generally very poor and they also varied considerably from one area to another. For example, the proportion of children who could not undertake the simple mathematical sum of multiplying 6 by 79 was 14 per cent, in Buckinghamshire; that rose to 25 per cent, of the children in the ILEA. Similarly, over 50 per cent, of the children in the ILEA could not turn the words "one hundred and forty-nine pounds and ninepence" into figures. One cannot help wondering what on earth those pupils had been doing with their teachers in maths lessons during all those years of compulsory schooling. The results of that survey give strong support to the concern which has been expressed by many in recent years about the lack of numeracy among school leavers, and I suggest that the findings are very worrying indeed for parents, for employers and for pupils, and, indeed, that they also have implications for us as a nation.
  My second example moves from basic skills to the provision for more academic qualifications, and a study of A-level results in the ILEA in 1978 showed some very distrubing situations. In one comprehensive school for 700 pupils, the total A-level results were as follows: three pupils took English and all failed; one took history and failed; one took French and failed; one took biology and failed; one took chemistry and failed; one took economics and failed; one took art and failed; two took sociology and failed; one took Urdu and was awarded an A grade. In another comprehensive school of 700 pupils, I am afraid there was not even that bit of light relief. The total A-level results were that only two pupils took English and both failed; four took art and all failed; two took sociology and both failed. Those were the entire A-level results for that school.
  206
  I hasten to emphasise, of course, that not all the ILEA comprehensives have results like those and I understand that one of those schools has since closed. But that does not alter the fact that there were pupils who spent two precious years of their teens studying in those schools, with nothing to show at the end of their time there but failure.
  And in case noble Lords should think that I have just chosen two maverick schools as examples, let me point out that in seven long-established comprehensive schools the number of A-levels achieved in 1978 was only just over one-half the number achieved 13 years earlier in 1965. Moreover, should any noble Lords he hoping that the situation has improved since 1978, I must sadly point out that more recent research suggests that there are still many schools up and down the country offering pupils who stay on into the sixth form to take A-levels such slender chances of success that they could be accused of playing a cruel confidence trick on their pupils.
  I now turn from educational attainment to other important aspects of schooling—behaviour and truancy. A study undertaken by the National Children's Bureau compared comprehensive schools with grammar and secondary modern schools, and found that standards of behaviour and rates of truancy were significantly worse in the comprehensives than in either the grammar or the secondary modern schools. This is worrying because, as your Lordships will know, there has been a steady move towards comprehensivisation, from 10 per cent. of our country's secondary schoolchildren in the early 1960s, to over 90 per cent. of our children nowadays.
  The National Children's Bureau research showed, for example, that pupils in the top ability group in comprehensives were six times more likely to play truant than those in grammar and secondary modern schools, while, on behaviour, the report states:
  "The behaviour of pupils in comprehensive schools was significantly worse than that of pupils in grammar and secondary modern schools taken together".
  What is even more disturbing is that the study showed that the longer the schools had been comprehensive, the worse they were in behaviour and truancy. In the words of that report:
  "teachers in the older comprehensives were most critical of their charges, and the combination of teachers in the secondary moderns and grammars seemed least likely to regard their pupils as having signs of disturbance, maladjustment or distress. This is in accord with the findings for truancy and staying away from school, in that those in the grammar-secondary modern combination appear, as a group, 'better' behaved, or 'better' adjusted to school".
  What lessons may be learned from these disturbing findings? First, we should be prepared to think critically about our education policies. A socialist sociologist once called the policy of comprehensivisation:
  "a gigantic experiment with the life chances of millions of children".
  That is one statement on which I am pleased to agree with one of my socialist colleagues. But surely the idea behind an experiment is that one tries it out to see whether it works, and, if it does not, one thinks again. However, one of the most disturbing features of education policy over the last two decades has been the dogmatic and doctrinaire imposition of policies such as comprehensivisation, wholesale, without any systematic assessment of their effects.

  207
  I am not against comprehensive schools as such. All of my three children have attended one and I recognise that there are many good comprehensive schools which are worthy of respect and support. But surely, if a school or a system of schooling is not working satisfactorily, we need to be prepared to think about reform and change; and research findings endorse the reservations expressed earlier by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor about comprehensive schooling.
  This is where the second part of the Government's commitment on education—the commitment to increase parental choice and influence—is so important, because these can be effective and democratic ways of achieving accountability and change. The Government's commitment is particularly, important, because one of the most alarming features of education policy over recent years has been the flouting of parental choice by certain local education authorities. For example, in my own borough, which is commonly called the People's Republic of Brent, one of the most popular primary schools, renowned for its high standard of educational attainment and consequently in great demand, is being forced by the local education authority to contract its intake and to refuse entry to pupils, even though it has room for them and though parents are pleading to be able to send their children there. This, of course, is happening so that the local education authority can fill up other, unpopular schools.
  Similarly, current proposals for reorganisation of secondary schools in Liverpool may impose a new system of schools, much against many parents' and teachers' wishes. I was appalled to see on television recently the 24-year-old chairman of the Liverpool Education Committee talking about developing (or was it imposing?) his plans for community corn prehensive schools, which involved abolishing well-established and very popular schools which did not tit in with his ideals. He did this in a way which seemed to imply that he thought he knew better than parents what is best for their children.
  It is in the light of developments such as these that the Government's commitment to widen parental choice and influence should he encouraged. If a school is doing a good job, is in demand and has spare capacity, why should pupils be denied the chance to go there? Or if a school is unpopular and parents do not wish to send their children there, why should they be forced to do so, especially if there are spaces in the school of their choice?
  We now have a situation in which the falling birth rate has created considerable slack in the system. Last September, about 700,000 pupils entered secondary schools. That number will drop to 500,000 by 1989. Consequently, there must be cut-backs in schools. The decisions on how these changes are to be implemented can either he made on doctrinaire grounds by politicians or bureaucrats or they can reflect the wishes of parents and pupils. The latter would seem to me to be preferable, because making schools responsive to parental choice increases the accountability of teachers to those whom they serve. Conversely, artificially boosting pupil numbers protects bad
  208
  schools from adverse reactions to poor teaching and administration.
  I conclude on a note of optimism. In spite of all the noise and fury about the "cuts" in education, it is a fact that more is being spent now, in real terms, per child than ever before in the history of education in this country. Also, as a result of the falling birth rate, pupil-teacher ratios are more favourable now than they have ever been. So the present time is a time of opportunity: opportunity to experiment genuinely and to use available evidence to assess the successes and failures of educational ideologies and practices. And the Government's commitment to increase parental choice and influence is to be welcomed as truly democratic. I hope that they will be able to introduce their measures soon, for only by doing so will they be able to help parents, such as those in Liverpool and Brent, whose freedom to choose the kind of education they wish for their children is already curtailed or threatened. As any parent will understand, that freedom is so precious that its loss is immeasurable.
  9.12 p.m.
  Lord Gifford: My Lords, I should dearly have liked to debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, her very carefully thought-out speech on educational policy, but at this time of night I must stick to the areas which I had mapped out for myself: areas which feature in the gracious Speech on the powers of the police and on the powers of local government. They are areas in which one can discern the philosophy of the new Government as they start their first year of office, areas where one can seek to distinguish between some of the myths upon which they got themselves elected to government and the realities which they are now seeking to put into operation.
  The party opposite vaunted itself as a party of freedom, yet it proposes to put into legislative form a massive encroachment upon our civil liberties. It vaunted itself as a party of democracy, of democracy which, it says, it seeks to extend into the trade union movement. But it seeks in its legislative proposals drastically to cut down the limited democratic rights which people have available to them in local government.
  So let us look at the reality. We start with the statement in the gracious Speech that:
  "My Government will remain steadfast in their support for the services which maintain law and order".
  That does not tell us much. Law and order is an awful cliché It is part of the propaganda of every authoritarian régime: protecting the law, however unfair, maintaining order, whatever causes there may be to protest against that order. It is the cliché which has banned Solidarity in Poland, which defends apartheid in South Africa. So let us look a little further than that:
  "A Bill will be introduced to replace the existing law on the prevention of terrorism.
  "Terrorism" is another emotive word for certain types of serious crime. Terrorist crimes do, of course, rank high on the scale of wickedness, but so do many other crimes, murders and rapes which are not classified as terrorism. There is another proposal, to which I shall come in a moment, to modernise the law on police powers and in which there is to he a categorisation of

  209
  certain crimes as serious crimes. So why do we need to have a Bill replacing the existing temporary laws on terrorism?
  What I fear is, that we are to make permanent a series of laws which were meant to be temporary—laws which include the corralling of certain citizens of the United Kingdom in some parts of the United Kingdom, and which include provision for seven-day detention at the disposal of the Home Secretary; detention without access to friends or lawyers, which should be no part of our system of administering justice, and which can become a weapon of harassment.
  We then come to the new law on police powers:
  "legislation will he brought forward to modernise the law on police powers".
  That sentence is misleading to the point of dishonesty. Why did the gracious Speech not by quite plainly—because we have already read this—that what is in preparation is a Bill to give new and sweeping powers to the police?
  When the Prime Minister decided to go to the country, we were about to debate the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It is a pity that we did not at least begin to do so, because we might have had some effect on the Bill that will ultimately be put before us. The Bill as drafted in the last Parliament contained an armoury of police powers which, if they became law, would take us closer to the nightmares of authoritarian rule than we have ever known in peacetime. Yet these powers are proposed by the party of freedom—the party which claims that it wants the minimum of state control upon our lives.
  We shall in due course go back to the particular provisions of the Bill which will no doubt occur—for example, the power to stop and search virtually at will in the street, curbing the freedom of thousands of our citizens. There will be the power to impose road blocks in our streets upon very subjective criteria. It is quite one thing to be asked politely to stop because there is an escaped prisoner or criminal in the vicinity, but it is quite another to have that imposed regularly if the chief police officer so desires as a matter of coercion rather than of consent.
  Other powers have been mentioned, and they include the power to search the intimate bodily orifices, the power to arrest for summary offences, and the power to detain for questioning for long periods. These are all part of the Bill that was before Parliament and which fell on the calling of the general election. Let us look not so much at the particular ingredients of this proposal but more at the philosophy which lies behind it; the philosophy that it is justifiable to intrude on liberty in a way that the party opposite would deplore if they found it in a foreign country of socialist persuasion.
  I read on in the gracious Speech:
  "Proposals will he prepared for the establishment of an independent prosecution service."
  In principle, that is something that I welcome—but I only welcome it provided that the prosecuting authority which will come out of the proposals is an authority accountable to elected representatives. What I fear is that the authority which the Government will in due course put before us will not be accountable in any
  210
  way, because the Government do not believe in accountability. When it is a question of the accountability of police forces, the philosophy of the party opposite is that the operation of police forces should be virtually not subject to control at all. I fear that, with the prosecuting authority that is to be prepared for us, we shall have another body about which we cannot complain—still less, remove—when its powers are abused.
  I will deal very briefly with the one matter I wish to raise that is not in the gracious Speech. What is not in the Queen's speech is something like this:
  "Measures will be laid before you to prevent prisoners being held in inhuman conditions".
  I refer particularly to the scandal of prisoners on remand in the Metropolitan Police area today. Between 400 and 500 people are being held in various police cells in and around London, in conditions which are intolerable in a civilised society. For instance, at Camberwell Green magistrates' court people are being held two to a cell, in cells measuring 8ft. by 6ft., cells where there is no natural light at all, where the prisoners who enter them often for weeks on end do not see the light of day. This is perhaps the touchstone of the concern of the new Home Secretary. He has the powers to relieve this situation; he has powers to relieve the prison population by extending remission, and therefore easing the numbers in the prisons, which will in turn ease the numbers in the police cells. I ask the Minister in his reply to tell us tonight what is going to be done about this intolerable situation.
  I go back to the gracious Speech now, to the local government proposals:
  "Legislation … to provide a selective scheme to curb excessive rate increases by individual local authorities".
  Local authorities provide the services which make a community function, which make it live. Some authorities have visions of how even in a small way they can enrich the communities which they serve. They want to provide better schools, more books in their libraries, more recreation—as, for instance, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, for their young people—better housing, more child care. It is usually the local authorities in the areas of greater poverty which have that vision that something better can be done. And yet members of the Tory party, who facilitate the grossest extravagances for the rich and powerful in our society have the gall to by that it is extravagant to spend money upon the poor. They do not merely by it; that of course is their right; and it is their right as voters to turn out the authority if it is thought to have been spending too much money and putting too much on the rates. But they do not just by it; they wish to interfere. The party that hates state control is going to interfere with the rights of local authorities to fix the rate at the level they think, rightly or wrongly—that is for the voters to decide—will best conduce to that vision of the future of their own community that they with passionate sincerity want to work for.
  Not only do the party opposite propose to interfere with that; they propose to abolish some of the councils who could most effectively realise a vision which seems to frighten members of the Conservative Party.

  211
  When the time comes I will be ready to defend the Greater London Council and the other metropolitan authorities, not just in general but in terms of the particular Labour administration of the day. Some people who criticise them have no idea of the good work they are doing. So the proposals to cut down the rights and indeed the existence of local authorities are shabby. They cut down on what is already a pitifully small area in which people can exercise the democratic right through the ballot box.
  The measures in the speech on home and social affairs are measures not of freedom but of oppression; and although noble Lords will know my views on this House, however much I am in favour of seeing it abolished, I will use my voice to fight for a majority here, which may be easier to obtain than a majority in the other place, a majority which sometimes may put a check upon the slide which this gracious Speech portends, a slide into authoritarian rule.
  9.25 p.m.
  Lord Auckland: My Lords, whatever else is said in praise or criticism of the gracious Speech, it has, I contend, the merit of being both brief and lucid. We now have 15 months in which to discuss, in the way in which only your Lordships' House can discuss in a reforming capacity, some very important measures of legislation.
  At the end of every gracious Speech there are the words:
  "Other measures will be laid before you."
  Those words, coming from whichever side in either House, always engender a feeling of prediction and, at times, of foreboding. I should like to deal very briefly at this late hour with two topics: the National Health Service and a very brief reference to education.
  As regards the National Health Service, the words contained in the gracious Speech are unremarkable in themselves. It might be said that they could have been written by any Government of any country. But we shall have to wait to see what the end product is. The issue of privatisation—a word which I find horrible in the extreme—has been discussed over quite a long period of time. I have varying views, I admit, on this particular matter in regard to the National Health Service. For example, with catering I would rather see students from a certain college not far from here, if necessary trained in the hospital service, doing the catering within the National Health Service. I believe the National Health Service could benefit. There are of course catering colleges in other parts of the country.
  A recent survey of food in hospitals was rather revealing because it was not only in the National Health Service hospitals but in some private hospitals that the reports were not exactly favourable. Of course, whenever one is talking about catering I suppose it depends very largely on when the inspector, or whoever it is, goes round the hospital and whether the hospital concerned is in a state of being repaired or whether construction is taking place. Therefore, it is not always entirely fair comment.
  However, in the case of such services as laundry there can be a case made out for private services being
  212
  used on the condition of course that the rates charged for the job are competitive and are compared like with like with the internal laundry services.
  I turn to a specific point about the construction of the National Health Service. The reorganisation of the health service—I believe in 1964—was given, to put it midly, scant praise. There have been some efforts to reorganise it still further. I have members of my family who have worked in the service and, as many of your Lordships know, I have served on hospital committees myself. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can write to me and inform the House later, even if he cannot refer to the matter at this late hour as he has a gargantuan amount of material to plough through. What will be the situation with regard to the house committees, particularly of long-stay hospitals? Is there any chance within the ambit of the gracious Speech that these house committees will he restored? I declare a non-financial interest, having served on one myself for nearly 20 years before reorganisation. In my submission and in the submission of many who work in the health service, if this were done it would do much to improve morale which in certain aspects of the health service, and particularly in long-stay hospitals, is not as it might be.
  For example, one hears sometimes of ill-treatment of patients by nurses. Very often these allegations are grossly exaggerated. I do not know how far the hospital ombudsman can look into these cases. But if we had the house committees which existed when the National Health Service first started, and the hospital management committees, I submit that there would be a much more speedy way of getting to the bottom of many of these troubles. As I have said to your Lordships before, this is no condemnation of the area health authorities or the community health services, which are doing as good a job as circumstances allow. But particularly in long-stay hospitals, and in areas like the one in which I live in Surrey where there are seven or eight of these hospitals, they cannot conceivably devote sufficient time to one individual hospital, as the old hospital management committees used to do.
  I am not suggesting that at a stroke there should he another reorganisation of the health service. It has to be a medium-to long-term exercise, rather like the reorganisation—or abolition or whatever eventually happens to it—of the Greater London Council. We cannot afford any more experiments which will not come to fruition.
  I should just like to by a few words about education and the arts. I do not see anything in the gracious Speech about the arts. The two are intertwined. I note that it bys of education:
  "Legislation will be introduced to enable grants to be paid to local authorities in England and Wales for innovations and improvements in the curriculum".
  I hope that music will he included here. Very often highly talented children who play the oboe or clarinet cannot get the facilities that they should for the reason that these instruments are expensive.
  I believe, reluctantly, that there have to be some cuts in the education service. These are facts of life. But I believe that music is an art of great importance. Our leading orchestras, which tour the world, and earn

  213
  much-needed currency for this country, recruit their members from among children who have been to a great variety of schools: comprehensive schools, secondary modem schools, grammar schools, public schools. I believe that certainly in the locally maintained schools arts such as music should be encouraged so far as financial arrangements will allow. This would do much to ensure that the quality of the arts in this country, which earn us hard currency, will be maintained.
  Finally, and very briefly, I want to speak about your Lordships' House, of which I have been a Member since 1957. Attempts have been made to reform your Lordships' House even in the time during which I have been a Member. The real problem is what one means by reform—to devise a formula which will bring about reform not for five years, 10 years, or even 100 years, but which will produce a reformed Chamber which will work in the very long term. I believe that this is rather like the situation which faced the mythical Sisyphus, who rolled the stone one yard up the mountain, and then it rolled two yards back. I have a feeling that some of our legislators elsewhere will not exactly help in what might be very desirable reforms. So, like it or not, we are really back to square one—that we should leave well alone.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Countess of Mar: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, (who is no longer present) I propose to say a little on education, but what I have to by will perhaps be very different from what she had to say. The last radical change to take place in education was in the 1870s. In order to support the increase in trade and commerce, an army of clerks and bookkeepers was required. They needed to be both literate and numerate, and the education system was developed accordingly. The Education Act 1944 extended the period of compulsory schooling, but did not alter the system already in being. There was always room for the high flyer who could progress from the three Rs to Latin and Greek and any other subject for which he might have an aptitude. I have no doubt that there always will be.
  We are now in the process of suffering, or enjoying, another revolution—this time a technological one. Verbal communication skills will always be necessary, as will the ability to handle chip products. People will no longer be required to keep ledgers in beautiful copperplate, write letters, or make calculations for accounts. Computers, television, and telecommunications have insinuated their way into the business and social world almost without our being aware of it. Just as Latin and Greek are no longer essential to a higher academic education, it would seem that English grammar and mathematics will soon become subjects for specialist study. This tide of change has already been seen by some educationalists, and indeed by Her Majesty's Government, because they have started at the bottom and introduced computers into primary schools. Be it inspiration or vision, may the process continue.
  Children and young people do not need to be convinced of the benefits that this tide brings in its wake: no more learning by rote, with a word processor
  214
  to correct spelling and grammatical errors; no more long calculations and mental arithmetic, with machines to take away the dullness of it. Those of our generation—or should I by generations?—who regret the passing of traditional education as a loss of good discipline are at the very least short-sighted. How much broader our outlook would have been had we been released from the tedium of endless pot-hooks to study some of the more inspiring subjects now open to young people. This technological revolution has created a kind of unemployment that will, I fear, be beyond the capacity of any individual or Government to overcome.
  Unemployment is a word with so many unfortunate connotations. We used to have a leisured class in this country. No doubt, many of us would have belonged to it. Could we not, through our education system, recreate a leisured class, not this time on a social basis but rather on the lines of an actor resting? This would need a complete reappraisal of our educational priorities. I wonder whether the teenagers who now aimlessly frequent coffee bars and shopping precincts would still wish to do so if their eyes and minds had been opened from an early age to the wonders that surround them. I realise that, to inspire children, inspired teachers are required. But there must be hundreds of people in this country who are both willing and well qualified to take on the task.
  There will always be some who will want to work as we know it, just as there will be others who will not, or cannot, work. There is no reason why the monetary wealth of the nation should decline as machines take over from men and women. One can imagine the wealth of invention and innovation waiting to be released by the new leisured class, who would have time to investigate and create if only they were given the means. The noble Lord, Lord Quinton, in an excellent maiden speech gave food for thought on this subject. This is not the time to explore all the possibilities. I shall await with eagerness the proposed legislation to encourage innovations and improvements.
  I also welcome the proposals to widen the scope of parental choice of schools but I view the proposals to allow them increased influence with just a little doubt. I am a product of the state education system. I believe that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was Minister of Education while I was at school. My daughter was also educated by the state. At one stage, I was in grave danger of interfering with her schooling in the mistaken belief that, because I had been to school, I knew all about education. Thank goodness, I left things alone.
  What I am attempting to say is that parents are not necessarily the best people to advise on education. We cannot expect to keep pace with all the changes in the education field or with the qualifications required by employers. If we pay a plumber to replace a washer, would we stand over him and tell him how to do it? Should not the same principle apply to education? By all means, parents should be encouraged to take part in, and even to organise, school functions in order to make the school an integral part of the community. Their children should be encouraged to take part in community functions and so become good citizens.

  215
  The boundary between influence and interference is fine. Let parents have as wide a choice of school as possible. Good schools will thrive. Poor ones will either fall by the wayside or pull themselves up. I have no doubt that the freedom to choose the schools to which parents send their children will greatly narrow the abyss between the best and worst of our state schools.
  The state education system has had its roots and its branches hard pruned in the last four years. Now it should be allowed to burst forth in luxuriant foliage and blossom to the benefit not only of individuals but of the nation at large. The wealth of the nation lies in the educated hands and minds of its citizens.
  9.43 p.m.
  The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, as the thirtieth speaker it amazes me that there is anything left to say. But the Speech makes no reference to your Lordships' House itself, the very existence of which was called in question by the party opposite, not in one election but in two in succession, and to the future of which this Government must. I believe, give their mind in due time. Although the law of dislike for the unlike will always prevail—the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, seemed to hear that out—the abolitionists should now be rejoicing as they descend from the glitter of electioneering paradox to the rusty kitchen sink of reality. The fact is that their party, despite electoral slaughter is here; it is here in full strength; it is still free to exert influence and to do so in a forum where ideas count more than rhetoric.
  Should the party opposite, in their paranoiac fear of the Tories, suspect that an unsympathetic majority in another place might seek to prolong its life, the professed abolitionists would simply join with the rest of us in vetoing any tampering with the Quinquennial Act. Like it or not, this House is the long-stop of the constitution. The question that I believe we must address ourselves to during this Parliament is whether it cannot be improved.
  Rabindranath Tagore, the poet, said: "The clumsiness of power spoils the key and resorts to the pickaxe" So it is perhaps worth recalling that in the last Parliament this House wrought the Government's defeat no fewer than 50 times. The three occasions that are vivid in my memory concerned the issue of rural school buses; the privatisation of the Ordnance Survey in the very teeth of the Government's own White Paper; and the endeavour to tamper with special housing schemes where state and charity funds were involved side by side. On all three I have to say, the Government showed a granite indifference to the hammer of reason and were therefore forced to submit to the chisel of a humiliating vote, driven to admit that it is better to go back than to go badly. If that sort of situation could arise, and was evoked, in a Parliament where the Government majority was 40 or 50, goodness knows what might not happen with a majority twice that size.
  So, as others have said—and I believe that it is really common ground through both sides of the Chamber—the role of this House at this time is now magnified and not "minified". All the more welcome, then, is the arrival of our new Leader of the House, the
  216
  noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. In joining other tributes to his arrival, let me not be accused of neglecting the gracious Baroness, who has left that post for another, and who made her debut answering for foreign affairs with gallantry and resourcefulness this afternoon. We wish her well. We love her dearly, but that does not mean to say that we do not enormously welcome the arrival of the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw. He does, of course, belong to the group who were described in a memorable passage during the election as "the special breed of former Chief Whips". I wonder why they always remind me of Stonehenge? I suppose it is their rocklike solidity against the turbulence of time. But he is just the man for the here and now. He is as crafty as George Washington, who dared to say:
  "I am not a politician and my other habits are good".
  He is listed high in the Cabinet. He has enormous influence. He has much experience of political manoeuvre; I might even by manipulation. He is going to need it all and we shall need him to use it.
  For in your Lordships' House I believe it is only fair to say—and this is an opportunity to say it at the start of a new Parliament—that some things are not all as they should be. Take the new Government. It is quite true that we have 15 Ministers here out of 84, which is an improvement on having 12 out of 86. But there are four departments which still do not even have a Parliamentary Secretary in this House. I refer to the Departments of Education. Employment, Trade, and Transport, and if I wanted to throw in a makeweight—but I do not want to start an inter-Celtic row—I would refer to the Welsh Office, too. The practice of Whips answering for departments to which they do not belong cannot honestly be described as satisfactory, no matter how well intentioned they are as individuals. In most cases they may now have a desk in the department, but they have neither voice nor standing. I know of one case, which must be nameless but is true, where the Whip answering for a particular department had never even met the top people in that department and a friend, who had served in it, had to offer to show him around.
  What about Whitehall's condescension towards your Lordships' House? On arrival, one Parliamentary Secretary was actually summoned to see the Permanent Secretary, whereas it should have been the reverse order. Within the past 12 months another department bitterly resisted a request that there should be released to a Select Committee of this House an as yet unpublished report which had already been made available to the corresponding committee in another place.
  I ask whether the funding is right. Are we allowed enough clerks? Everybody knows that there was a great battle to get sufficient clerks on to the staff to man the various sub-committees of the EEC Scrutiny Committee. However, I can think of one case where the promoter of a Private Bill wanted to move that, instead of a Committee stage on the Floor, the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He was very severely discouraged on the ground that there were not enough staff.
  Should, or need, committee travel be as rare as in fact it is? Of course, we know about the European

  217
  Scrutiny Committee's visits to Brussels and elsewhere, but nowadays that is a fairly limited range. I remember well when one of the sub-committees of the Scrutiny Committee studying coal thought of a visit to the Polish coalmines. This was very severely resisted, and indeed was prevented on budgetary grounds.
  The Select Committee on Science and Technology is. of course, very different from its predecessor in another place. For one thing, it is much better informed. For another thing, it is less frenetic, but for a third thing it travels very little. Is that really necessary? Should they be inhibited? I believe that they are. On the subject of useful travel, which after all is educative and valuable to the work of the legislature as a whole, why do so few of your Lordships volunteer for journeys organised by the CPA or the IPU while the House is sitting? Could it be that there is some relationship with the attendance allowance?
  On a minor point, but still on the subject of funding, only the other day I was told that the reason one of our Rank Xerox machines in the basement is continually breaking down is that it is not regularly serviced because that would be too expensive.
  218
  My noble friend Lord Whitelaw is not only a genial, favoured and popular personality, but he brings a gentle revival of the hereditary peerage. Some of us have much rougher progenitors than he; but one generation down there is no sense of obligation to the Government of our creation. So the hereditary Peers are brutally, savagely independent and are pretty indifferent to patronage. Since no man chose his father, we hereditary outcasts, as you might say, are like jurymen—pricked for service by sheer hazard. Therefore, we bring an element of unregenerate and often not very well educated common sense—an ordinary cross section. I hope that my noble friend Lord Whitelaw is the first of a goodly new infusion of hereditary Peers.
  Like my noble friend Lord Home, I doubt whether the abolitionists will have another chance for a little while yet. But that is no reason for complacency. I have indicated a few matters which deserve attention. We are part of Parliament. We look to the new Government to be assiduous, as in modernising so also in protecting our constitutional processes, ever mindful that sudden power is as apt to be insolent as sudden liberty is apt to be saucy; and that behaves best which is grown gradually.
  9.55 p.m.
  Lord Hooson: My Lords, the noble Earl at the commencement of the 30th speech bewailed the fact that there was very little left to say. I noticed that it did not inhibit him in any way. At the beginning of the 31st speech I am tempted to say that there is nothing else to say, nevertheless I will say it. In my parliamentary experience over a fair period in the other place and a few years in your Lordships' House that experience has been enlivened by listening occasionally to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in one of his more puckish moods. We had such a mood today.
  Whether it was that he had perfected an election speech and thought that he should give the benefit of it to this House, or whether he was rehearsing a speech for the next election, we know not. Whatever it is, he intended to provoke, and I am bound to say that I have felt provoked. He began with certain fatherly advice to the Labour Party, which no doubt in their wisdom they will not accept, that the electorate had totally voted a vote of no confidence in the Labour manifesto. But he went on to say really that there was no difference between the parties in their aims in this House or in the country at large but only in the means by which they intended to achieve those aims. I totally disagree with that proposition.
  The real indictment of this Government surely is that the whole thrust and direction of their policy has been such as to create an unfair and an unjust society, and has laid down the foundations for a return to what might be described as the upstairs/downstairs society. There are profound changes. This is to a degree a revolutionary Government, which shows what little influence the Lord Chancellor has had in the Cabinet. Whatever else he is, he is not a revolutionary. He represents, as we know, the slightly paternalistic but compassionate line of Conservative thinking in this country. But the true indictment of this Government is that the difference between the rich and the poor in this country in 1983 is greater than at any time since the 1930s.
  The educational opportunities for those in the deprived areas of this country are less now than at any time since the war. The chance of somebody in Toxteth getting on to the rung of the ladder that enables them to receive higher education is much less now than it was 10 or 20 years ago. The thrust of the direction of policy within the health service is not towards its abolition, it is surely towards forcing more and more people to insure for their health, and reducing the health service so that it will eventually provide for the rump; that is, the old, the young, the poor, and so on, on a lesser level of service. That is the thrust and direction of this Government's policy. It is something with which I totally disagree. Speaking for the Alliance, the aims of our policies are totally different from the aims of the Government policy as I see it.
  The noble and learned Lord argued—quite rightly of course—that the Labour Party had failed to make unemployment the main issue at the election because of the way in which they had cast their manifesto, so that the attention of the electorate was directed to other issues which have been raised by the manifesto.
  220
  such as defence, and so on. He rightly pointed out that in dealing with unemployment in a modern, sophisticated society you needed a whole battery of policies: that your foreign policy, your relationship with the EEC, your educational policy, were all concerned in the battle against unemployment.
  I entirely agree with that particular point that he made, but I find it difficult to reconcile the fact that, for example, in my area of the country in certain sixth forms of successful comprehensive schools they now have to share textbooks—one between five pupils in some subjects. That is for children who sometimes live 12 or 15 miles apart from each other. They are studying to get into the universities of this country on that kind of provision.
  I mention a point that the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, raised about musical education. In my old county the education committee used to provide every child who showed any kind of musical talent with the instrument of his or her choice as a loan for the whole of the school career. We produced a considerable number of instrumentalists who often became quite famous soloists and many went on to orchestras. Now we do not provide anything of the kind. That does not affect the family that can afford to buy the child the instrument. But imagine what it does to the child whose family cannot afford that and is now deprived of an instrument. That is the kind of thing that is happening.
  I relate that to foreign policy. I find it difficult to reconcile that fact with a Government that can provide an enormous sum, some hundreds of millions of pounds, to provide an airfield in the Falklands 8.000 miles away. It is a policy which I believe will look ludicrous to future generations in this country. I will not go through the rights and wrongs of the Falklands war, but I am considering how this policy will look in years to come when this country could not provide for its own at home but can provide, as a matter of priority, that amount of money to lay down the foundations of an aerodrome on islands 8,000 miles away, which are, after all, the forgotten leftovers from an earlier era of Empire. I am pointing out that the Government set their own priorities and can find the money when they want to for certain purposes; but provision in the state education system does not appear to be one of its priorities.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor claimed that this was a social Budget and pointed out that the Budgets introduced during the course of this Government had been social budgets. He compared the social, economic and educational situation of people in this country with the conditions that existed in his boyhood and early manhood. But that is an unfair comparison because of technological changes and the various developments that have accounted for these changes. The only proper comparison is surely with like countries. We should compare what they have achieved. I am bound to say that I am not impressed with the economic achievements of this Government when one compares this country with, say. West Germany, which has never had the benefit of North Sea oil. We have underestimated the enormous benefit to this country of North Sea oil. If one takes the benefit of the income of North Sea oil out of the

  221
  economic equation in this country we would be virtually bankrupt. When one compares our achievement with our continental friends and rivals we have to measure it by a yardstick which includes a very large discount for the godsend income from North Sea oil.
  I thought that the enthusiastic portrayal by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor of the situation in this country today was entirely misleading. I am sure that if he were to read his speech tomorrow—and I am sure he has too much good sense to do so—he would disagree with many of his own propositions. I am not so sure that he was not delivering the speech with his tongue in his cheek.
  I now turn to one or two other matters raised in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord ElwynJones—in what he described as a sombre speech, but which I thought was extremely pertinent—referred to many of the great issues that will come before this House. He touched on the question of the death penalty, and I agreed entirely with the sentiments he expressed. I am not at all sure that it would not be a good idea, though there are different views on this matter, to have a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House at an early date so that the views of those experienced Members of your Lordships' House in so many different spheres of life could be expressed here. I also agreed entirely with his reflection that there was no mention of Her Majesty's prisons or other places in the gracious Speech and I think that we want to devote a great deal of time to this whole question of penal policy. I do not think it allows of a simple proposition, as is so often made. I think that we have to reconsider what are the essentials of penal policy in this country and how best we can equip our society to carry them out. We just cannot carry on building more and more prisons. I agree entirely with the point made from the Social Democratic Benches that some of the modern prisons are very impressive and reassuring in many ways. When one considers how few of them there are, however, one wonders where society is getting to. I think that we need a good deal of direct action to reduce prison sentences, including legislative action.
  We heard in the course of the debate a number of points made on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill and, in particular, a very valuable contribution. I thought, made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, giving his views on the provisions of the Bill. It seems to me that the Government have been right to reconsider the Bill; that is, that the Home Secretary is right to take great care in the presentation of the Bill because what we are concerned with, surely, is this. With the development of international terrorism and international trafficking in drugs, it would be stupid for a society like our own not to provide adequate powers for the police to deal with that kind of situation.
  Yet we all know that there is certainly a very small minority of police officers, particularly in certain areas of the country, who take advantage of any provision of additonal powers and misuse them. I will give an example. I have recently been on a series of cases where I came across the most impeccable police behaviour. There were interviews in murder cases where contemporaneous notes had been taken of every
  222
  interview and the police had behaved absolutely impeccably. I wondered why this could not be done in every part of the country. I went to another police authority and there police officers had interviewed people of perfectly good character on relatively trivial matters and had kept some of them, including women, in custody in what I thought were degrading conditions and the reason suggested as to why they had been subjected to them was that they had not co-operated: that is, that they had not confessed.
  This kind of improper pressure that one comes across—and that is a very mild example—is just the thing against which we must safeguard ourselves. It is, therefore, important that this House in particular gives very considerable thought to how to solve this dilemma. It would be stupid, as I say, not to provide the police with adequate powers to meet the kind of demands that internationally organised crime makes on them. Yet it would be very foolish of this House not to build into the Act proper safeguards to ensure that these powers are not misused.
  I want to say one or two words about the comments on education. There were a number of very interesting speeches in particular on the education system. It seems to me that, in our approach to the education system or when we look critically at it, we should not be inhibited by preconceived notions. At the same time, there is, I think, a tendency in the country at the moment to blame all the shortcomings of our state education system on the fact that the schools are largely comprehensive. I do not accept that criticism. I know of many, many comprehensive schools which are very successful. We have to provide adequate facilities and surely the concern of this House and of Parliament should be to provide an adequate and sensible state education system that will educate the vast bulk of the population. We are not concerned with private education in this House or elsewhere. Surely, we have nothing against people spending their own resources on education, if they want to do so. But the duty of Government is to ensure that the state education system is adequate and of a very high standard.
  I should like to make some observations on one or two other points that were raised in the debate. First, on the question of the provision of rural telephones, if the Telecommunications Bill is passed through Parliament, what will happen to them? Who will provide the service which is now provided by the rural telephone kiosk, or even telephones to private houses in rural areas? For example, how can one summon the ambulance, the police and so on if a telephone is not provided? And, of course, it is useless to think that such a telephone would be self-supporting, because of the very nature of its location.
  In conclusion, I should like to say that we have heard two very interesting maiden speeches. I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Ogmore on his maiden speech. His father was a very great friend of mine and he would have been very proud of that speech here today. We heard a charming and interesting speech from the noble Lord, Lord Quinton, and we look forward to hearing him again in this House. May I leave him with this reflection? I wonder whether when he used the words "the consumer

  223
  society", that was, in itself, a euphemism for the acquisitive society. Perhaps it is a more acceptable term, but nevertheless there is the same deep motivation. And is not one of our problems in society today, and the basis of my criticism of this Government, that they resort too much to a society activated only by greed?
  10.12 p.m.
  Lord Underhill: My Lords, may I first say how much I appreciated a great many of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, particularly his apprehensions about the type of society into which the present Government may lead this country. With less finesse than the noble Lord, I would say there is a danger of building still further the "I'm all right, Jack" society. It is not my intention to roam over all the subjects covered by this debate, and I want to concentrate on just a few. But there are a number of details of the proposals in the gracious Speech of which we heard nothing, and I am assuming that it was the time factor alone which prevented the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from departing from his post-election analysis to give us details of some of the Government's proposed legislation.
  It seems that the Government are likely to proceed further with cuts in public spending, and I note with regret that the Conservatives do not yet seem to have learned that if you cut public spending you cut orders for the private sector. If you have constructive public spending, you give much needed orders to the public sector: and that applies just as much to cuts in local government expenditure as to any other expenditure.
  The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor dismissed in just a few words the question of proposed rate increases on a selective basis. That proposal will ride roughshod over the democratic and constitutional right of local councils. The Government are to take away the right of a local council to fix its rate. In effect, central Government will determine the council's level of spending: that is, its level of services. This is yet another example, such as we have seen in Bill after Bill, of the Government interfering with local government and placing so much power in the hands of the central authority and the Secretary of State. The Government ignore the right of electors to decide their level of local services.
  There has been a lot of talk about a mandate, but councils also have a mandate, and in many cases it is an annual one. Manny of the non-metropolitan councils have annual elections and all of the metropolitan councils have them. Therefore, they have a mandate which is more regular than that of the Government. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, seemed to cast doubt on the validity of these mandates of annual elections because of the low percentage poll. But once we start to do that we are saying. "Give all power to central Government because they know best".
  The Government are really saying that the electors of an area are not capable of deciding what they want, yet during the recent election campaign the former
  224
  Secretary of State for the Environment, Mr. Heseltine, had the audacity to talk of Labour being on the road to centralism—this from a Secretary of State who has done far more than any other Secretary of State for very many years to bring about central control of local government. Therefore, it is very interesting to note the comments of Mr. Ian McCallum, the Conservative leader of the Association of District Councils, who strongly criticised the Government's proposals in these words:
  "To aim to limit a local authority's right to decide its own local rate and spending levels will be another big step towards central government control and has grave constitutional implications. Such powers would directly undermine a local authority's responsibilities and accountability to the local electorate and susbtitute the judgment of Whitehall for that of the local town hall".
  The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, of which I have the honour to be president, has also strongly criticised the Government's proposals. My noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead said that the proposals have far-reaching constitutional implications. I would add that they are ill-conceived and ill-considered and have been decided in great haste by the Government. What consultation has there been with the local authority associations? What consultation will there be, not just about carrying out the Government's proposals but about whether or not this is the right way to do what the Government intend to try to achieve? Also, what are the criteria by which the Secretary of State will exercise his interference? During the election campaign it seemed as though there could be three alternative criteria. We know nothing about them. It appears that an arbitrary decision will be taken by the Secretary of State.
  Other words in the gracious Speech imply that the Government will proceed with their manifesto proposal to compel local councils to consult local industry and commerce before setting their rates, yet this Government made it absolutely clear in their election manifesto that they are opposed to the mandatory provision of consultation with employees. This comes from a Government which in Europe have strongly opposed the Vredeling draft directive to make this mandatory for multi-nationals employing at least 1,000 employees. There is a contradiction somewhere.
  Although the gracious Speech says that there will be legislation to set up a Greater London regional transport authority, we have heard nothing about it in the course of this debate. There is to be only the preparation of proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. In my view, these two issues cannot possibly be separated. As my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead said, it was a Conservative Government which set up the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils. It seems that the decision to abolish both the GLC and the metropolitan county councils was a very hasty decision. I do not believe that the Government are yet certain about how to deal with the promise in their manifesto and what now appears in the gracious Speech. They have not thought out where this fits in with local government reorganisation, if such reorganisation is desired, or with the proposal to set up quangos or joint boards to handle services in a wider area than the boroughs or districts, as the case may be.

  225
  It was stated by Mr. Alan Greengross, the GLC Conservative leader, on 24th May, that:
  "As far as I am concerned. I do not believe in more and more centralisation, nor do I see the idea of a series of appointed quangos as an acceptable solution".
  He added also that there should be a democratically elected body to provide an effective and financially disciplined voice for the job that must be done for London as a whole. I find further that this section of the Conservative Party manifesto was said to be, and I quote:
  "Fraudulent, ignorant and deeply insulting".
  That was not the statement of Mr. Ken Livingstone; that was a statement by a Conservative Member of the GLC. Mr. Bernard Brook-Partridge, who strongly objects to his party's manifesto proposing local government functions to non-elected bodies. I would ask: is there another capital city anywhere that does not have a local authority governing the whole of its area? That is what will be proposed if the Government have their own way.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said that there was a mandate. One has to be very careful when talking about mandates. I do not know whether my party agrees with me on this, but merely because a party puts two lines in a manifesto which nobody ever reads, that is not to say that they have the wholehearted support of the people. The noble Baroness said that the public had demanded the abolition of the GLC. Has it? Merely because a few words are put into the Conservative manifesto?—which the average elector never reads, any more than he read the 100 items in our own manifesto. One has to be very careful when one talks about mandates being given.
  The joint boards, which Conservatives themselves have criticised, would reduce local democratic control. They would remove direct accountability to an elected authority, and they must inevitably entail the diffusion of responsibility to the separate parent councils.
  With the proposed abolition of the metropolitan counties, how will public transport in those six conurbations be handled? There has not been a word about that. The operating body is the passenger transport executive, which is accountable at the moment to the elected county council, acting as the passenger transport authority. How is that to be run if the Government get their own way and abolish the metropolitan county councils? Their manifesto states, and I quote:
  "We shall encourage the creation of smaller units in place of the monolithic public transport organisation which we have inherited from the socialist past and encourage more flexible forms of public transport".
  Just what does that mean? Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister can tell us whether the PTEs will continue? Will there be something in the form of a PTA? Will transport matters be related to other local government services? Is it the intention to bring in more private operators? If so, I suggest that the Government Ministers should carefully read the evidence that has been brought before the House of Commons' Select Committee on Transport, which has been giving very careful consideration to the whole question of bus subsidies. When they read the evidence, they will
  226
  realise that that is not the way out for public transport anywhere, never mind in these conurbations.
  In Greater London, The London Transport Executive is responsible to the GLC. Very little has been said about transport in Greater London; no one has referred to the proposed Greater London Transport Authority which the Government propose to set up. We know that the new scheme was introduced on 22nd May, with new travel cards introducing integration between Underground and bus services. Yet the day after the newspapers carried the London Transport announcement of this new scheme and integration, there was the publication of the Conservative Party manifesto commitment to abolish the GLC and set up the new regional transport authorities. One just cannot consider London's transport apart from the other local government services: they must be considered together. It is clear that that has not yet been thought of by the Government.
  We do not know how the members of the transport authority will be appointed, and we do not know to whom they will be responsible. We do not know how a precept will be arranged. We do not know how public revenue support will be arranged. All this is a mystery and we know nothing about it at all. What we do know is that, again, the Conservative Party manifesto, referring to the proposed new regional transport board, states:
  "This will provide the opportunity to split the different types of transport into separate operating bodies".
  What a tragedy, just when the London Transport is proceeding with its integration of London buses and Underground in its fares structure, which I can assure your Lordships is welcomed by people in London to whom I speak. The Times of 24th June said:
  "The new scheme for transport may be fixed and settled while the frame in which it is to be set remains hazy and undefined".
  That is the impression one has at the moment, a hasty decision by the Government, along with its rate position which has not been considered. I hope the Minister may be able to tell us something today.
  May I briefly refer to the position of what is called proportional representation. This was raised by a number of noble Lords. I do not rule out for myself—I am not speaking for my party—that it might be desirable to have some objective review of the situation arising from the last election. But I would say quite clearly, whatever one's views might be about reforming the electoral system, that one cannot do it unless one gives consideration also to its effect on the political system. That seems to have been totally disregarded by some noble Lords today who have been emphasising the need for a change in our electoral system. The question must be asked, is it strict proportionality we want? Then of course we should adopt the Swedish system: 51 per cent. of the votes, 51 per cent. of the seats. That is not what is being suggested. We know what that would mean. the list system. As one who was a national agent of the Labour Party, may I say what lovely bureaucratic power it would have given to the central authority! Whether I would have liked it is another matter: but what power it would have given us. Although the noble Lord, Lord Banks. seemed to question the position of the single constituency representation a little, there is not the slightest

  227
  doubt that a list system, or larger constituencies with single transferable vote, would mean a break with the MP's representative capacity to a body of electors in that particular constituency. That point cannot possibly be disregarded.
  I would challenge also whether the single transferable vote is really a proportional representation system. It may be considered to be a fairer system, but it is certainly not a proportional representation system. How can one possibly justify a system which gives lower preference votes at the end of the day the same value as first preferences? We could have a situation where second or other subsequent preference votes, allocated from, say, an eliminated extremist candidate, could determine the position of a person who on a straightforward vote would be among those to be elected for that particular electoral area. Candidates would inevitably tend to aim to secure maximum second preferences. That must blur the issues that have to be placed before the electors. Whatever criticism there might be of our present system, the winner always is the candidate for whom most of the electors have voted.
  Under the single transferable vote system the candidate wanted as first preference by most of the electors could be displaced by a candidate who was the first choice of less electors. I want somebody to justify that on democratic grounds. I find it very difficult. A form of proportional representation could give considerable power and disproportionate influence to a small party, the cynical attitude of the Free Democrats in Germany, who change from one to the other. It is a strange form of democracy.
  I notice in a recent article that Dr. David Owen says we should not be afraid of coalitions. But we have examples of countries with permanent coalitions and with parties continually bargaining and horse trading. As one noble Lord said, let us keep in mind the situation in Italy and how that is to work out yet again.
  In conclusion, as some noble Lords have referred to the position of trade unions, may I say a few words about the proposed Government legislation on this subject. In my view there is too much unfortunate talk of trade union bosses. Even the Prime Minister recently referred to the "bully boys". General secretaries and presidents of trade unions are responsible to elected committees, and eventually are accountable to their delegate conference—as the former general secretary to the NUR found out to his cost. The unions have rule books and they are jealous of them. A number of unions have special rules revision conferences. Even the Green Paper published by the Government acknowledged that unions have different methods of electing main officials. It said that the variety and complexity of electoral arrangements are often based in history. But these are to be set aside for a national pattern to be laid down by the Conservative Government.
  We have Mr. Norman Tebbit saying, "Give the unions back to their members". Just what does that mean? There is procedure in all the rule books for the rules to be changed. Any member may go to his branch meeting and propose such an amendment. I want to issue a challenge. Will any Government
  228
  Minister show me any union where the rules will not permit any member, if he so desires, to raise the question of the amendment of its rules to lay down a different method of election? If members prefer not to go to branch meetings to propose such an amendment why should we rely on Parliament to do that job for them? I am sure that is an important question.
  I should like to refer to the strike ballots, but I shall not do so. Let me make just one final point on the political levy. As has been emphasised time and again in your Lordships' House, there is a very strict procedure to be followed by any trade union which wishes to engage in political activities, and that is a far stricter procedure than applies to any company which decides to do that. Again, any union member has the opportunity to propose a resolution to change the nature of the union's political activities if he so desires. He can propose at his branch meeting that the political fund be discontinued. He can propose that there should no longer be affiliation to the Labour Party, if he wants to do that. Moreover, we all know that every member has the opportunity to contract out of the political levy, so much so that the central office of the Conservative Party has an annual campaign to that effect. There is also provision for complaints to the certification officer.
  I emphasise, as we have done time and again from these Benches, that it is a travesty of democracy to endeavour to lay down that a person who agrees with a majority decision must sign a form to say. "Please, I want to agree with the majority decision." The only democratic way is that a person has the right to disagree with a decision taken by the majority. This and other legislation which I have not had time to deal with will. I am certain, be closely scrutinised in this House. I hope that noble Lords will look at every piece of legislation because there is much in the gracious Speech which could damage the fabric of our society if we let it go in the form in which I am certain some noble Lords would like to see it.
  10.33 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, there is, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said some seven and a half hours ago, a wide degree of agreement throughout this House on the proper aims of Government policy. All of us want to see a country that is free and safe. All of us want to see a society that is healthy and wealthy. All of us wish to assist its least fortunate members; to chasten wrongdoers: and to advance the causes of knowledge, which is one thing, and wisdom, which is quite another. These are all unexceptionable and they are generally agreed. It is when we come to consider how best to pursue them that we fall into controversy.
  My noble and learned friend took a long view of history. He pointed out from the standpoint of experience how silly it is to liken our recent economic difficulties in any way to the traumatic deprivation which was commonplace earlier in the century. That is not to belittle the difficulties; it is to put them in perspective. By comparison both with our forebears and, indeed, with the inhabitants of the greater

  229
  number of countries in this world, we are by any standards a very rich nation indeed. We should, I think, remember that in considering the ways in which we have successfully mitigated the effects of world recession on our own community and as we resume our progress towards greater and more general wealth during the present Parliament.
  The means by which that progress is being resumed are of course the proper subject for debate tomorrow and not today. Today we are concerned not with the economics of recovery but with the fabric of the society in which it is being generated. At the heart of that fabric lies a balance which is differently struck in the constitution of every country in the world and which provides the key to each country's character. I mean of course the balance between private freedom and public interest.
  That is a subject of eternal fascination for philosophers, but it is also of acute practical interest to politicians. It was the proper concern of my noble friend Lord Quinton in both capacities in an exellent maiden speech. I recall, as he moved into a number of analogies, including physiotherapy and, I think, surgery, that which I found most compelling was the existence of an animating liquid. If he would feel able to treat me to a sample or two of this later this evening I should not object.
  Politicians around the world have struck this vital balance at a whole spectrum of different positions and locked up a number of deserving philosophers in the process. Where they have given the interest of the state absolute precedence, individual liberty is snuffed out in totalitarian darkness. Where the interest of individuals is paramount, on the other hand, the state is likely to be consumed in a blaze of fratricidal greed in a matter of months. In this country we have believed, at least since the accession of the House of Orange, that the preservation of individual liberty is one of the principal interests of the state itself, and to that we owe much of the strength of our society. The principle does not change but the circumstances in which it must be applied change, and the law in which it is expressed must therefore change as well. That is why it is necessary to bring before Parliament two measures which are closely concerned with this essential balance between the rights of society and our own rights as the individuals of whom society is composed.
  The first of these will be a relatively simple measure: it is the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. It will deal with that form of criminality which srikes most blatantly and viciously at the very survival of our society. To contend with this, measures are required—and clearly justified—which trespass further on individual freedom than almost any others. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe rehearsed this need admirably in his review of the 1976 Act. He held that the special powers conferred by the Act should continue; but that they should be embodied in new legislation whose life should be limited to five years and which should, like the 1976 Act, be subject to annual renewal. The Government have accepted these recommendations and they will be embodied in the new Bill which will, we hope, receive the Royal Assent in time to avoid a further renewal of the 1976 Act. The Bill will incorporate the modifications recommended by my noble
  230
  friend Lord Jellicoe to the existing powers of exclusion, arrest and detention given to the Home Secretary and the police. Perhaps most notably, it will extend the special powers of arrest and detention to international terrorists, as well as those concerned with the affairs of Northern Ireland.
  The second such measure will be one of which your Lordships heard the somewhat clamorous progress in another place, brought to an end before it came to us by the Dissolution. This is the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was the first of your Lordships to draw our attention to it. Your Lordships will recall that this measure contained provisions to modernise and clarify the powers that may need to be exercised by the police in the investigation of crime; to improve the police complaints procedure; to effect various modest but useful reforms of the law of criminal evidence; and to underpin arrangements for consultation between the police and the local community.
  In a measure of this kind it is of course difficult, but of the highest importance, to strike a proper balance of the kind referred to by the noble Lord. Lord Hunt, between the interests of society, in seeing offenders brought to justice, and the rights of the individual who may be suspected of crime. The Bill received a thorough and constructive examination in another place after its introduction last November. This identified various respects in which that balance needed adjustment, and the Government will obviously want to take account of those debates when bringing forward the new Bill.
  But the debates also showed how badly the law governing the investigation of crime is in need of modernisation and reform. It has developed piecemeal over a number of years. It does not give the police the powers that they need to carry out the duties which society expects of them, and it is riddled with anomalies and gaps. I should like to take one extraordinary but illuminating example, which was not quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford. A policeman can, under the present law, stop and search you for a protected bird's egg, but he cannot stop and search you for an offensive weapon. There are no powers to obtain a search warrant for a murder weapon or for other evidence of the most serious crimes. There are no powers to arrest for indecent assault or for kidnapping. There are no powers even to take finger-prints for the purposes of a criminal investigation. Plainly the law needs to be brought up to date in these respects. Plainly it must affect police efficiency, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others rightly wish.
  It is also clearly difficult to square this set of circumstances with the unusual. and I think misdirected, attack made on the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford; but I accept, as I am sure must he, that at the same time we must look at the other side of this balance, bacause the law also contains quite inadequate safeguards for the individual who may be suspected of crime and, above all, for the suspect detained at a police station. The Government's proposals, based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, will remedy both these defects.

  231
  One of the most inaccurate and mischievous of the many inaccurate criticisms made of the last Session's Bill was that it adopted the additional powers recommended by the Royal Commission and omitted, or diluted, the safeguards. That is in fact the opposite of true. The Government refused to accept some of the recommendations for new powers, and in other areas we went further than the safeguards proposed by the Commission. Our proposals will continue to strive for a fair and workable balance. and I hope that your Lorships' House will make an important contribution to striking it.
  So far as the police complaints procedure is concerned, the new arrangements that we propose will be those endorsed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. They will allow relatively minor matters to be dealt with locally by informal resolution. More substantial complaints will be investigated as at present, and the most serious complaints will be subject to investigation by a senior police officer under the supervision of an independent assessor. The introduction of the assessor is an important development, and will provide further reassurance to the public that everything possible is done to arrive at the truth of allegations. The assessor's function will be to ensure that the investigations carried out under his supervision are conducted expeditiously, thoroughly, and impartially; and he will have the necessary powers for this purpose.
  I will note with care the comments made on the Bill by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell was right to point out how unfairly my right honourable friend—who is now my noble friend—was treated in this respect when he was Home Secretary.
  The constructive reception given to the Bill by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London is welcome. I shall not now elaborate upon it, since he is not present; but I was indeed glad to receive his support. I think that I ought to put one gloss on what he said in regard to the question of the availability of police for policing London. The task of policing the capital city is a very different proposition in the 1980s from what it was in the earlier part of this century, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
  In an increasingly sophisticated and technological society the police have had to adjust their response, their tactics, and their deployment of manpower to meet new situations and undertake new tasks. But it has been the policy of successive commissioners supported by the Home Secretary of the day and his predecessors to increase the number of police officers available for street duties. In recent years, as a result of the review of the force structure, almost 1,000 officers have been redeployed to street duties. The commissioner has indicated that he proposes to make available by savings in other areas of operation a further 650 officers for this purpose. I shall be asking your Lordships' support for this measure in due course.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Government regard alternatives to custody as an important contribution to the system, and we did indeed extend
  232
  them during the last Parliament. We also share his view of the importance of preventive measures and look with the greatest interest on developments in intermediate treatment. The noble Lord was not alone in his regard for the probation service, to which I shall return in a moment.
  Looking at criminal justice, one has to take up the question of prisons. The difficulties that affect the prison system are well known and have been frequently and thoroughly debated by your Lordships. They have been made known not only by this means, but also by deliberate acts of policy under the last Government and the leadership of my noble friend the Leader of this House in making the system more open to the media and the public. The system is overcrowded. The condition of many of the buildings is very poor. Scarcely one stone was put on another in building secure accommodation between 1918 and 1952. Since then, maintenance has been tragically neglected. As a result, the staff work under considerable pressure to keep the system operational. This affects them as well as the inmates.
  These are long-standing problems with no immediate solution. But a programme was initiated by my noble friend in 1979, well ahead of this year's Queen's Speech. As a result, four new prisons are under construction and six more are at various stages of design. Equally important, existing establishments are being extended and brought up to date. In this financial year there is provision for expenditure of £20 million on new prisons, a further £33 million on new construction at existing establishments, and another £22 million on repairs and maintenance. That amounts to £75 million in all. The numbers of staff have also been increased. The number of prison officers in post will have increased by 15 per cent. to 18,064 in 1984.
  The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked about progress in developing a code of standards for prisons on the lines discussed during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill last year, particularly on 22nd June and 1st July. Work has continued on this subject in the course of preparing the return to be made this year to the Council of Europe on implementation of the Council's standard minimum rules. I would not, however, wish to commit my right honourable and learned friend to a position until he has had an opportunity to consider this interesting but difficult matter in the context of the many other interesting and difficult matters now freshly before him.
  That must, I think—I say this with genuine regret—also be my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, who asked about the minimum qualifying period for parole. The noble Lord knows already the issues that we have under consideration. My right honourable and learned friend must have time to consider them himself.
  As to the overflow into police and magistrates' court cells, the fact is that there is a grave shortage of accommodation countrywide. The state and the actual fabric of buildings in London is probably the worst concentration or shortcoming. We could either have continued in these appalling conditions or done something about it. We did, in fact, do something

  233
  about it. As a result, 450 places are at present simply not available at Wormwood Scrubs while A wing and the hospital are rebuilt. The result of this and other such moves, which I believe it was imperative to take, has been an unacceptable number of prisoners in this sort of accommodation. On 27th June there were in fact 318 prisoners so held.
  Before I leave the criminal justice system, let me refer briefly to capital punishment. The Government are aware of the widespread concern about this issue, and my right honourable and learned friend the Home Secretary announced on 23rd June in another place that the Government would provide time for a full debate there at an early opportunity. Traditionally this issue is left for Members of another place to decide on a free vote. To the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, and others, I would suggest that we might be wise to await the result of that occasion before considering what we ourselves ought to do.
  I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, was anxious about signing Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Signature would bind Parliament by its existence. It is an undertaking never to reintroduce capital punishment. Neither Government nor, indeed, Parliament itself can bind its successors and, therefore, signature would not be appropriate.
  My noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson referred to the need to give priority to law reform and measures to improve the administration of justice. He mentioned a number of specific points which fall within the remit of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I can assure him that my noble and learned friend will give full and careful consideration to the various matters which he raised and I have this evening to comment on only one or two of the matters to which he referred.
  My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is fully committed to the work of the Law Commission in promoting law reform. The Family Law Bill, referred to in the gracious Speech, will give effect to three Law Commission reports. The Occupiers' Liability Bill, already introduced, is designed to give effect to another Law Commission report and the Lord Chancellor hopes to introduce other legislation to give effect to Law Commission proposals for reform as well as a number of consolidation Bills.
  My noble and learned friend referred to the need for more courts. We have in fact reduced the delays in the crown court despite the substantial increase in the number of cases. Many new court buildings have been opened and the number of courtrooms available for the Crown Court has been increased from about 340 at the beginning of 1980 to about 380. As mentioned in the manifesto, the programme for new court building will continue.
  My noble and learned friend referred also to the division of responsibility between the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary. Without entering into these difficult waters, I should perhaps point out that the Lord Chancellor now has responsibility for all areas of legal aid, both criminal and civil, following the acceptance of one of the recommendations by the Royal Commission on Legal Services. My noble and learned friend also made a number of points on legal aid,
  234
  including the desirability of extending legal aid to tribunals. The present Government have been mindful of the significant increase in legal aid expenditure and have accordingly sought to ensure that the legal aid scheme provides value for money. The scheme has at the same time been extended in priority areas, to applicants to mental health review tribunals and parents whose children are involved in care proceedings. Extension to other areas, including tribunals, must be considered in the context of the financial implications thereof.
  On a related note, the Government are firmly committed to extending the grounds that disqualify those with criminal records from serving on juries. We attach the highest importance to the preservation of the integrity of the jury service and the maintenance of public confidence in our criminal justice system. We believe that the people of this country do not want a situation to persist in which those with quite serious criminal records might be entitled to sit in judgement upon their fellow citizens. Changes in the law to exclude such people from juries will be made at the earliest suitable legislative opportunity, but I am not yet in a position to say when this is likely to be.
  I promised to refer again to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, or rather to the probation service, which is very nearly synonymous in this context. The noble Lord has a close personal interest in the service and therefore demands respect from it and from this House. He drew your Lordships' attention to an issue of real and natural concern in the probation service, and one which I did discuss briefly with both him and them shortly before I handed my ministerial interest in the service to my honourable friend. Therefore, I have some direct knowledge of the matter about which he complains with such engaging and admirable passion.
  We do not suggest that students of any profession receive extravagant sums, but even probation students at the bottom of the revised scale will receive £3,500, which is significantly more than, for example, the basic grant paid to a student teacher, and the mature student will be at a rate of salary almost entirely unchanged at £5,382 per annum. The reduction affects new students only. It does not affect those who are already on their courses, and it has, of course, nothing whatever to do with the salaries of serving probation officers.
  We have the highest regard for the probation service, which is a vital and constructive element in the criminal justice system and the part most directly focused on dealing with offenders in the community. The Government have not been swept unsuspecting into a different view; nor have they failed to listen to the noble Lords and others on the subject, though they have not been persuaded by them. They have seen the need to concentrate their resources on reinforcing the most essential parts of the service, and that cannot include offering to students, before they even become probation officers, terms of service designed to attract applicants at a time when they were very reluctant to come forward.
  I return to the measures to which I earlier referred. The third of these I have already introduced in this House and some of your Lordships have become almost too familiar with it. The Data Protection Bill

  235
  had passed all its stages here when the last Parliament was dissolved. That Bill, too, I would remind your Lordships, has to be concerned with balance, in this case between the interests of the individual and those of organisations, in the private sector as well as in the public sector, which automatically process information about individuals. I am tempted to say more about it, but there will be an early opportunity and I shall forgo the pleasure.
  Some noble Lords, led by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, suggested that there were signs that we were going to undermine the welfare state, the principal features of which I think I am right in saying were set up by a coalition Government. On this issue, we stated our position quite clearly in our manifesto. It was resoundingly endorsed by the electorate on 9th June. The electorate does read manifestos. I jolly well took care that the electorate read the manifesto of noble Lords opposite; I found it relieved me of the necessity of making any speeches at all!
  In our manifesto, which the noble Lord prudently did not use in the same way, we said that Conservatives believe strongly in the duty of Government to help those who are least able to help themselves. We have more than carried out our pledges to protect pensioners against price rises and to maintain standards in the National Health Service. We are determined that all public services shall provide the best possible value, both for the people they seek to help and for the taxpayer who pays the bill. That statement encapsulates the sum of our achievements since 1979 and equally our objectives over the next five years. By no stretch of the imagination does it constitute an attack on or an undermining of the welfare state.
  The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, mentioned capital expenditure on the National Health Service in this context. I can tell him that during the last Parliament the Government secured a 17 per cent. real terms increase in capital spending in the National Health Service. Planned capital spending now stands at £1,100 million, with 140 major new hospital projects being designed or under construction in England alone.
  Lord Pitt of Hampstead: My Lords, the noble Lord gives me this nice propaganda, but that is not the issue I raised at all. I raised the question of central funding of certain National Health services, and that is what I was concerned about.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to resume, that is a matter to which I think we might return on another occasion. I have the task of replying to 32 speeches in nominally 25 minutes; I think that 32 minutes would not be excessive. I shall endeavour not to go beyond, because I shall incur wrath from all sides. As the noble Lord wants me to pick up particular issues, on the issue of renal services, in 1982 there were more than 1,000 kidney transplants in the United Kingdom, which was a record. There is certainly still a waiting list of over 2,250, but the noble Lord should realise that the problem is not lack of money, but lack of donor organs.
  236
  The noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, asked about outstanding proposals for reforming the Industrial Injuries Scheme. The Government were able to give effect from the beginning of April to those proposals for reforming the Industrial Injuries Scheme which were compatible with the new statutory sick pay scheme introduced at that time. Implementation of the remaining proposals outlined in the White Paper will require further legislation and it is the Government's intention to legislate upon them as soon as the parliamentary timetable will allow. They have certainly not been abandoned.
  We are resolute in our commitment to shift the balance of available resources away from those with slight injuries and small earnings losses in favour of those with severe disablement who have little or no capacity to earn, and to remove duplication of benefit cover with the main national insurance schemes. The noble Lord raised two other matters which, if he will forgive me, I will write to him about.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, was the first speaker to raise education in the debate, and showed in an admirable maiden speech a proper concern, shared by my noble friend Lord Beloff, with standards and particularly with standards of teachers, a subject which my noble friend Lady Cox's lucid speech showed to be of paramount importance. These standards spring from the training of teachers. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State attaches great importance to improving the quality of the teacher training system. Policies to that end were set out in the White Paper Teacher Quality, which was published in March, and action on implementation is now in hand. The White Paper also dealt with management issues. Action on that front is being pursued in concert with local authority employers. My right honourable friend introduced earlier this year a scheme to encourage in-service training of teachers—and that is important—in certain priority areas, and has commissioned Bristol University to undertake development work on the augmented training of head teachers and senior staff.
  As the noble Lord rightly implied this is a remit similar to that of the Scarman Committee in England and Wales and I take on board that there may be lessons to learn from it. I can reassure my noble friend Lord O'Neill of the Maine on the matter of Londonderry Bridge that it is almost finished, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will be responsible to the Public Accounts Committee in the usual way.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made some welcome observations about the Londonderry police liaison committee. I can tell him that the police authority for Northern Ireland has been working jointly with the RUC to consider the experience of operating this and other liaison committees throughout the Province. Final recommendations have yet to be made, but the purpose of any new committee will be to foster good relations between the police and the public and to obtain public support in relation to a wide range of matters of local concern including public order, crime prevention, and community relations.
  A burning issue—almost the last—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and also the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, was that of the rate limitation and reform.

  237
  We have been concerned as a Government by the excessive and irresponsible rate increases imposed by some high spending councils on local householders and businesses. A minority of authorities remain determined to defy the Government's spending targets and to charge high levels of rates for services which are often wasteful and inefficient.
  If the 18 most excessive overspending authorities had this year spent at the target set for them there would have been on average no rate increase in England this year. This is not a partisan targeting of politically hostile authorities; it is a necessary reaction to profligate and irresponsible spending. We shall therefore introduce a Bill in the new year to control the rate set by selected high-spending authorities from the 1st April 1985, and we can discuss the details of that when we get to it.
  I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. With her we have come to the regretful conclusion that the Greater London Council and the Metropolitan County Councils are a superfluous and costly tier of local government. They are remote from the people. They have struggled unsuccessfully to justify their existence, and they arc among the biggest of these overspenders. We will therefore abolish these authorities and transfer their functions to their boroughs and districts where possible. Services which need to be provided over a wider area will be run by joint boards, boroughs, or district representatives. Local democracy will be strengthened by this new local government structure, which will be more economical, efficient and effective than the present one.
  My right honourable friend will be bringing forward proposals and consulting local government and others about the implementation of these proposals which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would then be able to examine in more detail. We shall maintain the strong commitment to the inner cities which was developed over the last four years and is underlined in our election manifesto.
  The progress of this nation out of recession into a renewed prosperity, the formulation of new laws, the encounter with unforeseen crises—all that I have dealt with so far in my speech—will be done under the watchful and constructive eye of Parliament. The Commons House of that Parliament is elected by a system long favoured in this country and with manifest advantages over any other that has yet been proposed for it. It keeps constituency Members closest, as the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, said—and how glad I am to agree with him on something—to constituency electors and to constituency problems. It produces in the House of Commons a simple confrontation between the ins and the outs. That may be noisy at times, but it is clearly understood by the electorate and is reflected even in the shape of the building.
  We elect a Government and an Opposition. Two phalanxes of benches face each other at the historically safe distance—rather more than a sword's length. Foreign countries with fancy franchises elect members to form a Government and they send them not to face each other, but to sit in a semicircle so that groups can shift and slide into alliances with each other at which voters can only guess and whose eventual policies they
  238
  cannot predict, with all the ills which my noble friend Lord Beloff so eloquently fears and all the unfairness my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls so eloquently described.
  I was not surprised by the thesis of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the rules under which his party was defeated were unfair. It is no surprise on the field of any recent battle to find the defeated picking over the auguries in search of intimations of future victory. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, said that his allies were complaining about the rules after losing the match and says that no such stigma attaches to his party which has complained of the system before countless elections. It has to be said that his party has been losing elections for very much longer than that of the noble Lord. Lord Kennet. Thus, the same applies to them.
  I can, however, comfort the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, in one respect. The Government are sympathetic to the idea that the franchise should be extended to our citizens living abroad. Our evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs reflected this view. We are currently considering our response to the Select Committee. We also accept that British citizens living in European Community countries should be able to vote at elections to the European Parliament. We are currently considering the complex issues which would have to be decided before legislation could be introduced.
  I could go on at length on the subject, but I will satisfy myself with one further observation only. Much has been made of polls on the subject of a fairer system. Whether the questions explained in what way it would be fairer, I am not certain. What is certain is that when a party went to the only poll that actually counts and advocated proportional representation 70 per cent. of those who did vote chose to vote against it.
  I can elaborate on no further issues. To reply to 32 speeches in 32 minutes was beyond me. I can only thank my noble friends who have contributed. I shall not even read out the list of encomia which I have written to mollify those whose names do not appear, I regret, in my speech.
  Inextricably, I must conclude.
  Lord Elwyn Jones: Inexorably, my Lords.
  The Lord Chancellor: Inexorably, my Lords.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, inevitably, I must conclude. I hope I have made it clear to your Lordships that the programme that we have prepared to meet the exigencies ahead of us is a full one. It is also a responsible one. Some may be surprised, some may be even disappointed, but there has been no dramatic swing to the political right. This is the programme of the whole Conservative party, not a mere fraction of it. It seeks the good of the whole nation, not a mere section of it and it is based on the only manifesto we have—the one we published. The humble Address we have before us in response to the gracious Speech therefore seems to me a thoroughly appropriate one which deserves your Lordships wholehearted support.
  The Chancellor of The Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned until tomorrow.
  Moved, that the debate be now tomorrow.—(Lord Cockfield.)
  On Question, Motion agreed adjourned accordingly.

Ashridge (Bonar Law Memorial) Trust Bill
Bill passed through all remaining stages pro forma, and returned to the Commons with the amendments.

Milford Haven Conservancy Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eleven o'clock.