Sitting of 25 October 1983

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

    DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Pupil Profiles
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to give any further advice to local education authorities in relation to the development of pupil profiles; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): I shall shortly be inviting the views of the local education authorities, teachers, industry, commerce and public service employers on a statement of policy and principles for action in this field, with a view to securing the more widespread use of records of achievement for school leavers. Copies of the draft will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Madel: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a pupil profile system is to develop properly those in further education and employers must be aware of its content and purpose and be consulted about it? Does he also agree that teachers will probably need more training in assessment techniques to make the scheme work properly?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes. The consultation paper appeal for co-operation from employers and will take account the implications for further education. widespread use of records of achievement implications for initial and in-service training o
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: I welcome strongly what my right hon. Friend has said and the steps that he has taken in this matter. Does he agree that for those who will not take O-level and CSE examinations some form of profile is of importance in assisting them to obtain employment?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am grateful for my right hon. and learned Friend's support. However, I take the view, and I hope that he will agree with me, that records of achievement should be suitable for pupils of all abilities.

    Voluntary Work
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will take steps to ensure that when local councils cut education services they maintain facilities provided originally by voluntary effort.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): It is our view that those are matters best left for local resolution.
    Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that the Sefton Conservative council has closed a learner swimming pool at St. James's primary school in my constituency, the money for which was raised completely by the parent-teacher association? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that that swimming pool has been closed merely to save £8,000 a year in running costs in an area where children drown in the Leeds-Liverpool canal? Will the Minister condemn such cuts and economy measures?
    Mr. Dunn: It is for local education authorities to decide the extent to which they can compensate for community losses associated with school closures or any other activity within the local education authority. Education law provides a framework for that and I see nothing to be gained from issuing central prescriptions on problems which arise at local community level.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend invite the Inner London education authority to save money at the Cockpit theatre, which has promoted courses for young children, which have now been stopped, in bestiality, rape, and that sort of thing, to the detriment of its future? It is an area where money can and must be saved. The Cockpit theatre needs looking at.
    Mr. Dunn: I note my hon. Friend's robust remarks and leading the campaign which in many suecessful closure of a number of items. think that his point falls entirely within the tion.

    Teacher Training
    asked the Secretary of State for ence whether he has any plans to meet teachers' unions to discuss the places; and if he will make a
    The Under Secretary of State for Education and science (Mr. PeterMy right hon. Friend has on such plant at pres
    Mr. skinner:ter ever gets round to meeting the leaders of the unions, will he explain to them what economic log is in having thousands of teachers on the dole another Government Department is in the process ing people to go through some phoney training gsters between 16 and 19 on the YTS scheme? Would it not make more sense to have those teachers employed in classrooms teaching those grant-aided 16 to 19-year-olds? That would raise morale in the classroom and reduce the pupil-teacher ratio at the same time.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend recently met some of the associations and is due to meet representatives of the NUT on 1 November. The matter was not discussed at any of the previous meetings, nor is it on the agenda for the

    127
    meeting with the NUT. My response to the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks is that average class sizes in England are now the lowest so far recorded, at 25·1 for primary and 21·1 for secondary schools. The elimination of large classes depends on decisions by authorities and schools about priorities as well as on the resources available.
    Mr. Farr: When my hon. Friend is considering this matter, will he bear in mind that the teacher-pupil ratio is at the best level it has ever been?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend confirms the figures that I just gave to the House.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: How much does it cost the taxpayer to train a teacher? Is it not a considerable waste of public expenditure if that teacher is not able to work? And how many unused classrooms are now available in primary schools? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it would be a good idea to offer nursery education, employing many teachers who are unemployed, in those empty classrooms?
    Mr. Brooke: A number of those questions fall outside the purview of the original question, but it may be helpful if I say that though there will be a significant reduction in the output of newly-trained secondary teachers by the late 1980s, the output, at 7,000 a year, will mean that there will still be an appreciable margin over the estimated annual demand for 5,000 such teachers.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no reduction of any significance in the number of places in Church colleges for teachers?
    Mr. Brooke: We acknowledge that the voluntary sector has an important part to play in the teachers, but in a changing world we cannot to allocating a fixed and unchanging training places to colleges supported by denomination, especially when much teac now occurs in universities.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that ratio is due entirely to the fall in p whereas the rolls in secondary school When the Minister meets the teachers to discuss something, and not me Vacuo, point made by my hon. Friend the for Denton Reddish (Mr. Bennett) about eing unemployed will be one subject that the nions will raise. it not a fact that the pupil-teacher in the private secto using public money, is much than in the public sector? That is disgra thousands of highly trained teachers—bea the YTS scheme—are out of work.
    Mr. Speaker I must appeal for short supplementary please
    Mr. Brooke:The thrust of the main question related to the Secretary of te's meetings with the associations of teachers. He has met the National Association of Schoolmasters — Union of Women Teachers, the Assistant Masters and Mistresses Association and the National Association of Head Teachers. On 1 November he is due to meet representatives of the NUT. This matter was not discussed at any of the previous meetings, nor has it been placed on the agenda for the meeting with the NUT.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister accept that the overall pupil-teacher ratio figures which he quoted are misleading —Her Majesty's inspectors of schools have pointed out that they are misleading — because of the uneven incidence of falling rolls and the fact that some teachers in special subjects such as physics may not be reappointed, so that physics classes may in future be expected to be taught by people qualified in, say, French? Does he appreciate therefore that the overall pupil-teacher ratio is not a significant figure in the circumstances?
    Mr. Brooke: All ratios and statistics on a global scale embrace variations within them, but the fact remains that the figures are the best ever. Anybody who argues against them is suggesting that one can win a test match by making fewer runs.

    Learning Difficulties (Teaching Provision)
    Mr. Cunliffeasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with the overall provision in schools for children with significant learning difficulties.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Generally, yes; but, as I told the National Council for Special Education earlier this year, we need to look closely at whether the aims of the special schools are ambitious enough. I am sending the hon. Member a copy of that speech.
    Mr. Cunliffe: Why does the right hon. Gentleman appear to be complacent and indifferent about this matter? Many of us are aware of and entirely dissatisfied with the distinct lack of commitment by most local authorities in dealing with the spirit and intentions of the Education Act 1981 in relation to disabled and handicapped children. Will the right hon. Gentleman exhort authorities to take further action to implement those provisions as speedily as possible, regardless of Government-imposed cuts in their expenditure, and to treat the matter more seriously, remembering that we should be far more compassionate in our attitudes towards needy children of this character? What further action does the Minister intend to take?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman's attitude is entirely unjustified in relation to local education authorities, teachers and Her Majesty's Government. His question is broadly defined and I answered him in terms of the special schools. The movement of children who might otherwise have gone to special schools into schools for normal children must be judged in each case. There is money—money is being preserved in real terms for the special schools — and teachers and local education rities are co-operating to put into effect the spirit of 1 Act as fast as is practicable.
    Mr. John Townend: Will my right hon. Friend at dyslexia is now accepted by all education as a major cause of learning difficulty?
    Sir.Joseph: That is practically fighting talk. There is much dispute about whether dyslexia is an adequate description of severe learning difficulties. That there are Widespread learning difficulties is accepted. The exact name to be given for it — the diagnosis and treatment—is a different matter.
    Dr. M. S. Miller: In view of the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about the aims not being sufficiently ambitious in certain areas, is he satisfied with

    129
    the provision being made for children with significant learning difficulties whose difficulties are the result of communication problems?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Of course I am not satisfied, nor can anyone in the education service be satisfied, because the problems are so inherently difficult. There is enormous enthusiasm and great caring on the part of the teachers. My worry is that the teachers are perhaps not ambitious enough in using all the modern techniques known across the world to overcome the various handicaps. But, as I say, the problems are inherently difficult.

    Youth Training Scheme
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what are the financial implications for schools of the youth training scheme; and what additional resources he is providing for this purpose.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am not aware of any significant financial implications for schools in the provision currently being made by the youth training scheme.
    Mr. Deakins: Is it not a fact that the youth training scheme—being fairly unpopular with young people, as the level of take-up shows so far—might lead to more pupils staying on into sixth forms at a time when educational provision in many local authorities, such as mine in Waltham Forest, is being severely cut? Is there not a case, in view of the relative failure of the youth training scheme, to offer options to all pupils who wish to leave school, for more educational resources for sixth forms in areas where there has not been a full take-up of YTS places?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We shall have to take into account what is known of the choice of young people when the people concerned come to negotiate the terms for next year. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, the terms under which provision is made now in education are based on a bargain struck not by my Department but by the further education colleges with representatives of the employers at the beginning of this year.
    Mr. Hannam: Is my right hon. Friend aware that serious problems are being caused to many colleges of further education in Devon, including in my constituency, and throughout the country by the serious shortfall in funding YTS courses by the Manpower Services Commission? Will he exert pressure on the Secretary of State for Employment, to see whether this underfunding can be made good, otherwise local education authorities will be asked to make up a deficit which they will not be in a position to do?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I take seriously what my hon. Friend says, but, as he rightly says, these matters are for the Secretary of State for Employment, who, I am sure, will read this exchange of views.
    Mr. Eastham: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that questions were asked about inner city areas, especially where there was a high incidence of unemployment, when the Select Committee was taking evidence on the youth training scheme? It asked whether local authorities would suffer penalties if there were excess spending on education and the Select Committee was assured that there would be no exception made for them. Does he agree that that is disgraceful?
    Sir Keith Joseph: No, I do not agree. The Government were approached and asked to exempt authorities from holdback to the extent that the overspending came from YTS spending implications. The Government did not recognise that there was justification for that exemption.
    Mr. Haselhurst: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a valid implication for schools is the extent to which the curriculum might require amendment to prepare pupils better for the youth training scheme, which many of them might later join?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I tend to agree in more general terms with my hon. Friend. There are initiatives to widen the curriculum for a number of pupils. In their initiation of what is called the lower attaining pupils scheme, the Government have provided extra money for pilot schemes for this purpose.
    Mr. Foster: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall receiving a letter recently from a head teacher in the north of England, whose school had done especially well in developing what has been called the new sixth form? This head teacher's sixth form has been reduced by 25 per cent. recently as a result of the impact of the youth training scheme. He argued that the YTS was much more expensive than the courses that he was running in his school, much less suitable for his pupils, and a scheme that would produce a poorer record in placing them into work.
    Sir Keith Joseph: These are matters of opinion. I can respect the teacher who has been quoted by the hon. Gentleman, without necessarily agreeing with all his conclusions. More of the age group concerned are staying on at school for a varying number of reasons.

    Assisted Places Scheme
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many children are now taking part in the assisted places scheme; and what have been the annual increases since its inception.
    Mr. Dunn: Provisional figures indicate that about 13,000 children in England are now taking part in the assisted places scheme. The three annual intakes this represents were 4,185, 4,431 and, provisionally, 4,700.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not a fact that successive inspectors' reports have revealed that the provision of books and equipment is parlous in many schools in the public sector throughout Britain? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, side by side with the horrific cuts in the public sector of education, public money, which the Government call taxpayers' money, is being used to enhance and enlarge the private sector? Does he accept that this is being done when many thousands of our children are suffering because of cuts in the public sector?
    Mr. Dunn: I continue to welcome the progress of the assisted places scheme. It provides the bright child from ordinary circumstances with an opportunity to apply for a range of provision that is not necessarily offered by his local authority. The hon. Gentleman's subjective interventions are always welcome. His known and class-ridden hostility to the scheme guarantees proof that we are moving in the right direction.
    Mr. Dorrell: Is it not a fact that the Labour party's policies have led to many 'former direct grant schools being

    131
    closed to the children of those parents who cannot afford to pay the fees? Is it not welcome that the assisted places scheme has made it possible for all children in many local communities to aspire to enter schools which, throughout their history, have been open to and have served the whole of the communities in which they operate?
    Mr. Dunn: My hon. Friend is right. He may be interested to know that in the 1982–83 school year 40 per cent. of the assisted places attracted full fee remission and that 70 per cent. of the places went to pupils from families with below average incomes.
    Mr. Alton: If the Minister is opposed to subjective information being offered to the House, will he give the House objective information by revealing precisely how much the assisted places scheme has cost taxpayers since its inception? Will he tell the House also how much has been cut from the public sector provision during the same period?
    Mr. Dunn: I understand that £16·5 million has been provided for the assisted places scheme for the financial year 1983–84.
    Mr. Dobson: By what scale of morality, either secular or religious, can the Minister and his colleagues justify spending almost £9 million in this year, on subsidising privileged schools when they have found only about £1 million to help in the integration of handicapped children in ordinary schools?
    Mr. Dunn: We can justify the scheme on financial grounds because it has been a great success in widening education opportunities. It has more than met its objectives in helping children from poorer backgrounds.

    Education Act 1981
    Mr. John Evansasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he is satisfied with progress in implementing the provisions of the Education Act 1981.
    Mr. Dunn: In general, yes. The new assessments and statements procedures are now in operation. Many local education authorities have conducted a review and reappraisal of their special educational provision and arrangements in the light of the Act.
    Mr. Evans: Will the Minister confirm that some local education authorities are not fully implementing the 1981 Act, especially in integrating handicapped pupils with their fellow pupils?
    Mr. Dunn: All local education authorities and schools have been urged to review their provision for children with special educational needs. I accept that there may be some variation between local education authorities.

    Educational Psychologists
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many local authorities employ educational psychologists; and if he will list them.
    Mr. Brooke: All English authorities do except for the Isles of Scilly. Numbers for the rest of the United Kingdom are the responsibility respectively of my right hon. Friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Thorne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing demand within local authorities for the services of educational psychologists? How can they meet that demand in the face of Government cuts in resources for local authorities?
    Mr. Brooke: The number of educational psychologists employed by English local education authorities has increased from 935 in 1979 to over 1,000 in January of this year.
    Mr. Pavitt: Does the Minister accept that the great and valuable service that is provided by educational psychologists is matched by the remedial classes into which they are able to put those whom they are endeavouring to help? Is he aware that money is being wasted because the psychologists are not allowed to place sufficient numbers in remedial classes? This is happening because the teacher cuts have been too great to allow appropriate allocation.
    Mr. Brooke: Nothing in my answer to the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Thorne) suggested any lack of support for the service.

    Universities (Public Expenditure)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will give his assessment of the effect in the university sector of the Government's measures to reduce public expenditure.
    Mr. Brooke: The reduction in provision for the universities following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement on 7 July did not require any cuts in grants to individual institutions, other than the Open university.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the confusion that exists in the universities? First, they were fined for taking in too many students. They were then told to take in more students, but they were given no extra money to finance the greater intake. Who is responsible ultimately for planning in the university sector? Can the hon. Gentleman guarantee that there will not be yet another change in policy when the outcome of Viscount Whitelaw's "Star Chamber" is known?
    Mr. Brooke: For 1984–85 the University Grants Committee has asked universities whether they will be able to take any further students. The response to the question will be received by 31 October. The UGC will then determine how the allocation of places should occur.
    Mr. Forman: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's policy towards the university sector has encouraged many universities to consider more favourably arrangements that will lead to beneficial co-operation with the private sector and industry? Is this not a good outcome of the Government's policy?
    Mr. Brooke: I confirm what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister agree that one of the consequences of the see-saw policies in the university sector will be both cuts and increases next year, which will cause colleges to suffer next year? Does he agree that it is high time he accepted the right of every student with the correct academic qualifications to gain entry to a centre of higher education? Does he agree also that the consequent economic, social and education values would far surpass any limited problems that he might have in public expenditure terms.
    Mr. Brooke: There has been no evidence up to now that anyone with appropriate qualifications has been denied access when he wished it, although I acknowledge that it is not necessarily to the course or institution of his choice. With regard to 1984–85, the committee of the National Advisery Body for Local Authority Higher Education met the Secretary of State to discuss its anxieties about the maintenance of access within the advanced further education pool. The Secretary of State has made available a further £20 million for its disposal.
    Mr. Wilson: That is not true. It is a lie. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I normally take points of order after Question Time. Does it relate to this question?
    Mr. Wilson: As the rector of the University of Dundee, may I put it to the House that the Minister has been telling lies?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.
    Mr. Skinner: He called him a liar.
    Sir William van Straubenzee: Is not the encouraging development in this area, within the period covered by the question, the financial management of the UGC, which is not, I appreciate, the direct responsibility of the Government, and which has led to a decisive switch away from the arts and towards the applied sciences in the universities?
    Mr. Brooke: My hon. Friend is perfectly correct in drawing the attention of the House to that development, which is continuing in the current year.

    Inner London Education Authority (Secondary School Expenditure)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science from what higher figure to what lower figure of expenditure per secondary school pupil the Inner London education authority would need to reduce its expenditure in order to comply with the lower limits indicated by him in his written answer of 20 July.
    Mr. Dunn: As I said in my reply to the hon. Member's previous question, it is for the authority itself to decide on its priorities for spending within its own budget. The figures that I quoted show quite clearly that the authority should be able to make significant reductions in its spending without reducing its ability to provide an effective service.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Minister not recall that in his answer on 19 July he claimed that the ILEA was overspending by 66 per cent.? Therefore, why should we not conclude that, in the view of the Government, spending on each pupil should be reduced by a similar figure?
    Mr. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman cannot avoid the inescapable fact that the financial and educational difficulties of the ILEA, which weigh heavily on the people of inner London, came about entirely because of the Labour party's policies. I remind the House that in the two years from 1981–82 to 1983–84 the ILEA's budget increased by 20 per cent. when pupil numbers were falling faster than the average.
    Mr. Bottomley: Has the ILEA produced any measurement by which it could show that any of its voluntary extra spending was producing better educational results?
    Mr. Dunn: I am not aware of any such evidence, although I should be pleased to see it. The Labour party would do well to advise its friends in the ILEA not to pursue their expensive, misleading and alarmist campaign.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Minister confirm that if the ILEA were to meet the Government's expenditure targets it would have to abandon adult education, close nursery schools, double the price of school meals and entirely stop the grants that it gives to enable older children to slay on at school?
    Mr. Dunn: The House will be aware that the hon. Gentleman is quoting from a campaign leaflet which it would do well to ignore.
    Mr. Dobson: Not true.
    Mr. Dunn: The ILEA's provisional target for 1984–85 is £798 million. As for all other authorities, it was set at a level reflecting its relative level of spending this year and the Government's assessment of what reduction it might reasonably be asked to make next year. In fact, it is 6 per cent. above its target for this year.

    Education Welfare Officers
    Mr. Heddleasked the Secretary of Stale for Education and Science what information he has as to the number of local authorities that employ education welfare officers.
    Mr. Dunn: Local education welfare services are provided in every local education authority in England.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my hon. Friend agree that hard core truancy is directly linked to crime, particularly in inner cities? Does he therefore agree that one of the prime roles of education welfare officers should be to make parents responsible for sending their children to school's'
    Mr. Dunn: We should like education welfare services to be focused more on school attendance issues. We are considering how those services might make a greater contribution towards reducing worrying truancy levels. The last major national survey of truancy was in 1974. It showed that in maintained middle and secondary schools in England and Wales nearly 90,000 pupils, 2·2 per cent. of the total, were absent with no good reason.
    Dr. Mawhinney: With the understandable concern about truancy, why does not my hon. Friend require local authorities to submit annual trancy figures to his Department?
    Mr. Dunn: Every requirement that we make of local education authorities involves a cost. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will bear in mind what my hon. Friend said.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: Does the Minister accept that schools contribute to truancy and that if their syllabuses were more akin to the needs of the children, and more attractively presented, truancy would decrease?
    Mr. Dunn: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentlemen. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has initiated programmes regarding the low attendance of pupils.

    Expenditure (Report)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he has now studied Her Majesty's inspectorates' report on standards in schools.
    Mr. Haselhurstasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations he has received following the publication of Her Majesty's inspectorates' annual report on education expenditure for 1982.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have studied carefully Her Majesty's Inspectorate's report on the effects of local authority expenditure policies on the education service in 1982 and have received a small number of representations specifically about it.
    Mr. Hardy: Does the Secretary of State accept that the public, having a proper and substantial interest in education, are entitled not only to be fully informed about this important report, but to be assured that the matter will be considered properly? Will the right hon. Gentleman do his best to make sure that there is a debate on the matter so that the Government and, perhaps, Conservative education authorities can respond to the charge that they are a pernicious influence on our young people and the state sector of education?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that the public should be informed, but it was my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle), who was my predecessor—not any member of the Opposition— who decided to publish the report. I have followed his example. The Opposition have plenty of opportunities to choose that subject for a debate if they wish.
    Mr. Haselhurst: I acknowledge that the overall figures on expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios are good, but what action does my right hon. Friend hope will be taken to remedy some of the specific deficiencies identified by Her Majesty's inspectors?
    Sir Keith Joseph: In general, the remedying of individual deficiencies identified in the report is for the local education authorities.
    Mr. Alton: Given the Secretary of State's belief in parental choice and that Her Majesty's inspectors found no appreciable difference between the standards of education in co-educational schools and single sex schools, what is the Secretary of State's view on local education authorities which propose to remove totally the single sex option?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman tempts me, but as I have a quasi-judicial function in relation to proposals by local education authorities, and as I suspect that his question conceals a local dilemma, I must reserve my position.
    Mr. McQuarrie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that before Her Majesty's inspectors report on standards in schools is sent to him, a draft is prepared by the headmasters and directors of education for the schools concerned? [Interruption.] Therefore, does he believe that the report submitted to him is unbiased?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Secretary of State replies, may I ask for silence? This is an important Question Time and there is much noise.
    Sir Keith Joseph: No doubt Her Majesty's inspectors ask for factual information before they visit schools, but there is no question of bias.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to dissociate himself from the moves to reintroduce the process of selection, which has already failed the nation once? Does he agree that that selection process has a great deal more to do with saving money by not educating the nation's children properly than it ever had to do with educational standards?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I am not sure how that issue arises on this question, but I shall certainly not dissociate myself from any initiative or proposal that a duly elected local education authority decides, in its own wisdom, to propose to me. I have to take account of the arguments for and the objections to any such proposal or initiative. I shall continue to do that and judge on the merits of the case as it affects children.

    Head Teachers
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the steps taken by him following the publication of the recent report on the selection and appointment of head teachers.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I intend to convene a national conference early in the new year on the selection of head teachers for schools. The conference will be greatly helped by the Open University's report, the full version of which will be published next month.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the vast majority of head teachers are doing a first-class job but that a significant minority are falling down badly, to the detriment of the education of children in their care, and that that affects those children's school careers and lives? Does he agree that it is essential to do something about bad head teachers?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree that it is extremely important to try to get the best head teachers possible. That is why the report on the selection process is potentially so valuable.

    Student Places
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many student places in higher and further education have been cut since May 1979.
    Mr. Brooke: Between the academic years 1978–79 and 1982–83, total full-time home student numbers in universities in Great Britain and in non-university higher and further education in England have increased by 136,000.
    There was a net fall of some 105,000 in the corresponding overall number of part-time students, partly as a result of changes in the pattern of demand for non-advanced further education courses.
    Mr. Canavan: Further to the earlier allegation about ministerial lies, which some hon. Members seem to get off with more easily than others——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I could not hear that allegation and I should not like to hear it.
    Mr. Skinner: We did.
    Mr. Canavan: I did not make the allegation. I simply referred to the allegation that had been made. Is the Minister seriously denying that there are thousands of young people, who have recently left school with university entrance qualifications and are capable of benefiting from higher education, who are being denied a place in an institution of higher education, because the Government have abrogated their stated principle? Would the Minister really rather see those people languishing on the dole queue than benefiting from the opportunity of higher education, which is their right?
    Mr. Brooke: It is an embarrassment for the Opposition that the number of full-time home students in higher education has increased by 51,000 since 1979.
    Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend explain why some adult students in full-time higher education receive full grants because their parents are not regarded as being able to make a parental contribution whereas other students, whose parents are deemed capable of making a parental contribution but cannot or will not, do not receive a full grant? Is that just? If it is not, what will my hon. Friend do about it?
    Mr. Brooke: I can only give my hon. Friend the answer that I have given him before. Removing the parental contribution would cost £180 million a year. At the moment, that is not within our power.

    Expenditure
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he expects education expenditure to be held at its present planned level in 1983–84.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Central Government expenditure on education, much of which is subject to cash limits, is expected to be held broadly at the level planned for 1983–84. There will be some overspending by local education authorities, but most of the overspend is by a limited number of authorities.
    Mr. Hughes: Should not cutting the pupil-teacher ratio be a principal objective of policy? Is the Secretary of State aware that when local education authorities cut education expenditure they blight the lives of youngsters? Will that not have a long-term ill-effect on them?
    Sir Keith Joseph: We are cutting the pupil-teacher ratio. It is at a record low.
    Mr. Dobson: Will the Secretary of State confirm that the HMI reports say that an increasing number of schools are dependent on parental contributions? Does he agree that that means that children in schools in poorer areas of the country are suffering even greater disadvantages? Will he confirm that the Conservative party now believes in pursuing a policy of inequality of opportunity?
    Sir Keith Joseph: On the contrary, we are striving to achieve as much equality of opportunity as is practical, bearing in mind that local authorities decide on the deployment of public money in education.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Squireasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Squire: Has my right hon. Friend read in today's newspapers the welcome news of next month's reported 1 per cent. cut in mortgage interest rates? Does she agree that that is tremendous news for all home buyers? Does she welcome the final abolition of the building society cartel and the resulting increase in competition, which must be good news for investors and borrowers?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, home buyers and savers stand to gain from a vigorous and competitive building society movement. I note that, since market interest rates went down to 9 per cent., money has flowed into the building societies well. I hope that that augurs well for the many citizens who are profiting from the Conservatives' home buyers policy.
    Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware——
    Mr. Skinner: Take his pulse.
    Mr. Steel: —of the havoc that has been caused by the latest local government spending cuts? Is she aware that the cut in home improvement grants in Scotland from 90 to 50 per cent. has led the Conservative group on Glasgow district council to say that it feels betrayed and stabbed in the back by the Government? Does she intend, as one of her advisers recommended in The Times last week, to abolish local government and replace it with the medieval model?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friends are proposing a grant figure, which means that if local authorities spend at their target rates rate increases next year should be extremely low. Last week my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment issued a consultation paper on the rate support grant. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is equally efficient in his dealings with Scottish local authorities.
    Sir Peter Emery: Did any British troops take part in the landing of American and Commonwealth forces in Grenada? Were there consultations between the United States and the British Government? What action has the Commonwealth Secretariat taken on this matter?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that this question relates to the Prime Minister's official engagements.
    The Prime Minister: I should be quite happy to answer my hon. Friend's points on an open question. No British troops took part. As to consultations, we received a message some three or four hours after my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke in the House yesterday on a statement. The United States sought our advice at that time. We communicated to the United States our considerable doubts about initiating action. We asked it to weigh several points carefully before taking any irrevocable decision to act. We understand that the view of several Caribbean states weighed heavily and conclusively with the United States. The perspective of those Caribbean states is undoubtedly different from ours, as they are much closer to what is happening. As my hon. Friend knows, they have been prepared for a landing and contributed to the forces that landed on Grenada today.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Having heard her Foreign Secretary yesterday say that he had been in the closest possible touch with the Americans and had no reason to think that there was any likelihood of their miltary intervention in Grenada, will the Prime Minister learn the lesson that no undertakings that may be offered by the United States—either as to the use that it might make of missiles stationed in this country or as to the consultation that would precede such use—ought to be relied upon?
    The Prime Minister: What my right hon. and learned Friend said yesterday was the accurate information available to us then. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not wish to misrepresent anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said. My right hon. and learned Friend did not mention any United States undertaking not to intervene, for the simple reason that there had been no such undertaking. The right hon. Gentleman, whose questions we always listen to with the greatest possible interest, tried to draw a parallel with cruise missiles. With the greatest respect, there is no parallel at all.
    Mr. Fisherasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 25 October.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fisher: Will the Prime Minister confirm that, as a result of the Government's cuts in NHS manpower, the real job loss in the NHS in the west midlands is not the 140 that her Secretary of State claimed, but 3,626? Will she report this fact to her "Star Chamber" of Ministers when they next discuss the cuts the Government are making?
    The Prime Minister: The numbers employed in the NHS went up enormously during the lifetime of the last Government—very much more than in the lifetime of the Labour Government. The same is true of the amount spent on the NHS. Even after a reduction of half of 1 per cent. in NHS manpower in Great Britain, the numbers employed under this Government will far exceed anything under the last Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: Which of the right hon. Lady's policies has her "Star Chamber" been licensed to breach?
    The Prime Minister: I first congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the important duties that he has assumed and I hope that he will enjoy the job. As I announced at the Dispatch Box before the House rose for the recess, our objective is to keep to the planning totals for this coming year and the following year which were published before the election and upon which the election was fought. That is still our objective. Therefore, the answer to the right hon. Gentleman is none.
    Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her felicitations. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are glad that she has made such a full recovery from the personal problems that she experienced at the beginning of the recess. If the lady is still not for turning, what is the purpose in having a "Star Chamber"? Can it be nothing more than a clumsy cover-up for the divisions that exist in the Cabinet and the indecisions that exist in the Prime Minister?
    The Prime Minister: I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has asked a well-studied supplementary question, but had he consulted his right hon. Friends and
    140
    colleagues he would have known that all public expenditure annual surveys cause problems. That is well known, and to refer to my noble Friend, Viscount Whitelaw as a "Star Chamber" carries no weight at all.
    Sir Bernard Braine: In her busy schedule, has my right hon. Friend yet found time to intimate to President Reagan that the resumption of the supply of American arms to Argentina before that country has formally ended hostilities with us, before the European Community has received an answer to its request for information about those who have disappeared, and before there is an established democracy in Argentina, is not only an unfriendly act but is not likely to help secure a peaceful settlement with Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: When I was in the United States, I made it very clear to the President that any resumption of the sale of arms to Argentina by the United States would be received with very grave concern—[Interruption]— and deep criticism in this country, and that such criticism would be justifiable.
    Mr. Speaker: I agree with those hon. Members who are drawing the noise to my attention. I cannot hear either.
    Mr. John Morris: What consideration has the Prime Minister given to the recent OECD report that the figure of more than 12 million unemployed in Europe is rising? With her experience of four years in Government, does she expect her policies to bring unemployment down, or will it go up? What instructions has she given her "Star Chamber" to bring unemployment down?
    The Prime Minister: The policies that the Government are following have the best chance of creating permanent and endurable jobs for the future. The youth training scheme is now working extremely well, as is the community enterprise programme. Enterprise allowances are also in place. That is the best chance the country has of creating new jobs and wealth, and public expenditure is designed accordingly.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Prime Minister under what circumstances Her Majesty's Government are prepared to enter into discussions with a democratically elected Government of Argentina on the future of the Falkland Islands.
    The Prime Minister: I see no possibility of discussing the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands with Argentina. I hope that a new Argentine Government will respond more constructively to our efforts to achieve more normal commercial and economic relations.
    Mr. Foulkes: Why is the Prime Minister not willing to say that she will talk to a democratic Government in Argentina to try to find a peaceful solution that could be accepted by the islanders, instead of building up arms on both sides which could result in further conflict? Does she not agree that that could play into the hands of the generals in Argentina who will be waiting in the wings when a democratic Government take over?
    The Prime Minister: No. The best deterrent to any further Argentine attack is a strong force on the Falklands. I believe that the whole House is very much aware of that. There would be no point in discussing sovereignty at the

    141
    moment. That would be an insult to all those who gave their lives to restore freedom and justice to the Falkland Islands. If the Government in Argentina are truly democratic, they will know that the essence of democracy is self-determination. That applies to the people on the Falkland Islands as much as to those anywhere else.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Have not democratically elected Governments in Argentina previously been overthrown and replaced by dictatorships? Therefore, whatever the regime in Argentina, should not we be quite clear that British subjects and British territory cannot be handed over to Argentina?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend that the kind of Government in Argentina does not affect the fundamental rights of the Falkland islanders to choose the regime under which they wish to live and to choose to stay British, as they have said they wish to do.
    Mr. Winnick: If the right hon. Lady is always concerned about reducing public expenditure, how does
    142
    she justify the Minister of State, Department of Employment being subsidised out of public funds as Tory party chairman——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The question relates to Argentina.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that any leasing proposals would be as unacceptable now as they ever were, because if Argentina were to be granted sovereignty with leaseback and then broke the agreement we could not then move in armed forces without invading Argentine territory? That must be why any consideration of leaseback will, into the foreseeable future, be unacceptable.
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. The House made it clear that leaseback was not acceptable and the many debates that we have had have made it clear that the wishes of the Falkland islanders are paramount.

Grenada
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I reported to the House yesterday about the disturbing developments in Grenada and outlined the steps which Her Majesty's Government were taking to protect our own citizens, and to keep in close touch with our Commonwealth partners in the region and others concerned. Since then events have moved rapidly and I owe the House a further report.
Yesterday evening the United States Government told us that they were giving serious consideration to a formal request from the Organisation of East Caribbean States requesting United States participation in a military intervention in Grenada. We put to them a number of factors which we thought should be carefully weighed before a decision was taken to intervene. Early this morning they informed us of their conclusion that, for the United States and for those Caribbean states which had proposed it, intervention was the right course to pursue. They assured us of their concern that the lives of British citizens should be safeguarded. The American community in Grenada is five times larger than the British community and more exposed. President Reagan has explained that he had received reports that a large number of them were seeking to escape the island.
We understand that troops from the United States, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent landed on the island early this morning. No British troops are involved and HMS Antrim, which is standing off Grenada, has been ordered to stay clear of the area of operations.
It is too soon to know how the operation has fared or what the long-term consequences will be. The House will follow these events with great concern. We must all hope that the outcome will be to establish peace and democratic government for the people of Grenada, with the least possible loss of life.
Mr. Denis Healey: The Foreign Secretary has made a serious and disturbing statement which contrasts oddly with the statement that he made to the House only 24 hours ago. Yesterday, he rightly told us:
"Grenada is an independent country. Our concern and what we are prepared to do about it must be determined by that fact." —[Official Report, 24 October 1983; Vol. 33, c. 28.]
The military regime in Grenada is repulsive to all hon. Members, and has seized power in a bloody coup, but, as I reminded the House yesterday, there are many other such Governments who seized power by similar methods, especially in that part of the world.
President Reagan made it clear this morning that he was invited on Sunday by a number of Caribbean Commonwealth countries to join them in invading the island and in his statement, which was reported in the BBC news at one o'clock, he placed little importance on the risk to American citizens on the island. He described the purpose of the invasion as threefold. First, it was to protect innocent lives—I wonder how many lives have already been lost, and how many of those lives were those of British citizens. The second purpose was to forestall further chaos, and the third to restore law and order.
None of those objectives justifies the invasion of an independent state, particularly when, as the Foreign
144
Secretary told us yesterday, the lives of foreign citizens on Grenada were not in imminent danger. The noble Baroness Young told the other place yesterday that the Grenada Government were putting no difficulties in the way of those who wished to leave the island. I must ask the Foreign Secretary some questions about what has happened.
What steps is HMS Antrim taking now to protect British citizens, as the latest news report suggests that fighting is continuing? Secondly, what has been the role of the Governor-General, representing Her Majesty the Queen, in this affair? It is a serious matter, I hope that the House will agree, when a Commonwealth country subject to the Queen is invaded by a foreign state, and the British Government are informed of the intention to invade at the very moment when the invasion is taking place, and their protestations are brushed aside.
The Foreign Secretary has some questions to answer about what he told us yesterday. It appears that a number of Commonwealth Governments invited President Reagan to intervene as long ago as Sunday, although many Commonwealth Caribbean Governments did not, including Trinidad, the Bahamas and Belize, all of which refused to participate in the conspiracy. Were the Commonwealth Governments who took part in the invasion and invited the United States troops to intervene the Governments with which the Foreign Secretary told us yesterday he was closely in touch? The decision was apparently taken in Trinidad by the Commonwealth Governments concerned as long ago as Saturday. Were Her Majesty' Government informed of what was going on? The Grenada Government knew yesterday because they reported the happenings in the Trinidad discussions in detail on radio and their report was published in this morning's Daily Telegraph. Did those Governments invite Her Majesty's Government to join in the invasion and, if so, what reply did Her Majesty's Government give?
Yesterday, the Foreign Secretary told us that there was no reason to think that American military intervention was likely, and that he knew of no American intention to invade. That is an extraordinary statement by a representative of a Government who pride themselves on being America's most loyal ally. Were Her Majesty's Government informed in advance that this request had been made by the United States Government? Was a similar request made of Her Majesty's Government? If so, when, and what response was given?
It is clear from what the Foreign Secretary has told us that Her Majesty's Government have, on this occasion, been deceived by their American allies and by some of their Commonwealth partners. Many of us will think twice about the credence to give joint decision on other matters. I hope that the Secretary of State for Defence will think carefully about the line that he has been taking on other matters in the light of what has happened on an island where British forces were known to be offshore.
The American decision has already split the Commonwealth states in the Caribbean. It represents an unpardonable humiliation of an ally. I must ask the Foreign Secretary, indeed the Prime Minister, to protest directly in the clearest possible terms.
Sir Geoffrey Howe rose——
Hon. Members: Resign.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the House wishes to hear the Foreign Secretary.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) began by asking what were the steps now being taken by HMS Antrim. As I explained to the House, in view of the onset of the operations, which are still taking place, HMS Antrim is standing off Grenada under clear orders to stay clear of operations. It is clear that she can take no part in a rescue operation while the military action is taking place.
The role of the Governor-General has been a somewhat remarkable one for a number of years, since the revolution that led to the installation of the Government of the late Mr. Bishop. As that Government have been displaced, the Governor-General has not been able to play any part in the affairs of the island, which take place on the footing of a political and military revolutionary committee. I cannot tell the House of the present location of the Governor-General. The Commonwealth Governments——
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What does the Foreign Secretary know?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East asked me about the Commonwealth Governments. A number of different reports emerged from those Governments during the weekend. A series of discussions took place—first, between members of the Organisation of East Caribbean States, and then at a meeting of the Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation which is the largest grouping of Commonwealth countries represented in the Caribbean. There were reports that some members of the smaller group were seeking military support in Grenada during the weekend. At the end of the weekend, the larger group embracing all the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean had concluded that it could not recommend in favour of military action. Instead, it adopted a series of political and economic measures, which were announced at the end of Sunday, including the expulsion of Grenada from the organisation. No formal invitation was extended at that stage to the United Kingdom Government to offer military assistance.
During the entire weekend we kept closely in touch with the United States Government about their intentions. We made known to them our anxieties about various matters that we felt should be taken into account. Those matters were once again drawn to their attention yesterday evening. As I have told the House, the news that we received of the United States Government's intentions came in the early part of yesterday evening. Had I had any further information at that stage, I would have told the House yesterday.
The judgments that can be reached on this matter are bound to differ according to the circumstances in which they are viewed. For example, as the right hon. Member for Leeds, East pointed out, different views have been taken by different Commonwealth Governments in the Caribbean. Some of them support the action, and others do not. It will certainly be recognised that the circumstances in which this matter has arisen are different from those to which the right hon. Gentleman referred at the end of his question.
Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has not answered the two most important questions that I put to him. President Reagan told the world this morning that he was
146
approached by a number of Commonwealth Governments on Sunday. Were the British Government aware of that approach, or was it concealed from them by both their American ally and their Commonwealth partners in the Caribbean?
I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his statement this afternoon gives the impression of pitiable impotence by a British Foreign Secretary.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I reject absolutely the right hon. Gentleman's last remark. As I have already told the House, the Organisation of East Caribbean States was forming views during the course of Sunday which were subsequently considered at the Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation. We knew that those views were under consideration. The Caribbean Commonwealth Organisation favoured recommending economic and political action.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the reasons given by President Reagan for the action. He made it clear that his decisive action was taken for three reasons. First and foremost among those was the overriding importance to protect innocent lives, including up to 1,000 Americans, whose safety was of paramount concern.
Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State yesterday made it absolutely clear that innocent foreign lives on the island were not at risk and that the Grenada Government had given assurances that those who wished to leave would be free to do so. It must appear to any reasonable person that the excuse given by the United States Government was dishonest—I am afraid that I must use that word. It was a conspiracy by a number of Governments to invade an independent member of the British Commonwealth, for which no excuse can be given. I am glad to say that the Foreign Secretary has offered none.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The House must know that there is room for two views on this matter. As the right hon. Gentleman reminded us, we formed the judgment yesterday that circumstances did not justify intervention by the United Kingdom Government to save United Kingdom citizens. As I pointed out in my statement, the American community in Grenada is five times larger than the British community. President Reagan has taken a view about American citizens that is different from the view that we have taken about our citizens.
Dr. David Owen: The Foreign Secretary has not gone even as far as the Prime Minister did. She spoke of considerable doubts about initiating action. Surely the House should now be told what steps were taken by the Government to make clear those considerable doubts to the United States Administration. Did the Foreign Secretary speak to his counterpart, Secretary of State George Shultz, or did the Prime Minister speak to President Reagan? Those are the two minimum requests that must be made by the House. If they did not make a direct approach, why not?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I repeat that we were keeping in close touch, through our embassy—[Interruption.] Let the House listen to the story. We were keeping in close touch with the attitudes and intentions of the American Government throughout the weekend. The conclusion of the consideration given by the National Security Council during the weekend was that the position was one of

147
extreme caution. The United States explained that their vessels were in the area to protect the safety of their citizens.
During the course of yesterday we conveyed to the American Government our appreciation of the factors that should be taken into account against the prospect of military intervention. When the American Government were in touch with us during yesterday evening, we again drew attention to the factors that pointed in that direction. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke to President Reagan during the evening.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, for the reasons that I briefly summarised in my question to him yesterday, American intervention was inevitable and desirable? Does he agree that those countries in the Caribbean most completely wedded to democracy will be strong supporters of the action that has been taken?
Is it not time that those who are for ever blathering on about the dangers posed by Soviet imperialism should, for once, support the United States in defending our freedom?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend put forward some of those arguments yesterday. No doubt they will be taken into account by those who are convinced of the rightness of the action taken. Other Commonwealth states in the Caribbean may take a different view.
Mr. Ted Rowlands: I have a simple question to ask. Do the Foreign Secretary and the Government disagree with the decisions and actions of the United States Government in invading Grenada?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The decisions taken by the United States Government were taken by them as a result of their considerations——
Mr. Rowlands: What does the Foreign Secretary think?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The President explained that those considerations took account of the factors affecting the safety of American citizens.—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important matter.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there are people in all parts of the House who will believe that this is no way for the Americans to treat their closest ally?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I understand and take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Russell Johnston: What advice did the Prime Minister give to President Reagan yesterday? Did she advise the nation of this? Will the Foreign Secretary comment on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that there were no circumstances that would justify the invasion of an independent state? Does the Foreign Secretary agree with that?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: That is a factor that must be taken into account. One of the reasons why a country is entitled to take action in connection with an independent state is the protection of its citizens. That is the first and foremost reason. In addition, the other states in the Organisation of
148
East Caribbean States—Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent—believed themselves to be acting in accordance with the treaty established by the organisation. Jamaica and Barbados are not members of the OECS.
Mr. Julian Amery: Having regard to the attitude of so many Commonwealth countries in the area, would it not have been more consonant with the responsibilities and dignity of the British Government if we had taken the initiative in inviting the Americans to do what they have just done?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My right hon. Friend would no doubt be able to conclude from his premise that we ought to have done so, but we did not take that view.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that there was a different reaction in Havana and Moscow to recent events when the Prime Minister of Grenada was assassinated? Does not that illustrate the strategic importance of the area? Does not the fact that there was grave suspicion that the Americans would use any excuse to invade Grenada militate against the action that they are taking? Have not the Government agreed that? Was this part of their representations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: There is no reason for the suspicion that the hon. Gentleman asserted. Our representations drew attention to those factors that ought to have been considered before coming to such a decision.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): Whilst the Foreign Office might have believed that it was not wise to have military intervention to safeguard the lives of Western nationals, given that that intervention took place, would not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it would have been in the interests of British subjects if British service men had been alongside our American friends? Surely local democracies are the best judges of what is in their security interests.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Local democracies, as my hon. Friend points out, are entitled to form their own views about what affects their security interests. I cannot accept that the correct way of protecting British lives in such an operation by another country's forces is for the British forces to join in.
Mr. Dick Douglas: Does the Foreign Secretary admit that yesterday he conceded what is manifest, that Grenada is an independent state? The United States, of its own volition, has invaded this state to "protect" its citizens while we, with citizens living there, have a ship standing off. Are we to take it that the United States values its citizens more than we do?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Certainly not. Yesterday I told the House that the reason for the presence of HMS Antrim in the area was that it should be in a position to take action for the safety of our citizens if the conditions should worsen and make that necessary. We did not believe that that had arisen. The United States has taken a different view which justifies the United States and the other countries to which I have referred in taking action in an independent state. We did not think that that was the correct action in the case of our citizens.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that Opposition views would sound better if they openly recognised that the

149
Government had the opportunity to send forces to join those that went to Grenada but chose not to? If the Opposition agree with that, they should say so.
Secondly, would it not come better from all quarters of the House if we were to recognise today, as we recognised yesterday and in 1979, that the people of Grenada have not, during the past four years, had a chance to decide for themselves what kind of Government they should have?
Thirdly, would it not be more positive, at least today while we are still waiting for more information, to try to encourage the Government to encourage all the Caribbean Governments and the United States to ensure that as soon as possible the people of Grenada get the chance to choose their Government and do not have the Government chosen by 40 people who take power?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the fact that since 1979 the people of Grenada have not had a democratic system of government. The Government have been totalitarian since that time. He is also right to draw attention to the importance of restoring democracy as quickly as possible.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the reason given by the President of the United States for its action, which is to assist in the restoration of democracy in the island of Grenada.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Is not the Foreign Secretary guilty of double standards? When the leader of the democratically elected Government of Chile was assassinated and a military dictatorship took over, nothing was done. After the Russians went into Afghanistan the Government complained constantly about Afghanistan's independence. Here we have an independent Commonwealth state with the Queen as Head of Government and the Government have not protested about the invasion of an independent territory.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is correct that for a number of years we have not sought to take action about the pattern of government in this independent territory. However, the decision now taken by the United States, whatever the hon. Gentleman may think about it, is supported by a number of independent democratic Commonwealth countries. I remind the House that the decision is supported by Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent. They are entitled to take that view, and the United States can do the same.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Does the Foreign Secretary describe the American action as an intervention or an invasion? How long does he imagine that the United States forces will remain in Grenada, and which in his opinion is more important— self-determination or territorial integrity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The nature of the action being taken by the United States and the other countries is as described and is well known to the House now—to take action for the safety of American citizens there. I cannot tell the House how long that action will take. If I had been able to do so, I would have done so. Plainly the House will wish it to lead as soon as possible to the establishment of democratic institutions within Grenada.
Mr. Ron Brown: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that President Reagan is taking a leaf out of the Government's actions when they invaded Argentina's islands—the Falkland Islands? Is it
150
not evident that this example will be followed elsewhere if the Foreign Secretary is as ineffectual as he has clearly been today? Will he come out now and clearly condemn the American invasion of Grenada?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman is wrong to make any comparison between the action taken by this country last year in the South Atlantic and the action now being taken. The Americans have given their reasons for having taken this decisive action. They are supported by the eight countries that are acting with them.
Mr. Robert Adley: Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it abundantly clear that he does not espouse the proposition that, because a Government whom we do not like in a country with which we have had some connections in the past and perhaps still have changes in an unacceptable way, Her Majesty's Government see it as their right and duty to invade that country or support those who invade it? Is he aware that some of us are concerned? Is it not true that President Reagan's main concern is about the spread of what he sees as Cuban and indeed Soviet expansionism in the region? While that is understandable, if it becomes a dangerous obsession there is a danger that it will suck the Americans and indeed all of us into conflicts whose end we cannot possibly foresee when they begin?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I entirely agree that a change of Government is not in itself sufficient reason to justify invasion by one country of another. As I have already said, one reason given by the United States for its action was that it would assist in the restoration of democracy, another was that it would forestall further disorder, and the most important was the overriding importance that it attaches to the protection of innocent lives.
Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary did not answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston): What was the purpose and outcome of the telephone call between the Prime Minister and the President?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It sought to draw attention to the facts that we had already brought to the attention of the American Government during the preceding hours, which would point to a different conclusion from that finally reached.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: What is the position of British subjects who are already on the island? Are they under American protection, and what representations have we made on their behalf?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We made representations to President Reagan that care should be taken of the safety of British subjects there. As I told the House in my statement, we received assurances that their rights would be respected. While fighting continues, however, I cannot give a precise report about the position of individual citizens.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Does not the Foreign Secretary think that it is time that he and the Prime Minister reconsidered their attitude of underwriting American policies across the world, particularly when that Government is conducted by a bunch of ignorant business men led by a President who is a dangerous cretin — [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. It seems from the interruptions that the hon. Member might need my protection.
Mr. Faulds: I am most grateful, Sir. Does not the Foreign Secretary understand that in his role in this matter, as in others, he is beginning to appear as a pathetic bleater?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman, who is himself a distinguished actor, is in no position to criticise the Administration of the United States. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a full day ahead of us with other statements to be made. Such interruptions will only prolong it.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The point made by the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) that we are to be denounced for underwriting United States Government policy is quite different from the point made by others that we are to be criticised for taking a different view from them. The Government form their opinion on each question on its merits.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of us, although not all, who served on the Foreign Affairs Committee and who visited that part of the world and made a study of this matter will support both objectives of the American action —the safeguarding of citizens, and the prevention of Grenada from being turned into an aircraft carrier for Cuban Mig 27s which could strike at Venezuela? Is he also aware that when I asked him yesterday whether the Government could have offered HMS Antrim to the Americans to assist in the protection of both British and American citizens, I had reason to believe that the action by the United States was likely to take place?
Will my right hon. and learned Friend make it his business shortly to set out for the House, either by way of a written statement or in a more elaborate statement, the exact series of events that surrounded this matter so that the House is fully aware of all the information that was available to the Foreign Office and what led my right hon. and learned Friend to make that statement, and so that we can form a more objective judgment when the passions of bruised pride and phoney sentiment have subsided?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I set out to the House yesterday and today the factors that influenced the Government in coming to the conclusions that we reached at each stage of the proceedings.
Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Foreign Secretary recall that he was alerted to the dangers yesterday not once, not twice, but on three occasions by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and by myself? What do the Government intend to do to restore their credibility and to minimise the damage being done by the American action?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Both before and after the exchange in the House yesterday our views about what should be happening in this matter were being clearly represented to the United States.
Mr. Tony Marlow: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to reassure the House by saying categorically that at no stage
152
have we been misled by the American Government, and nor have the American Government been less than frank with Her Majesty's Government?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: We have been kept in touch by the Americans about their intentions as they saw them at each stage of the proceedings, and I told the House when we first heard that they were giving serious consideration to the requested intervention of the sort that eventually led to their action.
Mr. Roger Stott: Will the Foreign Secretary stop vacillating and answer the simple question that was put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands)? Do the Government approve, or disapprove, of the American action in Grenada?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said when the question was first answered, the American action in Grenada is a result of their decision — [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] — applying their judgment of the circumstances as they saw them, on the basis of their judgment of, first and foremost, the danger to their citizens. I told the House yesterday about the consideration that we had given to the same question as it affected the safety of our citizens, and about the conclusion that we reached yesterday.
Mr. John Townend: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if the intervention by the Americans and our Commonwealth allies is successful and results in a return to freedom and democracy, it will have been justified?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I said at the end of my statement, we must all hope that the outcome of the action will be to establish peace and democratic government in Grenada.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members know that there are two other statements. I propose to call three more hon. Members and then the Front Bench spokesmen.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Is it not clear that the Foreign Secretary has come to the Chamber quite unbriefed and without adequate knowledge with which to answer this straight question? Do the Government agree, or disagree, with the American attack on a sovereign country? Will the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister tell us if they now are enunciating the serious theory within the international arena that, where a great country decides that another sovereign country does not have the democracy which it thinks that country ought to have, it has the right to attack that country to enforce that type of democracy? Is that acceptable to our Government, or are we accepting our role as an obvious satellite of the United States?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not enunciating that theory as a basis for action of that type, nor is that theory set out by the United States as the basis for its actions.
Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps I missed this point in the shambles of what is left of British foreign policy, but was the Grenadian Head of State consulted before the invasion? Has the Grenadian Head of State been advised and consulted since because, unlike the Governor-General, we know the whereabouts of the Head of State?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have told the House that I am not able to give information about the present position of the Governor-General.
Mr. Doug Hoyle: If the Foreign Secretary says that the British nationals there were not in danger, what is the difference between them and the Americans? Will he stop wringing his hands like Uriah Heep and condemn in the Chamber this American folly?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: As I have told the House several times, the difference between our group of citizens and the American one is that the American group is five times more numerous than ours. It contains people who are more visible within the community, and the President of the United States had received reports, as he told the nation today, that a large number of them were seeking to escape from the island. We had received no such reports in respect of our citizens.
Mr. Healey: I should like to start with a tribute to the Foreign Secretary. Nobody, on the basis of his performance this afternoon, could accuse him of megaphone diplomacy. I must tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the British people will not relish the spectacle of their Prime Minister allowing President Reagan to walk all over her for a second time. Is this just an example of the resolute approach mark II, and will it form the whole of Her Majesty's Government's policy during their second term of office?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The subject does not deserve jibes of that quality. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign".] The action being discussed is not the action of this Government. The views of the Government on this matter were made plain yesterday.
Mr. Healey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to give notice that at the appropriate time I shall seek to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10.

Radioactive Wastes
4.13 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the procedures for dealing with radioactive wastes.
The White Paper of July 1982 stressed the great importance that the Government attach to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. These wastes, which vary greatly in type and source, are a necessary product of modern society. Their effective disposal, in ways which have been shown to be safe, is well within the scope of modern technology.
It has been decided already that the high-level, heat-generating wastes from nuclear fuel should be solidified and stored for at least 50 years. This will allow the radioactivity to decline and the necessary infonnation to be collected for an eventual choice of the best means of disposal. However, there is no scientific reason for deferring the disposal of other categories of waste, and that is what the rest of this statement is about.
For many years, low-level waste has been regularly disposed of, both on land and at sea. The Government firmly believe that sea disposal is a safe method for certain kinds of lower-level wastes from laboratories, medical uses and other sources. It has been authorised by successive Governments, and is permitted under the London convention. It is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence but the Government regret that they have not so far succeeded in persuading certain Trades unions of this. If there were authoritative evidence of a real risk to human health, or of significant and permanent damage to the marine environment, of course it would cease to form part of the national waste management strategy. A sea disposal operation will not take place this year, and the waste for which sea disposal is planned will be stored on land for the time being.
There is, in any event, a need to bring into operation by the end of the decade land disposal facilities for intermediate level wastes. The responsibility for providing those facilities falls to the nuclear industry and the generating boards acting through NIREX, the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive. A copy of its first report has been placed in the Library of the House. The technology for constructing and monitoring such facilities is well developed. NIREX will be able to draw on extensive research and operational experience in other countries.
Two new facilities are likely to be needed" one consisting of a concrete-lined trench and the other of a deep underground cavity. NIREX is today announcing two sites which it considers sufficiently promising to justify further investigation. The possible site for a deep facility is at Billingham in Cleveland, and the possible site for a shallow facility at Elstow in Bedfordshire. Copies of the NIREX statement are available in the Library.
The decision by NIREX whether to proceed with proposals for these sites will depend on the outcome of survey, drilling and other investigatory works. It is possible that, depending on what is involved, such works may require planning permission. If so, I shall call in the relevant applications for determination after public inquiries. I emphasise that these inquiries would give an opportunity for expressing views on the investigatory

155
works themselves, having regard to their planning implications. They should not be seen as a forum for considering the merits of disposing of wastes at the sites.
If NIREX wishes in due course to propose that a disposal facility should be established at one of these sites, or at any other site, planning permission will be necessary. It is my intention to call in any such application and arrange for a public inquiry to be held under an independent inspector at which the merits of disposal at the proposed site will be considered in the light of the views of all concerned.
In addition to planning permission, any arrangements for disposing of radioactive waste in England will also have to be authorised by me, acting jointly with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I have today published, and placed in the Library of the House, a consultation document embodying the principles which it is proposed that the authorising Departments should apply in assessing schemes. All concerned are invited to comment on the draft principles. I intend to seek the advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and to strengthen the committee by appointment of additional members. The final statement of principles will be published as a framework for consideration of the individual schemes.
The sites will also be subject to licensing by the nuclear installations inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, and appropriate regulations will be brought forward in due course. Approval of the schemes will depend on satisfying a comprehensive range of exacting requirements designed to safeguard the public and the work force.
The Government are committed to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. Additional land facilities are needed for the disposal of intermediate level waste. It is essential that decisions should be taken on the basis of informed scientific advice and after rigorous study of the views of all concerned, and that the installations and operations should be subject to stringent scrutiny and monitoring. The Government believe that the proposals I have announced represent an effective procedure for achieving these ends.
Mr. Denis Howell: The Secretary of State will appreciate that his statement is of the greatest importance to those concerned, especially, for example, those represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). Indeed, yesterday, my hon. Friend very properly expressed their real fears to this House, and no doubt similar considerations apply to Bedfordshire.
Therefore, I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman a few relevant questions. What consultations took place between his Department or NIREX and the appropriate local authorities prior to his announcement today? Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that when he says in the second paragraph of the statement that the effective disposal of such wastes is safe and well within the scope of modern technology, and in the fifth paragraph that the technology for construction and monitoring is well developed, he is making assumptions that many people believe are far from proven, expecially given the time scales involved.
156
The right hon. Gentleman has made a unique proposal in the decision to hold two public inquiries. Am I right to assume that they will be preliminary inquiries before the surveying and site investigation begin, and well before the full-scale planning inquiry? If so, what rules will govern that new and unique procedure? What will be possible? What evidence can be given? Who can be represented?
In the seventh paragraph, the Secretary of State says that the inquiries will not be a forum for considering the merits of disposing of wastes at the sites. How is it possible or proper to divorce the merits of waste disposal from the choice of site and investigation, especially when the chosen area for the first site is beneath a housing estate? How will that local authority and the representatives of the people be able to express their concern about their houses unless they can discuss the merits of dumping waste beneath them?
In the 1982 White Paper the Government said that
"economic and social factors"
were an important consideration and would have to be considered. Does that apply to these inquiries? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that it will be proper for the representatives of the people and the amenity and environmental organisations to concern themselves with such economic and social factors at the preliminary inquiries? Will he note that although we appreciate that he has placed a consultation document in the Library of the House and that he says that appropriate regulations will have to be laid before the House, this is a matter of such fundamental importance that we shall insist on holding a debate on that document?
Mr. Jenkin: I certainly agree about the importance of the subject matter, and the fact that I came to the House to make the statement underlines that point. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's request for a debate, and no doubt that can be discussed through the usual channels. Consultations with the local authorities would not have been appropriate at this stage. We are making the statement at the earliest possible moment when the possible sites have been identified by NIREX. However, nothing can be done until full consultations have taken place and the planning inquiries have been held. Obviously, they will provide ample opportunity for local authorities and other groups, such as the local residents, to be consulted and to express their views.
The right hon. Gentleman drew attention to some of my remarks about safety. Of course, I shall receive very high level scientific advice from the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee, and from the National Radiological Protection Board about the difficult decisions that will have to be taken. I have made it clear that I regard the public's safety and the integrity of the environment as paramount.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked several questions about the public inquiries. The procedure that I outlined was intended to provide a double safeguard. We envisage that the first inquiry, if it is necessary, will be of comparatively limited scope, and will relate to the investigatory works themselves. The point is that if somebody wished to undertake, for example, test drilling to determine the character of the subsoil or to undertake some other such work, that would of itself require planning permission. The location of the drilling and so on would be a very proper matter for investigation at that stage. However, there would be no presumption whatever at that

157
stage that it would result in a firm proposal, which would open up the much wider issue of whether facilities should be used. Those questions would be aired at the second public inquiry.
It may well be that investigations can proceed on, for example, an underground mine without engaging in any operations that would require planning permission. In those circumstances I would envisage that there would only be the one major inquiry on the application to use the site for disposal. Such cases would involve any evidence relevant to the use of the site, and of course those concerned would be entitled to be represented. The right hon. Gentleman also asked me whether the criteria in the 1982 White Paper, which my predecessor published July last year, still stood, and the answer is yes.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell (Mid-Bedfordshire): Does my right hon. Friend recognise that such an announcement is bound to cause grave anxiety to my constituents in Elstow and Stewartby and the surrounding villages? Can he confirm that no radioactive waste will be placed in the soil of mid-Bedfordshire, whether on an experimental or permanent basis, without the Government's absolute assurance that it is perfectly safe to do so? Will he further assure the House that full planning considerations, including the possible blight to neighbouring districts, will be taken into account so that land that could otherwise be profitably used for residential, industrial or agricultural purposes is not so blighted?
Mr. Jenkin: I can well understand the anxiety to which my hon. and learned Friend has drawn attention. Perhaps it will go some way towards reassuring him and his constituents if I say that in the two areas in question, NIREX will undertake a substantial public information —[Interruption]—campaign, as it is extremely anxious that people should understand the full nature of what is — or, I must say at this stage, might be — proposed. They can then make an informed judgment about the matter if it comes before a public inquiry.
I can confirm that the disposal of radioactive waste will be conducted in such a way as to ensure the safety not only of present but future generations. After all, the half-life of some of the products extends well beyond one generation.
After the work has been completed on a site such as is currently envisaged might be established at Elstow, there would have to be some limited restriction on what might happen at that site. However, it will be considered perfectly safe—if appropriate—for the public to have access to the site. That is the standard of safety that is applied by other countries that have adopted similar facilities for the disposal of their intermediate waste.
Mr. Frank Cook: The announcement that the right hon. Gentleman has made today ends more than nine months of acute anxiety in my constituency. In February of this year we had word that Billingham might be under consideration. During those nine months we tried to obtain information from NIREX but that has been singularly unforthcoming. The Secretary of State has assured us that there will be a public inquiry. Will he ensure that the inquiry is informed of the 35,000 people who live only 400 ft above the site of the proposed waste? Will he also ensure that the inquiry is fully informed of the nature of the high concentration of industry in that area, of the wide range of very volatile substances that are stored in subterranean caverns, cheek
158
by jowl in the same area, as well as the liquefied petroleum gas, the Calor gas, the propane, the ethylene and the ethylene oxide?—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have questions to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Cook: Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the inquiry is made fully aware that 14 per cent.—one sixth — of the registrable hazardous locations in this country are located in that area? [Interruption.] Am I, Mr. Speaker, allowed one question or two?
Mr. Speaker: I would not wish to be pressed on that. If the hon. Member is brief, that would be helpful.
Mr. Cook: I shall try to be as brief as possible. The Secretary of State referred to the half-life of waste which goes beyond the life of a generation. We are referring to toxic substances that can have a 5,000-year half-life at an intermediate level and at the end of 5,000 years still remain toxic. It is worth noting that 5,000 years is more than twice the period since Julius Caesar landed on these shores. Will the Minister ensure that the inquiry understands what is meant by "half-life" and that the substances may have a toxic duration of 200,000 years?
Mr. Jenkin: I fully understand the problems faced by the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. I am sorry if he considers that he has not been given the required information. This is the earliest possible opportunity that the Government or any public inquiry have had to come forward with a firm proposal that there exists in the hon. Gentleman's constituency a site that is worth examining further. That is the only decision that has been made. My statement was intended—I hope that it has in some way succeeded — to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the procedures and safeguards and the various steps which must be taken before a single ounce of radioactive material is stored in the anhydrite mine at Billingham are stringent and will give his constituents every possible opportunity to express their views.
I have the responsibility, as Secretary of State for the Environment, to ensure that the management of such radioactive waste material is conducted in a way that will ensure the safety of this and future generations. Judgments must be made in some cases. The Government are correct to consult and take the advice of the most authoritative members of the scientific establishment in this country because they are the people best able to advise us on this.
If either the hon. Gentleman or my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lyell) wishes to discuss this matter with me or my Ministers, we shall be very pleased to see them.
Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Does the Secretary of State agree that the amount of radiation is likely to be within international standards and that only a fraction of the natural radiation will be in either area? Does he also agree that the Bedfordshire water table will not be polluted nor will any untreated effluence be allowed to enter the river Ouse? Will he also ensure that there are two meaningful planning inquiries before either of the procedures goes ahead; and is 1990 the possible completion date of such a project?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has the advantage of great knowledge in this area. which I respect. I confirm that the Government's intention and that

159
of the industry is to operate well within the international standards laid down by the International Commission on Radiological Protection.
As to the inquiries, an initial preliminary inquiry would be appropriate only if the investigatory works were such as to require planning permission. If not, there appears to be no reason why any obstacle should be put in the way of further investigation. It is important to state that if it is subsequently decided, in the light of those investigations, to use the site for the disposal of radioactive wastes, that proposal would then be the subject of a full public inquiry.
My hon. Friend referred to the water table. It is not appropriate for me to answer questions of that type, but NIREX and, subsequently, the public inquiry would need to have the fullest evidence to ensure that there is no possible risk of pollution of the water table through the escape of nuclear radioactivity.
My hon. Friend also asked when this project would come to fruition. I believe that we must have these facilities by the end of the decade, but it would be rash to try to forecast precisely how long these complex but necessary procedures will take.
Mr. John Cartwright: However skilled the public relations campaign might be, or however expert the scientific advice available, does the Secretary of State realise that ordinary people will take a lot of persuading that nuclear waste can safely be stored on land for long periods? Is it not, therefore, extremely unwise to propose the storage of highly radioactive waste in areas of concentrated housing such as Billingham?
Mr. Jenkin: That matter will have to be considered in the greatest of detail. I remind the hon. Gentleman that at the Trades Union Congress this year, in a debate in which objections were raised to the use of sea dumping, Mr. Ray Buckton on behalf of the General Council asked the Government to accelerate action on land-based methods of dealing with waste.
The Government believe that land-based disposal of intermediate wastes is the safest and the best method, provided that a site can be found with sufficient geological certainty and stability which will remain safe for the necessary period of time.
I understand the difficulty of persuading ordinary people of the safety aspect of this matter. I can say that no stone will be left unturned. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the radioactive waste management advisory committee includes trade union members nominated by the TUC. I am sure that that organisation will be well placed to advise NIREX and the Government as to the best way of approaching the public in these difficult matters.
Mr. David Madel: will my right hon. Friend remember that land suitable for industrial development in Bedfordshire should be used quickly to create long-term jobs rather than for the dumping of radioactive waste? Will he also remember that Bedford already takes a great deal of domestic and industrial waste which adds to the traffic congestion within the county? Will he also remember that there is a great deal of public unease about the future of the nuclear industry? The Government have a considerable task in allaying public anxiety. I do not think that they make the job any
160
easier by choosing an area such as Elstow which is near an industrial and highly developed part of Bedfordshire. Will the Secretary of State ensure that a relatively small county is not asked to do too much for too many too quickly?
Mr. Jenkin: I fully understand my hon. Friend's anxiety. The actual quantities of intermediate waste that would need to be stored in the site currently envisaged for the location in his constituency are tiny compared with the volumes of normal waste to which he referred. The relevant site, a former brick clay pit, was earmarked some years ago for the building of a power station which, in the event, has not taken place. There is some development on the site at present and if it is decided after a public inquiry to proceed with the use of the site for radioactive disposal the existing users will need to be relocated. The question of immediate jobs—I understand my hon. Friend's point on this matter—must be subordinated to the need to ensure the most rigorous safety procedures and standards for a course of action that is essential, bearing in mind the quantities of intermediate waste that already exist as a result of past generation of power by nuclear means.
The question of the future of nuclear power stations is rather wider, and perhaps should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: May I draw the attention of the Secretary of State to the third paragraph of his statement? After dealing with the
"high-level, heat-generating wastes from nuclear fuel",
he concludes
"However there is no scientific reason for deferring the disposal of other categories of waste."
It appears from those words that the Secretary of State has pre-empted the situation and that on those grounds he has come to a conclusion.
Then in the eighth paragraph of his statement the right hon. Gentleman said:
"planning permission will be necessary".
In the light of those two references and of his kind comments earlier that he would be available for discussion, does he accept that if the planning authority of Cleveland county concludes that because of the already high proportion of over-hazardous industries in the area it cannot give planning permission, he will give way to that consideration?
Finally, in view of the right hon. Gentleman's invitation to consult, will he agree at the earliest possible moment to receive a deputation of hon. Members from the area, including the representatives of the Cleveland county council?
Mr. Jenkin: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am always happy to receive a deputation of which he is a member. I shall of course be happy to do that.
In answer to what the hon. Gentleman said about planning, I have made it clear that I intend to call in any application which it would not be fair to leave to the local planning authority. I should call it in so that there might be a public inquiry, and at that, of course, the county council would be a key witness. The fact that Cleveland —and the Billingham area in particular—has been the centre for the chemical industry, particularly the organic chemical industry, for a number of years, is scarcely relevant to the use of the anhydrite mine for the storage of radioactive waste. There is no conceivable risk of anything such as an explosion. That is not the concern.

161
The concern is about whether the site is safe to contain the radioactinides and nuclides which might damage health and poison the environment. The fact that there are chemicals on the surface, as the hon. Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said, is not a factor in that connection, but no doubt these matters will be explored thoroughly in any public inquiry that is held.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will the Secretary of State consider the fact that he might well have made a similar statement a few decades ago in a scientific manner when the subject of asbestos was first brought to attention? At that time the Secretary of State would have got up, as he has done today, and said that full scientific advice had told him that it was perfectly safe. Can the Secretary of State guarantee today that it is perfectly safe, or that it will be in the future? You state that there is to be a public inquiry. Will you say what alternative sites you have if the public inquiry turns you down?
Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a new Member, but he should address his questions to the Secretary of State, not to me.
Mr. Holt: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for what you said about my being a new Member, but that does not mean, I hope, that the questions will be dodged.
Will the Secretary of State kindly advise those of us who have not yet had the benefit of reading the paper of the difference between a deep cavity and a deep hole, because it seems that one of the scientific reasons for choosing my constituency of Cleveland is that a hole already exists there which someone thinks should be filled in? That is the worst scientific reason for putting radioactive waste there.
Mr. Jenkin: I assure my hon. Friend that that factor would not weigh with me in the choice of site. If I may put the subject in layman's language, the difference is that some substances have a fairly high radioactivity—I am talking about intermediate-level waste—where the half-life is short and the radioactivity declines fairly rapidly, and in those circumstances it is sufficient—so we are advised by the advisory committee — for them to be stored in relatively shallow — about 30 m deep — in appropriate pits of that nature and covered in. For substances that have a longer half-life, and when there needs to be a much more permanent safeguard against the escape of radioactivity, it is considered that a deep pit, a mine or something of that nature, is the best place. Of course, the geological stability and the other conditions in the mine are critical in this connection.
I understand my hon. Friend's difficulty about scientific advice, but I firmly believe that Governments should always seek to act on the best scientific advice that is available. Of course, no one can say that that is infallible for all time. No one would be so foolish as to say that. However, we have a problem. We have intermediate waste, and it is important for us to make permanent arrangements for its suitable and safe disposal. That is what my statement is intended to lead to, and that is why I have spelt out the procedures, and they are very stringent procedures, to ensure that the waste is as safe as we could possibly make it.
Mr. John Evans: Will the Secretary of State accept that his statement today is of great significance to every citizen in this country and that
162
there is enormous public interest in the matter? Is he aware, on the subject of the public inquiries, which we on these Benches naturally applaud, that the utilities—the CEGB, the Atomic Energy Authority, and so on—have enormous funds at their disposal and a large number of experts to present their case, but that there is a terrible feeling that the objectors have to scrape around for pennies to present their objections? In view of the tremendous importance of this issue, will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to state that the objectors to the proposals will have state finance to present their case to the public inquiry?
Mr. Jenkin: I entirely accept the importance that the hon. Gentleman rightly attaches to my statement and to this whole subject. The matter of funds for objectors at public inquiries has been considered many times by successive Governments, and in particular has been raised many times in connection with the Sizewell inquiry. I do not believe that it would be right for me to give any fresh undertakings on that at this stage. However, local authorities themselves are powerful bodies which can command considerable resources — [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] — and I am sure that the local authorities, whether in Cleveland county or the district councils in he area or, indeed, in Bedfordshire, will be well able to represent the views of their residents effectively and thoroughly at the public inquiry. It is our intention to ensure that all those who have a legitimate point of view to put forward will have an opportunity to do so. have already pointed out that I cannot go further than I have in connection with other inquiries.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to protect the business of the House. There is another statement, a further debate and a prayer later in the evening. So I ask for briefer questions. I shall allow questions on this important matter to go on until 5 o'clock, so I ask that the questions be short and I hope that everyone who wishes will have an opportunity to speak.
Mr. Anthony Steen: While people at Billingham and in Bedfordshire will understandably be concerned, is my right hon. Friend aware that a fair amount of nuclear waste is being transported by rail through Totnes railway station nearly every night? Is the handling of that nuclear material safe and are the wagons which carry it safe? Will my right hon. Friend assure my constituents in South Hams that they are safe?
Mr. Jenkin: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to the transfer of irradiated fuel by techniques that are now well established. That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport, but it is the Government's intention and that of all the protective agencies that we have to ensure that all those operations are as safe as they possibly can be.
Dr. M. S. Miller: The right hon. Gentleman is right to pay attention to the TUC's wish for a permanent method of disposal to be found, and I am glad that the Government are proceeding along those lines. However, the right hon. Gentleman is being a little premature in giving assurances that cannot yet be claimed to be 100 per cent. effective. This matter is of great concern, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows.

163
Will the right hon. Gentleman expand on the first aspect of his statement? He rightly divided radioactive wastes into two — high-level and intermediate and low-level waste. The right hon. Gentleman said that the high-level waste would be solidified. Does he mean that it will be vitrified, and when will it be done?
I am partly responsible for a parliamentary hearing through the Council of Europe's sub-committee on nuclear energy of the Committee on Science and Technology in Stockholm on this subject. The most important aspect of the problem is to try to prevent the scientists from adopting the lofty attitude that they know all the answers. Radioactive waste can be made safe, but there must be dialogue between the people involved and the scientists. It is not good enough to lay down the law and say that it will be safe. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that on board and ensure that every effort is made to bring the public into this so that they can be reassured?
Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his view that nuclear waste can be safely stored. I am sure that that is right, and it is our intention that it should be.
I am looking forward to meeting representatives of the TUC general council to discuss those matters in the near future. We shall want to maintain a dialogue on this.
The hon. Gentleman's final point is important. I spent two years as a shadow spokesman on energy in the 1970s and I met many nuclear scientists. One quality of that distinguished profession that struck me was their ability to communicate their science to the public. Had they not done so they would never have been allowed to do anything. Nuclear scientists understand better than scientists in some other fields the need to explain things to the public.
Mr. John Carlisle: While my constituents in South Bedfordshire will not doubt my right hon. Friend's sincerity and that the safety requirements will be met, he must understand the anxiety and distress that this decision has caused. I endorse the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, South-West (Mr. Madel) that Bedfordshire has had its fair share of waste over the past few years.
Why was this extraordinary decision—as I believe it to be—made to put waste in such a heavily populated area? What transportation will be used to bring that waste into Elstow?
Mr. Jenkin: It would be inappropriate for me to hazard a guess as to how that might be done. These are clearly matters that require further investigation and that will be thoroughly aired at any public inquiry. The site in question is close to a railway and has road access to motorway networks. Several options therefore exist.
I understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend and his constituents. It will be the intention of all concerned, not least myself, to ensure that as the various procedures are carried through every opportunity is taken to explain what is involved to the public and to seek to allay their anxiety.
The choice of the site as one for possible investigation is for NIREX and I commend the statement that it has issued today which explains why it has picked on this as one of the two sites.
Mr. Simon Hughes: While I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement
164
that intermediate level waste should be stored on land rather than at sea, does he accept that his responsibility as Secretary of State for the Environment is to ensure that Britain sees less and less nuclear waste, not more and more? Will he use his influence to ensure that Government policy is to decrease rather than increase nuclear waste?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to publish the shortlist of sites as suggested by the management advisory committee? Will he make known the criteria for the selection of the two proposed sites so that we can be sure that the selection was made on scientific and not political or quasi-political grounds?
Mr. Jenkin: There has never been any question of disposing of intermediate waste at sea, only low level waste, and that we believe will be safe on scientific evidence.
On questions of nuclear policy and the generation of more waste, I must defer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy who is responsible for such matters.
The hon. Gentleman asks whether we ought to publish a shortlist of the sites from which the two that I have mentioned were drawn. That would not serve any useful purpose at this stage. If and when NIREX decides to go ahead with proposals for developing disposal facilities I shall hold a public inquiry and NIREX will have to justify its choice of site to the independent inspector in the light of the assessment principles which are the subject of the consultation document that I have put in the Library. I prefer to leave the matter there.
Mr. Stuart Bell: May I say, as a Member of Parliament in Cleveland, that we welcome the right hon. Gentleman's statement that the safety of the public will be paramount? However, is it not the perception of that safety that is paramount? A constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook) said that if this waste is deposited 400 ft below his house it will be like living above a nuclear time bomb. That is the kind of dangerous feeling that exists in my area of Cleveland as a result of these announcements. We welcome the fact that there will be a public inquiry, that planning permission will have to be granted and that the decisions will have to be taken by the Department of the Environment along with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. However, have the mine owners been consulted? What would happen if they refused to give permission for such deposits to take place? Will the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance at the end of the day that he will take note of the views of the people of Cleveland and not seek to impose a solution by making these deposits in Cleveland?
Mr. Jenkin: As the hon. Gentleman obviously understands these matters I am sure that he will do his best to seek to allay the exaggerated fears of his constituents. There is no conceivable question that these wastes will constitute anything remotely approaching a bomb. That is part of the danger that comes simply from using the word "nuclear" which people associate with explosions, and it is not the case. We must bend every endeavour to try to allay such anxieties.
Of course we shall take account of other people's views. That is precisely why I have outlined the complex procedures and safeguards that exist.

165
I am not sure whether the question of where the waste would be put if the owner of the mine did not consent would arise in the case of the anhydrite mine at Billingham. I understand that the owner, ICI, has been informed about this and that it has said that if it is in the national interest it would be prepared to allow its facility to be used for this purpose, subject to all the necessary safeguards.
Whether I would impose any decision is a hypothetical question that does not arise at this stage.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the anhydrite mine at Billingham is a very big hole indeed and that at the rates of depositing which NIREX is proposing, by the end of the century only 1 per cent. of the available space will have been filled up? Is it wise to go through all the hazards of preparing public opinion to accept a facility which will be so grossly problematic, and could not the geology have been explored at a much less sensitive site?
Mr. Jenkin: I am sure that the criterion that was uppermost in the mind of NIREX was to find a site that would provide the most suitable and safest storage for the intermediate waste with which it is concerned. The area of this mine is, I am told, about one mile by one mile by 15 feet, which is a vast volume, and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that it would provide storage facilities for many years, if that should be necessary. That is a matter for NIREX. My concern is to see that if its investigations lead it to conclude that it is a place where it would wish to store the categories of intermediate waste, I must be satisfied that all the criteria, particularly those spelled out in the consultation document, are fully complied with before there is any question of consent being given.

National Health Service (Management Inquiry)
5.1 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the publication of the advice given to me by the National Health Service management inquiry.
As the House will recall, I set up an inquiry into the management of the Health Service under the chairmanship of Mr. Roy Griffiths, the deputy chairman and managing director of Sainsbury's, in February of this year. I asked him to review current initiatives to improve the efficiency of the Health Service in England and to advise on the management action need to secure the best value for money and the best possible service to patients. have today placed in the Vote Office copies of the report which I have now received from the inquiry team.
The inquiry team endorses the main initiatives that the Government have already taken to make health authorities accountable for the performance of the services they provide. However, it says that an enormous programme of management action is still needed. The inquiry team found that at all levels in the National Health Service there is a lack of a clearly defined general management function. Responsibility is too rarely placed on one person. Although it would like to harness the best of the consensus management approach, it finds that, at present, consensus management can lead to lowest common denominator decisions and long delays in the management process. Another effect is that the process of devolution of responsibility is ineffective. Accordingly, the inquiry team proposes a series of changes aimed at making the existing organisation work better rather than aiming at yet another restructuring of the service.
Inside the Department of Health, the team proposes that I should set up and chair a new Health Services supervisory board. The board would have some external members and directly accountable to it would be a management board which would bring together the present management functions of my Department relating to the hospital and community services, the family practitioner services and special health authorities. A new chairman of the management board would be appointed probably from outside the service. The report also proposes that a personnel director should be recruited.
At the regional and district level, the report recommends the identification of a general manager for each authority. Such a manager would be drawn from any discipline—that is, from any of the professions engaged in the management of the National Health Service—and his job would be to secure effective management of the authority's services.
The report also recommends that hospitals and other units of management should as far as possible take all the day-to-day management decisions. Doctors should be closely involved in local management through the development of management budgets for which they be accountable. The team also recommends the identification of a general manager for every major hospital and other unit of management.
In short, the key recommendation is that a clear management responsibility should be identified for

167
carrying out all National Health Service management functions and that this responsibility should be devolved as near to the patient as is practicable. The report is also in no doubt that major cost improvement programmes can and should be initiated in the National Health Service aimed at much higher efficiency to be sustained over much longer periods than at present.
There are three additional points to make on the report. First, the report does not propose any further structural reorganisation. All its recommendations are designed to take place within the existing statutory structure and without affecting the constitutional position of Parliament, Ministers and the health authorities. Secondly, the recommendations will not add to existing costs or staff numbers. Indeed, inside the Department of Health they should lead to a reduction of activities and staff. Thirdly, the report emphasises that the National Health Service is about delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own sake. The team says that the driving force behind its advice is its concern to secure the best deal for patients and the community within available resources, the best value for the taxpayer and the best motivation for staff.
The Government very much welcome the general thrust of this advice and are very grateful to Mr. Griffiths and his colleagues.
I shall be setting up within my Department the Health Services supervisory board as recommended. Among its first tasks will be to establish the management board and to initiate action in respect of health authorities. Clearly, I shall consult the health authorities and professional and other interests involved, but subject to the outcome of these consultations I would hope that authorities would be able to start implementing the general management function from April 1984.
The National Health Service is one of the largest undertakings in western Europe. The service needs and deserves the very best management we can give it. One of the best contributions we can make to patient care is the improvement in National Health Service management along the lines recommended by the Griffiths report.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: That is a most extraordinary statement to be produced after eight months of so-called management inquiries. It means either that the Secretary of State is totally incapable of running the National Health Service, with all the civil servants and advisers at his disposal, or that he intends, in effect, to set up a completely new structure. Which is it? If 192 general managers are to be appointed throughout the service, exactly what will their function be? Will they be administrators by another name, or will they have power to override every existing mechanism in the service?
We have just gone through one of the most bruising reorganisations ever, yet the Minister is now calmly proposing to reorganise the entire system again. Napoleon may have said that we were a nation of shopkeepers, but this is ridiculous. Apart from anything else, two new quangos will be created. There will be a quango with the Secretary of State at its head, and a second, supposedly management, quango, which presumably will take the decisions which Ministers make and translate them into somewhat inadequate reality. Why is this happening now? The answer is that Ministers intend to use these quangos
168
to dictate to the regional health authorities, the chairmen of which are not represented on the central board. It is plain that management decisions will be imposed.
The Whitley council machinery is to be looked at and manpower targets are to be changed yet again. Throughout the service we shall see total destruction. It is obvious that to Conservative Ministers, any way of destroying the National Health Service will do. This is another demonstration of that.
Mr. Fowler: That is a typically dismal response from the hon. Lady. It shows just why by the end of this week she will no longer be the health spokesman for the Opposition. She has neither read nor understood the report. That is absolutely clear.
I shall spell out one or two features of the report for the hon. Lady. The structure that we are proposing implies a reduction of staff inside the Department. It does not imply new tiers and new staff. Above all, it is a way of improving the method by which the structure works. We shall not impose new chief executives on top of the existing structure. In all probability the general managers at regional and district levels will be chosen from among the existing district medical officers and —[Interruption.] However, one member of the team will have full responsibility.
The hon. Lady was entirely wrong, completely misleading to others and misleading to herself when she addressed herself to proposals to take effect within the Department. She is misleading herself if she thinks that a new body will be imposed from outside. The reorganisation will be within the Department itself. Before tomorrow's debate takes place, I beg the hon. Lady to read the report. If she does so, she will find that the Griffiths team, which by any standards is a distinguished team of managers, is trying, above all, to make devolution work inside the Health Service. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support that.
Mr. Roger Sims: As my right hon. Friend has said, the National Health Service is a caring service. It is also a large undertaking and it should be managed on business lines. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report and his acceptance of it will be widely welcomed by Conservative Members? My right hon. Friend has indicated in general terms from whom the regional and district managers will be drawn. What qualifications will he be seeking in those considered for these appointments, and who will make the appointments?
Mr. Fowler: The appointments will be made by the authorities themselves and the appointees will come from within the existing group — for example, from the medical officer, the nursing officer, the administrator, the treasurer and the works officer. That will not necessarily be so, but it is most probable that the appointees will come from that group.
It is clear that there is a difference between business and the National Health Service. However, as the report makes clear, there are great similarities. Both sectors are trying to provide the best possible service for the public, and that is the relevance of the report.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are more than 750,000 people on the Health Service waiting list and that the country generally is not crying out for more quangos from the

169
Government for the National Health Service? Is he aware also that the British people are calling out for more jobs for nurses, more kidney machines for those who need them, more hospitals and more care for young children who need bone marrow transplants? That is what they want. They do not want the edifice that the right hon. Gentleman has presented.
Mr. Fowler: I should find the hon. Gentleman's words a great deal more impressive if I did not remember that he supported the industrial action of 1982, which added to the length of the waiting lists.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the emphasis on better management and more patient care in the Health Service is most welcome and that he is to be congratulated on taking a long-overdue initiative? He will be aware that previous Governments have retreated in the face of the medical profession arguing its vested interest. Can he assure the House that he will proceed to do what is best for the management of the Health Service irrespective of what the doctors may say against his proposals?
Mr. Fowler: I hope that I shall take the doctors with me in my proposals. There is nothing in the report which will affect doctors' clinical decisions on individual patients. The report states that clinicians should be involved more closely in management and it does not imply that it should be imposed upon them. I hope that everyone, including the members of the medical profession, will read the report with care and not jump to some of the instant conclusions of the hon. Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Minister clear up some of the important constitutional problems which his statement appears to raise? Will he confirm that the scope and nature of his responsibility to Parliament will not be altered or diminished by the creation of a new board and the fact that he will chair it? If that is so, is the board wholly advisory? If it is wholly advisory, how can there be responsibility to it from the management board for the present management functions of his Department? These are grave matters of responsibility and they need to be cleared up.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who had experience as Minister of Health. The supervisory board will be chaired by myself and it does not imply a reduction of my statutory powers. The board will determine the objectives of the Health Service and it will receive reports on performance. It will aim to strengthen the existing arrangements within the Health Service. The management board will report to it. It will consist of a small management group which will be able to devote all its time to NHS management. It will not be there to run the NHS day by day. It will seek to ensure that the authorities do so effectively. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman on his constitutional question.
Mr. Toby Jessel: Will the new general managers be able to handle the lease and sale of surplus land? Under the present system the regions generally decide that the districts cannot keep the proceeds of any such sales. Therefore, the districts do not want to go ahead and sell. This means that resources are not maximised and
170
patients suffer from lack of resources, as is the case in the Hounslow and Spelthorne district health authority and at two community hospitals within my constituency.
Mr. Fowler: The property function is one of the functions highlighted in the report. We want to see the maximisation of the resources to which my hon. Friend has referred, with the aim of directing the proceeds from the sale of property to the district locally. I hope that over the coming months we shall be able to offer the improvements that my hon. Friend seeks.
Mr. Allan Rogers: I find the Secretary of State's statement incredible. Also incredible is his hysterical response to the legitimate criticism that is voiced by my right hon. and hon. Friends. I hope that we shall not see the sorry sight of two Ministers dissembling publicly and the Government collapsing.
Mr. Skinner: Why not?
Mr. Rogers: The Government say that the National Health Service is in their hands. Until we can manage to take it over, I hope that they will handle it gently. I wish to put a simple question to the Minister and I hope that I shall have a non-hysterical response. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the NHS is about service and not about organising systems. Against that background, what does he intend to do with the supervisory boards, management boards, general managers, personnel managers and general managers of hospitals? Is he not setting up a parallel structure? How much will it cost to implement the report's proposals?
Mr. Fowler: My advice to the hon. Gentleman, whose opposition I find less than incisive, is to read the report. If he does so, he will find the answers to most of his questions. I think that even the hon. Gentleman will concede that whatever resources go to the Health Service, good management of those resources must be a prerequisite. That is what the report is about and his description of it bears no relation to reality.
Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in the final analysis, the concept of management by consensus is a contradiction in terms? That being so, the proposal for general managers and for a clear line of management responsibility from the Secretary of State down to the district authorities and the hospitals is most welcome. Will he give the House an assurance that the best people with the best management skills and experience will be appointed to the new positions, regardless of vested interests?
Mr. Fowler: I can certainly give the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks on appointments. I hope that we shall be able to harness the best of consensus management by drawing in the opinions of the relevant individuals. It is proposed that the general manager should settle the disagreements which clearly arise, initiate action and follow it up. That is the importance of the general management process.
Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: I am sceptical about the value of the two central bodies proposed, but I can see the value of having chief officers in each of the health authorities. Does the Secretary of State accept that they will be hopelessly ineffective if the problems of clinical freedom are not tackled? The right hon. Gentleman mentioned them in reply to an earlier

171
question, but they are not touched on in the report. Does he further accept that one of the great bars to efficiency in the NHS is continual Government interference with the capital and revenue money that is made available, which makes it virtually impossible to manage the Health Service, whatever its structure?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's muted response. He will find on page 2 of the report a central recommendation of the team, which is that responsibility should be pushed as far down the line as possible. That is entirely in line with what the hon. Gentleman would like to see in the Health Service. With regard to clinical freedom and responsibility, the report says that clinicians should be involved more closely in management. I hope that that will be one of the results of the process.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: Will my right hon. Friend's new boards consider funding and manpower in the East Hertfordshire District health authority and make appropriate recommendations in the light of the increasing aging population?
Mr. Fowler: I think that that would be one of the matters for the regional health authorities. The relationship with the regional health authorities would remain the same as it is now.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is not the Secretary of State's statement a calculated insult to management in the NHS? It is not likely to demoralise it and all the staff in the service? Does he not recognise that the management in the NHS is probably the most cost-efficient in the world, that the cost is less than 5 per cent. of total budget costs and that in my district health authority it is less than 4 per cent. of total budget costs? Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify exactly what the role of the general manager will be? If he is not the chief administrator in district health authorities, what is the relationship between the chief administrator and the new general manager? If he is the chief administrator, is not the name merely being changed? The statement appears to be nonsense.
Mr. Fowler: When the hon. Gentleman has had time to reflect, he will come to a different conclusion. I pay tribute to the quality of many individuals in the Health Service. Many would like a much better management process than there is at the moment. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the management process in the NHS is ideal, he cannot have been listening to the public very much. The general managers, at both district and regional levels, will probably be selected from officers who are already there. The general manager will settle disagreements that come into the consensus management approach and he will also ensure that action is not only initiated but followed up.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we welcome the publishing of the report, which is an admirable example of open government? However, does not this management level call into question the continuation of regional authorities, which were due to be examined, during 1984, under the previous reorganisation? Will my right hon. Friend reassure the local health authorities that that management
172
level will underpin their actions rather than challenge them, as they are only just coming to grips with their new responsibilities?
Mr. Fowler: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's second point. The purpose of the management action that we propose is to support the district health authorities. My hon. Friend will see that in the report the continuation of the regional health authorities is proposed. We shall consider that proposal as well as others. We believe that the relationship between the Government and the regional health authorities and regional chairmen is essential for the smooth running of the Health Service.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that the last time the Government were obsessed by efficiency the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph), the then Secretary of State, reorganised the Health Service, having had business advice from America which he thought was good, and that afterwards his successor had to unscramble what had been done and start all over again? Therefore, it is welcome that at least the right hon. Gentleman will not touch the structure.
If the general manager has a much more executive function, does that mean that he will have at his fingertips greater control than at the moment and that the Elephant and Castle will be able to make up its mind and control what will happen at regional and district level? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that an executive operation at this level will be accepted by the Royal College of Nurses and the Professions Supplementary to Medicine, as well as by the medical manpower organisations, which feel that, whichever party from one of the present disciplines becomes the manager, it will disadvantage the others?
Mr. Fowler: I hope that those people will take a more constructive attitude than the hon. Gentleman. I challenge what he said. When the management process is weak, decisions come up to the centre. They are not taken at the centre. One of the aims of the report is that districts, hospitals and units are freed to get on and manage that service. The hon. Gentleman's analogy with the 1974, reorganisation is peculiarly misplaced. There are no new tiers of staff. I advocate a careful study of the report to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: Did Mr. Griffiths' inquiry team look at the method and cost of building new NHS hospitals and at evidence which suggests that lack of efficient management decision-making during the construction of hospitals can contribute, and has contributed, to hospital costs being up to 30 per cent. more than they need be? If Mr. Griffiths did not look at that evidence, will my right hon. Friend promise that the Minister for Health will do so?
Mr. Fowler: Mr. Griffiths mentions the works function in his report. A review of the whole works function is currently taking place. I know of my hon. Friend's interest in that matter and will seek to keep him informed of progress.
Mr. Robin Corbett: Are the managers about whom the Secretary of State is enthusiastic the same as those whom he abuses as bureaucrats? How can the right hon. Gentleman say that

173
the adjustment will cost neither money nor jobs? Does he propose to sack more nurses and doctors to make room for it?
Mr. Fowler: If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my statement he would have heard me say that by the reduction of functions at the centre—at the Department of Health and Social Security — there should be an opportunity to reduce staff.
Mr. Tony Favell: Opposition Members have shown concern for patient care. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to ensure patient care is for the NHS to be properly managed, which at the moment it patently is not? [Interruption.] Opposition Members have stated that patients are not being cared for properly. Examples were given by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). To ensure that proper patient care and moneys are available to provide the care that we all want to see, is it not right that the NHS should be properly managed? Is there any reason why managers should not be drawn from outside the Health Service, in the same way as in nationalised industries?
Mr. Fowler: There are proposals related to my hon. Friend's second point. I agree entirely with his main point. The NHS is about providing care for patients. It is a patient-oriented service, not a provider-oriented service, as so many Opposition Members seem to believe.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House. I propose to let questions on this statement run until 5.35.
Mr. Charles Kennedy: While not in need of conditional support for his announcement, does the Secretary of State agree that before he entirely abandons the principle of consensus management in the NHS, which has served it well in many areas, he should at least consider testing the proposals which he intends to enact to create general managers? They should be tested on a regional basis through pilot schemes before they are fully imposed in April next year, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. Fowler: We are not abandoning the consensus approach; rather, we are trying to harness the best of consensus management. However, we are saying that, at times, consensus management does not work. If that is the case, it must be up to the Government to make proposals to break through the log-jam. We shall propose several pilot projects and experiments in due course. I hope that they will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As one of the management problems that district health authorities face is that senior consultants are employed by regional health authorities rather than by the districts, will my right hon. Friend change matters, as, at the moment, the most important employees of district health authorities are not employed by district health authorities?
Mr. Fowler: The Griffiths report covers that point. It does not recommend a change such as my hon. Friend proposes. We shall consult widely on the report and no doubt we shall have an opportunity to hear more points of view.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, following the implementation of the Salmon report, it was widely believed that far too many nurses had been taken off nursing duties in favour of management duties? Is there any hope of implementation of the Griffiths report reversing that state of affairs?
Mr. Fowler: I am sympathetic to my hon. Friend's point, but I want nurses to be involved in the management structure of the NHS. That, too, is important. Nevertheless, I shall bear what my hon. Friend has said in mind.
Mr. Max Madden: If there is an irreconcilable difference between a general manager and a consultant, whose view will prevail and what sanctions will the general manager have to ensure that his or her view prevails over that of the consultant? Will the arrangements which the Secretary of State has announced today impinge on the contract between consultants and the NHS? Is he aware that many people cannot understand and are deeply worried by the Government's claimed concern for patient care in the face of cuts, reductions in the number of beds, hospital closures and the sacking of nurses and doctors? Rather than more managers, the public want more Government resources for the MHS to enable it to meet the rising needs that it confronts.
Mr. Fowler: The public and the Health Service want resources, but more than that they want a guarantee that those resources are used to the best effect. There is evidence to suggest that that is not so. All hon. Members should agree that getting the best value for money out of the Health Service must be a No. 1 aim.
Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Is he aware that some health authorities in Scotland are far too highly administered? How will his statement affect the NHS in Scotland?
Mr. Fowler: My statement is confined to England, although its relevance will be examined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about the duties of the general manager? Will he assure the House that he does not believe that Mr. Ian MacGregor would represent an admirable appointment to that post? As the Secretary of State has said so much about personnel management and industrial relations, does he intend to consult unions such as the National Union of Public Employees and the Confederation of Health Service Employees about the report?
Mr. Fowler: I intend to consult the unions, the professional organisations and the health authorities. There will be general managers at district and regional levels as well as the post at the centre which I have already mentioned. I believe and hope that most of the hon. Gentleman's fears will dissolve when he studies the report.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that the greatest mismanagement in the NHS followed the reorganisation of the Health Service by his predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Education and Science? Bearing that in mind, will he, as an act of good will, suspend the reduction in resources for the NHS, as

175
such a reduction will entail a cut in the number of doctors, nurses and ancillary workers? Will he suspend moves to privatise laundry, catering and other services?
Mr. Fowler: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question is no.
Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Secretary of State now tell us one simple thing: if there is a dispute between the various disciplines, what powers will the general managers have? Will they be able to override the interests of anyone else in the hospital system?
If the Secretary of State has such great admiration for the administrators, why is he suggesting that the chairman of the management committee, who will be an exceedingly powerful figure, with enormous central powers, should be appointed from outside the service and thus be selected from people who have no experience of how the NHS works?
Mr. Fowler: That is a proposal in the Griffiths report. We shall have to consider who will fulfil that function. I refer to the general manager at DHSS level, as I understand the hon. Lady to be referring to that post rather than to those at district and regional levels.
Although I want consensus management to work—I have emphasised that the best consensus management must be preserved—disagreements arise and a course of action must be followed through. At that point, responsibility must lie with the general manager, who can settle such a disagreement and follow action through. That is the purpose of a general manager.

Grenada
5.37 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: 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 invasion of an independent Commonwealth state by American and other forces against the apparent advice of the British Prime Minister."
No one can deny that the invasion is specific—we were discussing it for more than half an hour this afternoon. No one can deny that it is important — it appears to be a violation of the United Nations charter, it has split the Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean in two and it raises the most fundamental questions about the relations between Britain and her most important ally.
For those reasons I believe that it is most important that we learn what argument the Prime Minister used when urging President Reagan not to invade Grenada and what arguments he advanced for rejecting her advice.
The matter is urgent because the lives of 200 British citizens are at risk. HMS Antrim is standing off the islands but is unable to evacuate our citizens because the fighting continues.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) asks leave to move, under Standing Order No. 10, the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the invasion of an independent Commonwealth state by American and other forces against the apparent advice of the British Prime Minister."
I am satisfied that the matter should be considered under Standing Order No. 10. Does the right hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The pleasure of the House having been signified, the motion stood over under Standing Order No. 10 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) until the commencement of public business tomorrow.

Business of the House
5.39 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With your permission and in the light of your ruling, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the business for the rest of the week were reorganised as follows:
WEDNESDAY 26 OCTOBER—Debate under Standing Order No. 10.
Motions on the Civil Defence (Grant) and (General Local Authority Functions) Orders for England and Wales and for Scotland.
Ways and Means resolution relating to oil taxation.
THURSDAY 27 OCTOBER—Opposition (1st allotted day). There will be a debate on the Government cuts in the National Health Service, which will arise on an Opposition motion.
FRIDAY 28 OcToBER—There will be a debate on the Civil Service on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Mr. John Silkin: On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the right hon. Gentleman for responding so rapidly to our request. I also thank his advisers for the speed with which they have managed to inform us of what was in his mind.

BILLS PRESENTED
  BRITISH SHIPBUILDERS (BORROWING POWERS)
  Mr. Secretary Tebbit, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary King, Secretary Ridley and Mr. Norman Lamont, presented (under Standing Order No. 111 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to amend section 11(7) of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow. [Bill 38.]
  EDUCATION (GRANTS AND AWARDS)
  Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, supported by Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Secretary Jenkin, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. Peter Brooke and Mr. Robert Dunn, presented (under Standing Order No. 111 (Procedure upon Bills whose main object is to create a charge upon the public revenue)) a Bill to make provision for the payment of education support grants to local education authorities in England and Wales; and to amend section 1(3)(d) of the Education Act 1962 so as to refer to the higher national diploma of the Business and Technician Education Council instead of to the corresponding diplomas of the Councils there mentioned: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow. [Bill 40.]

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the two Questions on the motions relating to statutory instruments.
  Ordered,
  That the Value Added Tax (Horses and Ponies) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1099) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
  That the draft Maximum Number of Judges Order 1983 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

  Criminal Law Act 1977 (Amendment)
  5.42 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the application of section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to Royal premises.
  The House will recall that in July last year a certain Mr. Michael Fagan entered Buckingham Palace as a trespasser and got as far as the Queen's bedroom. He had committed no offence. He was not charged or prosecuted, because our existing law provides that trespass is not a criminal offence unless the intruder steals or has some criminal intent. That applies whether the building is Buckingham Palace or whether the person put at risk by the trespass is Her Majesty the Queen.
  That law is subject to one exception. In section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 we provided a protection for foreign embassies and the homes of foreign diplomats against unwelcome visitors. We provided that it was a criminal offence to trespass in those premises, but there were certain safeguards. The intruder has a defence if he can show that he did not know the nature of the premises in which he had trespassed; the Home Secretary has the power to certify the buildings that are covered by this protection; and the consent of the Attorney-General is necessary in all cases before a prosecution can be lodged.
  Subject to the same safeguards, I believe that the existing law should be extended to provide the same protection for Her Majesty the Queen and the royal family as is now available to foreign embassies and diplomats.
  At the time of the Fagan incident, the Home Secretary said that the law of trespass would be examined with a view to reform by making all trespass criminal. More recently, a consultation paper has been published in which the authors go through the various possibilities but appear to come to the conclusion that to make trespass a crime in all cases for all residential premises would be extremely difficult and would lead to some difficult situations that could not easily be safeguarded by the law.
  The authors of that document considered the possibility of extending the protection to a restricted class of buildings and persons, but concluded that it would be invidious for such special protection to be given when it was denied to the public at large. I believe that the public at large strongly objects to special protection being given to foreign embassies and diplomats when it is denied to Her Majesty the Queen. Whatever we do about the reform of the law of trespass, it will be quite simple to draft and arrange for a reform of the law to ensure that the protection now available to foreign diplomats be extended to the Queen. It would need the insertion of a mere three or four words in the existing Act.
  That is the purpose of my Bill, and I hope that the House will give me leave to introduce it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ivor Stanbrook, Mr. Donald Stewart, Mr. James Molyneaux, Sir John Biggs-Davison, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Peter Thurnham and Mr. T. H. H. Skeet.

  CRIMINAL LAW ACT 1977 (AMENDMENT)
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook accordingly presented a Bill to extend the application of section 9 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 to Royal premises: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 41.]
Orders of the Day

  Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Amendment Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.47 pm
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short but useful Bill, giving two important extra rights to local authority tenants throughout Scotland. It takes no rights away, so I hope that we can expect support for it from all sides of the House. It is introduced against the background of the huge success and popularity of our policy of encouraging local authority tenants to buy their own homes if they wish to do so, and also of the undoubted fact that many local authority tenants express strong dissatisfaction at the repairs service that they receive.
  A recent survey by the Building Societies Association showed that more than 60 per cent. of Scots regard home ownership as the ideal form of tenure, and no less than 63 per cent. expect to be home owners within the next 10 years. However, when we took office in 1979 only one in three of houses in Scotland were owner-occupied—a figure that had hardly changed over the previous decade. One of our first priorities was, therefore, to give people the opportunity of turning these very clear aspirations into reality.
  The Tenants' Right, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980 for the first time gave secure tenants of three years' standing in Scotland the right to buy their homes. Since the Act came into force, almost 40,000 houses have been sold by district councils, new towns and the Scottish Special Housing Association. For their tenants, the vision of owning their own homes has become a reality. Another 15,000 sales are in the pipeline, and we are approaching the stage where one in 20 of all tenants in Scotland eligible for the right to buy will have gone ahead and bought their own homes.
  The right to buy has proved such a success because it is in tune with the wishes of the people concerned. It used to be thought that a successful housing policy involved little more than building and letting more and more standard type houses in perpetuity — in other words, paying no regard to individual choice and preference. Expecting thousands of Scots families to accept for ever that they would just be "allocated" a house wherever the council put them and like it, showed a lack of respect for the aspirations of such families which it is high time to put right. The arrogance of such an approach seems now to be rather old fashioned, but the dire results can be seen all around us in Scotland in the large and soulless housing estates of the 1950s and 1960s.
  Since taking office, we have been engaged in the slow but necessary task of reversing that process — in a genuine transfer of assets from the State to the people. Of course, there will continue to be an important role for public sector housing for rent. Many people will be unable to buy, or will simply prefer to continue renting. We have besides a special responsibility to make adequate provision for the elderly, the disabled and other special needs.

  181
  Finding the resources to meet these needs will not be easy and one of the most important facts about sales is that they free resources for re-use by councils for these purposes. This year, councils in Scotland will be able to spend more than £90 million which would not otherwise have been available, and that money comes directly from sales.
  We have consistently sought through our housing policies to extend freedom of choice in housing, for many people, the preferred choice is to own their own home, but we are equally anxious to protect and extend the basic rights and freedoms of those who will continue renting. There is no doubt that this policy has proved overwhelmingly popular. The Bill implements in full our manifesto commitments to extend these basic rights. It raises the maximum discount from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. for those who have been tenants for 30 years or more and it extends tenants' rights by enabling the Secretary of State to introduce a right to repair.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan: The scope of the Bill is rather narrow. The right hon. Gentleman will know of my general support for the principle of the right to buy and of my correspondence with his colleagues suggesting that the reckonable time that should be considered in the case of those who are former tenants of other public housing than that which they are able to buy should be taken into consideration and the scope amended. In particular, I had in mind the position of the tenants of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and other public authorities who have transferred into district council housing. The right hon. Gentleman's colleague was kind enough to say that the Government would consider using this Bill as a vehicle for such a reform.
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Member and I know of his interest in this matter. If he will bear with me I shall say something about that a little later in my speech.
  Clause 1 increases the maximum discount, where a tenant exercises his right to buy, from 50 per cent. after 20 years' tenancy to 60 per cent. after 30 years' tenancy. We have come to the view that the present rules do not adequately recognise the position of people whose tenancy goes back more than 20 years. Such tenants will generally be well on in their working lives—often approaching retirement, if not already retired—and the amount of their discount entitlement may be crucial to their decision to buy. The new maximum discount therefore will be of particular help to older tenants wishing to buy and recognises the additional years that they have been contributing, through rents, to the maintenance of their homes. I estimate that at least 350,000 tenants in Scotland would be entitled to benefit from the new rates of discount.
  Mr. Jim Craigen: I have been in correspondence with the Minister responsible for the environment in the Scottish Office, but he did not answer the question that I put to him. How much do the Government expect that this increase from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. will cost public funds?
  Mr. Younger: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman means by "cost public funds". We expect that this will be of benefit to public funds because money will be coming in from sales of the houses and that the balance on the other side will make the broad effect between the changes
  182
  involved more or less neutral. I estimate that about 350,000 tenants will have the opportunity to buy at a discount which at present they do not have. There will be a neutral financial effect and thus there will be no net effect on costs.
  Clause 1 also requires authorities to count the time spent living in a house as child of a tenant for right to buy and discount purposes. At present they have a discretion to count such time but are not required to do so. It is necessary to take this step because of the refusal of a minority of local authorities to exercise their discretion, even in cases which called for the utmost sympathy and consideration. One example is typical of many that have been brought to my attention. A middle-aged couple who had been good tenants of long standing gave up—with their council's full agreement—their own home to move in and care for the wife's elderly mother, who was herself a council tenant. After a lengthy illness, the mother died, the tenants stayed on in the house and took over the mother's tenancy, with the full approval of the council. Some years later, they decided to exercise their right to buy but they found when they applied that their council would only count their tenancy from the death of the elderly mother and refused to use its discretion to recognise the couple's previous tenancy record. Such examples illustrate the lengths to which some councils will go when they permit dogma and prejudice to override human sympathy. By providing that councils must always count time spent as child of a tenant, we shall ensure that these cases cannot arise in the future.
  Clause 1 also makes certain transitional provisions. The new rules, if approved, will apply to fresh right-to-buy applications made after the Bill comes into force and to current applications where the tenant has not, at the time the Bill comes into force, received an offer to sell from his landlord. Tenants who have received, but not yet formally accepted, an offer to sell at the time when the Bill comes into force, and who believe that they might benefit from the new rules, may wish to consider withdrawing their current application and re-applying, and the clause provides that in such circumstances they may re-apply immediately, without having to wait the 12 months which must normally elapse between applications. Purchasers who may be considering withdrawing and re-applying in this way will of course need to bear in mind that their houses will be revalued at the date of their second application and also that their mortgage entitlement may be affected, if their personal circumstances have changed in any way in the interim.
  Many sales take place on a voluntary basis, without the tenant having to rely on his statutory right to buy. In such cases, I have already given authorities permission to give a maximum rate of discount of 60 per cent. to tenants who qualify.
  We have also been giving further consideration to the present requirement that a tenant must have been a secure tenant for three years before he can exercise the right to buy. Clearly, it is important that tenants who are given the right to buy should be bona fide tenants, but there is no particular magic about the three-year cut-off point. We have decided that the qualification period should be reduced from three years to two years and that the discount should start at 32 per cent. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, has announced that a similar change will be made to the right to buy rules in England and Wales. A Government amendment will be

  183
  introduced at a later stage to give effect to this change. I estimate that such a change would give another 30,000 tenants the right to buy.
  We have also been giving attention to the arrangements under which tenancies of houses provided by certain Government Departments and related bodies can be counted towards qualifying time for the right to buy and for discount, while others do not. At present the armed forces, the Forestry Commission and health boards are included, and I have received a number of representations that tenants should also be entitled to count time which they spent in houses provided by, for example, the Ministry of Defence, the coastguard and lighthouse services and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. I propose therefore that section 1(10) of the 1980 Act should be extended to allow periods as tenants of these and certain other Government Departments and related central Government bodies to qualify for right to buy and discount purposes. A Government amendment will be introduced at a later stage to give effect to this.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Secretary of State to announce all these amendments on Second Reading?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I will decide what is out of order.
  Mr. Younger: I am only trying to be as helpful and open as possible. I assume that the hon. Gentleman will be very much in favour of these additional benefits for his constituents. I certainly hope to gain his support not only tonight but throughout the Committee stage.
  Clause 2 will strengthen the tenants' charter by enabling me to introduce a right to repair. By far the largest number of representations that I receive about housing matters express dissatisfaction with local authority repair services. Tenants appear to have to wait an inordinate time for even fairly minor and routine repairs to be carried out. I propose to introduce a scheme that will give public sector tenants the right to undertake repairs to their houses, which would otherwise be the landlords' responsibility, if they wish, and to be reimbursed by their landlords. Within that broad framework, the detailed operation of the scheme will be the subject of subsequent regulations.
  I understand that all, or most, of the Opposition parties have committed themselves to strengthening tenants' rights on repairs. I hope that all Opposition Members will welcome my proposals. In preparing an outline scheme, I wish to take account of the views of hon. Members expressed in today's debate. Indeed, given the general support of Opposition Members, I expect to receive much useful advice on how to implement the scheme.
  Mr. John Maxton: Is the Secretary of State proposing to introduce regulations so that they can be debated during the Committee stage of the Bill, or will he leave that until the Bill has become law?
  Mr. Younger: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I had not expected to receive advice so quickly, but I welcome it. I think it almost inconceivable that there will not be extensive debates on this matter in Committee. That will be very much the decision of the Committee. Opposition Members may wish to table amendments. It is
  184
  important that before finalising the detailed arrangements we should consult not only within the House but with outside bodies that also hold a view.
  The general principles underlying right-to-repair schemes are, of course, well known from experience of non-statutory schemes run by some of the more enlightened authorities south of the border. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has now published his proposals for a general scheme to operate in England and Wales. If the House supports the principle of a Scottish scheme, I shall proceed to early consultations with local authorities, tenants' organisations and other interested outside bodies on its precise form. In the meantime, however, it may be for the convenience of the House if I deal with one or two of the more general concerns that have been expressed about our proposals.
  First, a number of tenants' associations have been convinced that we are preparing to remove the obligations on landlords to repair and to transfer that obligation to the tenants. Nothing could be further from the truth. The landlord's duties will remain intact, and only if a tenant decides to exercise his right to arrange a repair himself would the landlord's duties be removed.
  Secondly, there is concern that the landlord's duties would be removed in their entirety if a tenant decided to exercise his right to repair. That again is a misconception. It may by helpful to the House if I make it clear that our intention is that the landlord's obligations will be suspended only in respect of repairs that the tenant has applied to carry out, and only for such period as the tenant may have under the scheme to complete the repair.
  Thirdly, there is concern that tenants will be out of pocket while waiting to be reimbursed by the landlord, which would especially hit elderly tenants. I appreciate that concern. We shall be expecting authorities to make arrangements for speedy reimbursement of costs, and it may be desirable to cover that in the regulations. But it is the tenant who will decide whether to arrange the repair himself. If, for financial or other reasons, he decides not to exercise his rights, the landlord will remain responsible for the repair.
  Finally, the landlords may be concerned that the arrangements will require them to pay for shoddy work, and might cause them to overspend their budget in any particular year. I fully recognise those problems and the detailed scheme on which I shall be consulting may need to include provisions for approval and inspection of tenants' repairs that are designed to safeguard the landlord's interest also.
  Because of concerns such as those, some people have argued that, rather than confer additional rights on tenants, we should impose additional duties on their landlords— for example, by setting out a timetable for repairs. I would be reluctant to follow that course, not least because the circumstances and the urgency can vary so much in individual cases. But the introduction of a right to repair in no way diminishes my concern that housing authorities should provide an efficient service for the maintenance and repair of their stock. My Department has recently Commissioned research into the way housing authorities organise such work, and especially into the way in which they deal with ad hoc repairs at the request of tenants, in order to make recommendations about efficient practice. I hope that that work will lead to significant improvements in the service provided to those tenants who decide, for one reason or another, not to exercise their right to repair.

  185
  I look forward to an open and genuine process of consultation on the details of the right-to-repair scheme during the coming months. We are not entering the process with the intention of imposing any preconceived system. I do believe, however, that the introduction of a right to repair, which will be entirely optional and will in no way diminish the landlord's obligations or the tenant's rights at law, will significantly extend freedom of choice in an area that I know causes great concern to tenants. At the same time, I believe that there will be found to be savings for local authorities, as has already proved to be the case where similar schemes have been tried in England.
  Those, then, are the main provisions of this short Bill. The most interesting aspect of the debate will be to learn of the attitude to the Bill of the present official Opposition. We understand from reading newspapers that changes are afoot in their attitude to council house sales. Some Opposition Members have realised the extreme unpopularity of their efforts to prevent council tenants having the right to buy, and are alleged to be trying to persuade the new leadership to abandon what is, in some cases, an insensitive and sometimes cruel policy. I hope that this change of attitude is really happening and that we will be told about it today. We will certainly welcome it unreservedly. It will also be useful to know whether the Scottish part of the Labour party agrees with that change and whether it will throw its not inconsiderable weight behind the new deputy leader of the Labour party, who is credited with leading the fight to make the change.
  This is, in short, an important test of whether Scottish voters, especially the 250,000 who deserted the Labour party earlier this year, can look for a change of heart and a change of policy that recognises their clearly expressed wishes.
  I look, therefore, not only for the overwhelming support of the House, but for clear support from the Opposition.
  6.9 pm
  Mr. Bruce Milian: I tell the Secretary of State immediately that the Opposition oppose the Bill because of its provisions relating to council house sales. I shall deal with that matter later in my speech.
  This is the Second Reading of the Bill. It is usual during a Second Reading debate for the Minister to set the Bill in the context of a rather wider range of policy. It is significant that the Secretary of State has stuck closely to the Bill and said nothing about general housing policy in Scotland. I am not in the least surprised by that, given the Government's appalling record in the past four years.
  I want to set the Bill against the background of housing policy generally and to talk about improvement and repair grants—something that the Secretary of State studiously avoided today. There are other matters about which my hon. Friends may want to speak. They may want to speak about the reduction of housing support grant during the past four years to a figure which currently, in real terms, is only about one quarter of the figure in 1979 when the Government took office. Local authorities, which own 40 per cent. of council housing in Scotland, including important authorities such as Edinburgh, Dundee and Renfrew, are now excluded from housing support grant.
  My hon. Friends may want to talk about how during the past four years the Government have forced up rents of Scottish council and other public housing by more than 100 per cent. They may want to talk about the way in
  186
  which the Government have set revenues against capital allocations during the past four years so that there has been further emphasis on the inadequacy of capital allocations to Scottish local authorities to deal with our many housing problems.
  My hon. Friends may want to talk about the inadequacy of sheltered housing in Scotland and the difficulties faced by local authorities in maintaining even a modest housing programme. They may want to talk about the Government's steadfast refusal so far to do anything to help local authorities to deal with the appalling problem of dampness. They may want to talk about the Under-Secretary's refusal within the past week or so to help Scottish local authorities with dealing with much of the system building, the latest example being the 13ison houses.
  There are many problems in other areas, and the Government have so far refused to give special help to local authorities to solve them.
  The Secretary of State has mentioned the importance that he attaches to home ownership in Scotland, and my hon. Friends may want to draw attention to the fact that even the recent increase in private sector starts in Scotland does not bring the Government's position anywhere near the one that they inherited in 1978–79. In 1978, under the Labour Government, Scottish private sector starts were 16,600; in 1979 they were 15,400. After the Government had given a great boost to home ownership, about which the Secretary of State keeps boasting, in 1980 the figure dropped from 15,400 to 9,700. The figure has increased a bit since, but it is nothing like the figure that the Secretary of State inherited in 1979. It is clear that even the 1983 figure for private housing, let alone the public sector, will not be as good as that achieved by the Labour Government.
  The Secretary of State abused his position when opening the debate today by not mentioning last week's announcement on improvement and repair grants. The Bill deals with tenants' right of repair. [Interruption.] Of course the Government do not want to talk about this, but I will talk about it at some length. Last week, the Secretary of State put Scottish local authorities and housing associations, not to mention private builders and the construction industry, into chaos by the statement about improvement and repair grants.
  I do not believe that the Government, when they made that statement, fully appreciated the damage that they were doing. When the Prime Minister was quizzed about it this afternoon, she obviously knew nothing about the position in Scotland. She did not answer the question. She gave a completely irrelevant answer. I believe that neither she nor the Secretary of State understand the damage that the Government have done in Scotland.
  The Secretary of State appears to think that it is a matter of some amusement that in Glasgow, for example, the district council has already been forced to freeze all further applications for improvement and repair grants. Given the appalling housing that we still have in parts of Glasgow, I do not consider that to be at all amusing. I consider it to be tragic. It is an inevitable consequence, not just in Glasgow but in Dundee and, I believe, in Edinburgh because, as I understand it, the position is being considered by Edinburgh district council today. I believe that it is appalling that all these grants in our major cities in Scotland will have to be forzen as a result of a decision taken, not on a calm consideration of the problem, but out

  187
  of panic. It is the first of the panic decisions to be taken by the Government in their desperate and unnecessary attempt to cut public expenditure.
  It is important to know why last week's decision has caused such chaos. It is not just because the grant has been reduced from 90 per cent. to 50 per cent. That taken by itself, although some of us regret that that should happen, would not have caused the chaos. The Government could even justify the reduction in percentage by saying, "There was never any commitment to carry the percentage side beyond 31 March 1984."
  The chaos is caused by the other parts of last week's announcement to which the Government were careful on the day of the announcement to give little prominence but which were immediately identified by the local authorities and other bodies in Scotland interested in housing as causing immense damage to housing programmes as a whole, not just in the current year but in 1984–85 and further ahead.
  The Government also announced last week that for 1984–85 local authorities should assume that their total allocations for housing on the housing revenue account side dealing with new building and modernisation in the public sector and on the non-HRA side in the private sector would either be the same or less than their original allocations for 1983–84. However, in the current year, the original allocations for the non-HRA sector — the improvement and repair sector—are nothing like the present position, because the Government also announced that local authorities could spend as much as they liked in that sector during 1983–84. Therefore, the expenditure by local authorities in Scotland during 1983–84 will be considerably more than the original allocations to which they will now be restricted and which will perhaps be restricted even further in 1984–85.
  The Under-Secretary, who has not exactly distinguished himself since he took responsibility for housing a few weeks ago — he is the Foreign Secretary of the Scottish Office in terms of his achievement so far— gave some figures the other day. He said that in 1982–83 expenditure on repair and improvement grants was £64 million. It is reckoned that it will be £140 million in 1983–84. We of course welcome that.
  What will it be in 1984–85? It is obvious that there has been a considerable increase during the current year. Therefore, equally obviously, there will be a savage decrease in 1984–85. As the Under-Secretary has been saying a number of things about this outside the House and has been trying to play down the crisis, perhaps when he replies he will tell us what he estimates the reduction, even on a stand-still basis, will be in 1984–85. He must know the figures. It would be helpful if either he or the Secretary of State gave the figures now, but at least he should give those figures when he replies to the debate tonight.
  This savage reduction will affect Glasgow. The problem has already arisen in Dundee and Edinburgh and it will arise in all local authority areas in Scotland. I mention Glasgow because I have the relevant figures and because Glasgow district council had an especially large programme using repair and improvement grants for its tenements, and one on which the Government congratulated it. Now the council has had its feet cut from under it.
  Mr. Donald Dewar: Its feet cawed away from under it.
  Mr. Milian: As my hon. Friend said, it has had its feet cawed away from under it.
  In 1983–84 the original allocation for Glasgow on the HRA side was £60 million and on the non-HRA side, with which we are principally concerned, £29 million, making a total of £89 million. I do not know what the eventual outcome will be for the current year, which will be affected by last week's announcement, but on the non-HRA side it will be considerably higher than £29 million. Therefore, the amounts allocated to Glasgow for next year will represent a savage reduction in the amount of money spent on private sector repairs and improvement grants.
  The position is worse than that. Local authorities were encouraged to go ahead with the schemes—the sky was their limit. Up to date, the Government could boast only about that part of their housing policy. Local authorities in Glasgow are already legally committed in 1984–85 to projects on the HRA side which will take up £55 million of the £60 million allocation, and on the non-HRA side they are committed to applications already in the pipeline for improvements up to an expenditure of £57 million, which compares with £29 million that they are now being told they must expect. One does not have to be a genius at mathematics to know that those figures do not add up.
  Glasgow district council cannot meet the terms of last week's circular. Although council representatives met Ministers in the past few weeks, they had no warning of it, and the Scottish Office did not know about it either. The directive has come from the Treasury, and the Secretary of State has simply lain down and allowed himself to be trampled on in agreeing to it. It cannot be achieved.
  The Government are using another device, and I ask the House to bear with me because although it sounds technical it is not. Up to date there has been little flexibility between the HRA and the non-HRA sides.
  They have been two distinct blocks. Local authorities that might have wanted the flexibility to spend money according to their priorities were told that they could not take money from the non-HRA block and put it into the other block, or vice versa. Now the Government are making it one block. Suddenly there is to be flexibility, but the local authorities do not want it. The Government have got themselves and the local authorities into a jam and believe that they can get out of it by giving a spurious appearance of flexibility. However, as I said, Glasgow district council has already committed on one block almost its entire allocation for 1984–85. If it were to switch, even if it were legally possible for it to do so, there would be a complete cessation of new building in Glasgow, no sheltered housing would be started and there would be no further modernisation of council houses, at least until the end of 1984–85 and perhaps beyond. Therefore, it is no wonder that the local authorities have had to impose a freeze, but even with the freeze Glasgow district council cannot meet the Government's figures. Although it has frozen, as from the date of last week's announcement, any firm application for improvement or repair grants, the figures still do not add up.
  May I give some examples of what that means in practice? The Government have been trying to encourage local authorities to co-operate with private builders—I approve of that — and Glasgow has taken up that suggestion. Of the £57 million that is committed for

  189
  1984–85, £35 million is for agency agreements with individual owner-occupiers where the local authority has taken over responsibility in a combined way. In tenements especially that is the only way in which improvements can be made. That has all been prejudiced. Improvements in the city have been prejudiced. There was co-operation between the local authority and private builders and developers, but much of that work depended on the availability of improvement and repair grants.
  Partnership agreements, such as the one to be operated by Barratts at Priesthill, have been prejudiced. I met housing association representatives last week, and they were appalled by the announcement and extremely worried about its effect on housing association developments. I have not mentioned the effect on the construction industry and on the many small firms in Glasgow and elsewhere that have built up their work force and their business on the basis of improvement and repair grants. Again, they will have the feet cut from under them. Yet the Conservative party is the party of the small business. It is the party that was supposed to be encouraging the construction industry. The Under-Secretary of State wrote a letter to Councillor Kernaghan on 10 October saying that the Government wished to encourage capital investment in housing. Yet a week later we had the Government's announcement.
  At present in Glasgow there are 25,000 owner-occupied houses that are either approved or in the pipeline for improvement and repair grants. Had it not been for last week's announcement, Glasgow district council would have expected another 15,000 applications by owner-occupiers by 31 March 1984. Each of those owner-occupiers has now been denied, not just a 90 per cent. or a 50 per cent. grant, but any grant at all. The grant is now zero per cent., yet the Secretary of State when introducing the Bill had the impertinence to say how important it was that people should own their houses and that the Government were in favour of owner-occupiers. Tell that to the 15,000 owner-occupiers in Glasgow who will be denied grants because of last week's announcement.
  It is no wonder that the Tories in Glasgow district council are rebelling. It is the first time in their lives that they have rebelled about anything, but we welcome it nevertheless. It is typical of the Tory party in Scotland that the sycophantic city branch of the party has dissociated itself from the rebellion by Bailie Aitken and his colleagues in Glasgow district council. It would be nice to see a little rebellion on this matter from Conservative Members. We cannot have it from Glasgow Tory Members because there are none, but other Conservative Members must know how appallingly inept and tragic last week's decision is. The Secretary of State did not mention it today, but I hope that some Tory Members will make it clear to the Government that that decision simply cannot stand and must be reversed. At the very least it must be modified or there will be disastrous consequences for many people, not only in Glasgow, Dundee and Edinburgh,' but in every Scottish local authority.
  I should like to deal now with the specific provisions of the Bill. The Secretary of State is pleased that I should be doing that because he does not want to talk about the disastrous statement that he made last week. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will have plenty of time to reply because I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member
  190
  for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will be his usual brief self and will allow the hon. Gentleman ample opportunity to answer these points at the end of the debate.
  There is no disagreement with the Secretary of State on the principle of the right to repair. That was mentioned in our election manifesto, which referred to private landlords as well. If there is a right to repair in public property, why should there not be a right to repair in private property? Why is that not in the Bill?
  Mr. John Home Robertson: And the right to buy.
  Mr. Milian: It is quite appalling that the Government should produce a Bill—we have the Second Reading today — without consultations with COSLA, Shelter, Age Concern or housing associations. There has been no consultation on the right-to-repair provisions. There are no details of the scheme and, what is more, this will all be done by regulation. When we have the scheme, there will be no way to amend it.
  I was told this afternoon—and I could hardly believe it—that the Government believe that the Bill should go into Committee next Tuesday. If that is their idea, they should disabuse themselves of it straightaway. If the Bill goes into Committee next Tuesday, they will make no progress with it until we have more details of what is provided for under the right to repair. Unless we have these details before the Bill goes into Committee, I warn the Government that they may put the Bill into Committee but they will be a heck of a long time getting it out of Committee. We must have these details before we discuss the matter in Committee.
  Tenants' dissatisfaction about repairs is a genuine problem. There is probably more dissatisfaction about that than about any other aspect of housing. It is true that there is a common law right to have repairs carried out, but anyone who has tried to exercise that right, particularly against a private landlord, will know that in practice it is an extremely difficult thing to do. I do not agree with the Scottish Tenants Organisation, which says that this should be left as a common law right. It would be nice if we could do that, but it does not work in practice. It is not enforceable without considerable difficulty. Even if we agree the principle of the right to repair, we must get the details right because if we do not tenants will be in a worse position.
  We already have the DoE document. It would have been nice had the Secretary of State told us that he had in mind something like that document because he has already told us that he will make two amendments to the Bill, apparently slavishly following the DoE's proposals for England. At least the DoE document is available; we have nothing from the Scottish Office.
  What is the scope of the repairs that will be covered? What will be the value of repairs? What will be the procedures for the way in which the tenant should approach the landlord? What will be the procedure for the response? What will be the grounds for refusal? What about the respective rights of tenant and landlord when approval is given? How much will the reimbursement be? The DoE document mentions 75 per cent.; not 100 per cent. Is that what the Government have in mind? Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will tell us when he replies. How will the reimbursement be calculated? Will it be on standard costs or on the actual costs that the landlord estimates? That is an important matter.

  191
  What about those—the Secretary of State acknowledges the problem—who cannot afford to spend the money in the first instance, particularly the elderly? Age Concern has expressed anxiety about them. The anxiety is not only that, as they may not have the money in the first place, they cannot participate in the scheme; the anxiety is that if the scheme were a success and was taken up by people who could afford the outlay, who were more aware of their rights and were more aggressive in asserting them, there could be a diversion of repair effort which ultimately would be to the detriment of those who were not able to participate in the scheme. Local authorities are not working with limitless or expandable budgets for repairs. If one group of tenants is exerting its rights, it may be at the expense of others who for one reason or another cannot exert theirs. There is a danger of squeezing out.
  I should like now to deal with the question of appeal to the sheriff. If one tells an ordinary person, a council tenant, that if he has a dispute with his landlord he can appeal to the sheriff, he will think that that is a joke. With all respect to the Secretary of State, if there is to be an appeal there will have to be an appeal procedure which does not involve an appeal to the sheriff. There must be some other appeal procedure. These are preliminary points that can be exhaustively considered in Committee.
  Mr. Younger: Perhaps I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman. It would have been possible to lay down a complete set of rules on all these points, but we took the view that it would be much better to get the views of the Committee. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee will have the maximum information about the various forms in which these points can be dealt with. There will be no question of following exactly or slavishly any arrangements which may be made in England and Wales. These arrangements will be specifically tailored for Scotland.
  Mr. Millan: We shall see how far that promise is discharged. The idea that there should be no consultation before the Bill reaches Second Reading is utterly unsatisfactory.
  I should like to deal with the sale provisions of the Bill. I restate categorically —this is what the Secretary of State wants to hear—our opposition to the unqualified right to buy regardless of local authority views, regardless of the needs of the locality, regardless of overall housing policy and regardless of the rights of other tenants and prospective tenants. We shall vote against the Bill on that basis. It need hardly be said that we oppose the increase in maximum discount to 60 per cent., as we opposed the original maximum of 50 per cent. We believe that that is giving away public assets at knock-down prices, and we are against it.
  We equally oppose the elimination of the single piece of limited discretion that was available to the local authorities in the original Bill regarding the families of tenants. Even that has been taken away by the Bill. The Secretary of State cannot abide the thought that a local authority may decide to make its own decision on these matters. We take exactly the opposite view. We believe that the decisions on all these matters should be taken by the democratically elected local authorities in Scotland —[Interruption.] They know a good deal more than the Secretary of State, who knows damn all about council
  192
  housing in Scotland or much else. Such issues should be left to the decision of Scottish local authorities. The only question facing a Labour Government would be whether to make the right of local authorities to take such decisions completely unrestricted, or whether we should try to reach an agreement with them on several of the important issues that arise from any sort of council house sales. As we know from experience of the past two or three years, issues have already arisen.
  When the original Bill was introduced we said that the best houses—the cottage type of dwelling rather than the flat—in the best localities would be sold. That is precisely what has happened. There is no denying that, because the Government's own figures demonstrate it. I have a note of the address of every council house that has been sold or is in the process of being sold in my constituency. It simply confirms the fears that I expressed when the original Bill was introduced —that the best houses in the best areas would be sold, and it is nonsense for any Conservative Member to deny that.
  If a Labour Government were in power, the policy would have to be decided directly as regards the Scottish Special Housing Association and the new towns, and there would be very strict limitations on sales with regard to the localities, the numbers and the discounts given. I certainly hope that we would also be able to reach an understanding with the local authorities on these issues. Of course, that understanding would be reached in the context of overall housing policy. Much of the discussion about council house sales has been bedevilled by the fact that it has been divorced from overall housing policy. It has been separated from the housing plans introduced by the Labour Government, which would again be implemented fully by us.
  In addition to re-emphasising the importance of housing plans, we are committed to an increased Government subsidy to local authority housing, thus reversing the process that has so disastrously affected Scotland in the past four years. We are also committed to restoring to local authorities the freedom to fix their own rents. Indeed, that is another freedom that this Government have taken away from them. We will also restore adequate capital allowances. I have little doubt that such a housing policy would enable us to reach an agreement with local authorities on some of the difficult problems that arise from any type of council house sale.
  The Bill only touches the fringes of Scotland's housing problems. In the past four years, Government housing policy has been disastrous. Last week's announcement was only the latest example of Government ineptitude and of their failure to understand the problems of Scottish housing. With unemployment so high in Scotland and with the construction industry still in the doldrums, one would think that the Government would at least try to preserve or encourage the one part of the construction industry— the improvement and repair side—that has been doing reasonably well. Instead, last week's announcement has made the situation much worse. Therefore, we shall vote against the Bill, not only because of its provisions on council house sales, but as a general condemnation of Government housing policy in Scotland.
  6.44 pm
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: I am glad to have this opportunity to speak on the Bill and to support the Government's plans to strengthen council tenants' rights

  193
  against the landlord. On Second Reading of what is now the Tenants' Rights (Scotland) Act the Secretary of State said:
  "The procedure that we have devised will make it absolutely straightforward for a tenant to buy his house while, at the same time, it will back up his right to buy with a comprehensive set of safeguards for his interests, on which he may call if necessary."—[Official Report, 14 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1250.]
  As is all too well known to hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, my right hon. Friend, regrettably, grossly underestimated the sheer petty-mindedness of some Labour councillors and the dedicated zeal with which they would devote themselves to denying those tenants their rights.
  Instead of accepting the democratic results of two general elections, including one particularly devastating one, and implementing the will of Parliament, and instead of acknowledging the overwhelming opinion of their supporters and of council tenants, Labour councils have looked for every conceivable delaying tactic, procedural dodge and obstruction.
  Mr. Maxton: How does the hon. Gentleman know?
  Mr. Forsyth: I know because I receive 300 letters a week from council tenants and others who have to put up with such filibustering from Stirling district council. Those on the Opposition Front Bench will no doubt bear testimony to that, because they, too, find such letters in their postboxes. Some of the worst authorities in Scotland have even taken it upon themselves to get together for little secret conferences, financed by the ratepayers, so that they can discuss ideas, exchange views and co-ordinate their campaigns to frustrate those democratic decisions — [Interruption.] That is not only a serious allegation, but a serious fact. The widely differing proportions of houses sold in England and Scotland bear testimony to the success of those tactics and to the frustration and misery caused to ordinary working men and women who wish to fulfil a lifetime's ambition to own the houses in which they live.
  I am pleased that the polls show increasing heavy demand for home ownership in Scotland. However, the sad fact is that only about 35 per cent. are owner-occupiers in Scotland. That is a staggering figure, given that it is about half the level of owner-occupation found behind the iron curtain in such countries as Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Hungary. The system that seeks to tie the tenant to the council housing system is not only worthy of criticism in itself, but has serious effects on the Scottish economy as a whole. It restricts mobility of labour. Worse, it wastes scarce housing resources.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: Where are all these jobs in Scotland to which people could move if the houses were available?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is not aware that in varying parts of Scotland the employment prospects are slightly better — [Interruption.] On the other hand, given his blinkered nationalism, I should not be surprised that it did not occur to him that many people in Scotland would like the opportunity of going for a job in the south, but because they are tied to the council house system cannot do so.
  The system also wastes scarce housing resources. Hon. Members have only to look at their postbags and at the systems that have been devised to carry out simple
  194
  transfers of tenancy. Points systems have disintegrated and are failing to work properly. I recognise that I speak with a slightly jaded eye when having to deal with the Stirling authority, which is one of the most irresponsible councils in Scotland.
  Mr. Canavan: The hon. Gentleman referred to the irresponsibility of Stirling council. Will he tell us who on Stirling district council—probably one of the Tory group—gave him the names and addresses of all the council's tenants or former tenants who had bought or applied to buy their council houses so that he, as Tory candidate during the general election, could write the most bribery-type letters to those tenants and ex-tenants to try to buy their votes?
  Mr. Forsyth: I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman asks the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr Millan) he will tell him the source. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was about to ask me to justify my allegation that I had an irresponsible authority. Although he did not, I shall do so. It was depressing to witness how the councillors allowed their political views on council house sales to prejudice their administrative competence.
  While the proposals to increase the discount to 60 per cent. will undoubtedly help some people who have a limited working life remaining to have the benefit of home ownership, most of the people concerned are in their fifties. While the change has helped them, why has the Secretary of State stopped at 60 per cent? If the aim is to help older tenants, why has he not extended the discount further? If the scheme were extended by 10 or 20 years, those who were tenants before the war and are now at or near retirement might be able to enjoy their retirement in a home of their own.
  I consider the arguments relating to the loss of housing stock rather tawdry, to say the least, when there are about 20,000 empty council properties in Scotland and evidence shows that the sales policy has enabled properties which could not be let to be sold.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman give some examples of that? It is not good enough just to expect us to accept that that is the position. Will he give details of where those properties are?
  Mr. Forsyth: I refer to the Martello tower scheme in Edinburgh as well as the Easterhouse scheme, which the Princess of Wales visited and commended. There are other examples. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know of them.
  As to the loss of vital public resources, I refer the hon. Gentleman to the report prepared for the Department of the Environment in January 1980 — the appraisal of the financial effects of council house sales. That study showed that, looking at various time scales, the result of the sales policy has been an overall saving for local and central Government. I reserve my greatest enthusiasm for the provision which refers to local discretion over how many years tenants can count when they have succeeded to a tenancy from their parents. a matter about which I have had considerable correspondence with the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill will be received with jubilation in some parts of my constituency, as Stirling district council has been resolute in its determination to refuse to exercise its

  195
  discretion. I understand that that power was introduced on Report after discussion with COSLA. I can hardly do better than quote the words of the then Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), who said:
  "A person might live with aged parents and might not technically be the tenant but, over a period of years, that person might have been paying the rent. For example, a single woman might be supporting her parents but never have become the tenant of the property. If such a person can satisfy the local authority, it is right that her support should be recognised."—[Official Report, 11 June 1980; Vol. 986, c. 607.]
  There was unanimous agreement on both sides of the House that this discretion appeared not to extend to the practical implementation of the Act. Some councils have applied their discretion as initially intended, but others have granted the discretion on a blanket basis. More frequently, the meaner and more insensitive councils have used the blanket basis of discretion to emphasise their political hostility and have frequently refused elderly people the opportunities which they should not have been denied. I find it unacceptable, as I hope the House does, that the arbitrary political whims of local councillors should mean that tenants in one area are worse off than those in other areas. After all, those people are buying under the same national scheme.
  I am delighted that tenants purchasing their houses under the old terms will be able to reapply for increased discounts without facing any penalty. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that that is widely publicised.
  The final benefit introduced in the Bill is one that will be warmly welcomed by most tenants, though not, apparently, by the Scottish Tenants Organisation, which claims to represent them. Every hon. Member must know of the frustration and anger that is caused when a tenant reports that a repair is required and nothing happens for days, weeks, months and sometimes even years.
  Mr. Canavan: Give them the money to do the repairs then.
  Mr. Forsyth: Every hon. Member knows the excuses that councils trot out, one after the other, that the problem is one of money or management, or whatever, and how the buck is passed from one authority to another. Few Opposition Members would admit it, but I am sure they know in their hearts that much of the blame lies with direct labour organisations, which have proved to be expensive, wasteful and inefficient. At their best—and they are all too often seen at their worst—they argue that they must have work in hand to balance their workload. At worst, their claim to deal with priorities often has more to do with covering up their lack of organisation. Either way, the tenant faces delays.
  Some of my constituents have been waiting two years for elementary repairs such as work on doors and windows. Looking around the Chamber I should be surprised if many hon. Members have not had similar experiences. If home owners can pick up a telephone and get three estimates and, as a rule, get the job done reasonably quickly and well, it is wrong that council tenants should be denied that facility. Unless the house is falling down or flooding, the council tenants must wait.
  Mr. Maxton: Will the hon. Gentleman address himself to the question of private rented tenants? In my constituency, private tenants have waited for well over two years for repairs to be carried out by their landlords.
  Mr. Forsyth: Indeed, but I shall not discuss that in this debate. A debate on that subject would involve dealing with rent controls and the way in which they have driven landlords into a position in which they are unable to carry out repairs. I am referring now to the position in which local government has more and more resources for the purpose of providing repairs, while the work carried out has become worse and worse and less and less.
  I do not wish to dismiss out of hand the points made by the Scottish Tenants Organisation about the right to repairs, as they are crucial, but I think that its faith in the common law is a little misguided, especially as the remedy depends on the landlord refusing or deliberately failing to carry out repairs. We are concerned not with refusal but with an inordinate delay before work is carried out, often to poor standards.
  I support the suggestion of fixed time limits for the period in which repairs should be carried out. Without such time limits we shall have eternal arguments and wrangling about what is a reasonable delay. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not lose sight of one need in drafting the scheme, and that is the need for certainty. Unless every tenant knows exactly where he stands with the scheme it will fail, and it will fail because very few people will want to risk incurring bills and obligations which in the end may not be paid or may be refused.
  Mr. Dewar: I am anxious to have the hon. Gentleman's opinion on one matter, particularly as he has English experience, having spent most of his political career, as I understand it, in the Westminster city council. As he knows, in most English schemes a job rate is calculated—a cost for the job—and the tenant is paid only 75 per cent. of that. Would the hon. Gentleman commend that to the Government as a model for Scotland?
  Mr. Forsyth: The hon. Gentleman omits to say that in many of the test cases in Hammersmith and elsewhere, when 75 per cent. of the cost is paid to the tenant, the tenant actually makes a profit. The funny thing is that when competition in involved, the job seems to be done at half the price. However, it is something that we should look at, because I am sure that most of our tenants would be delighted not only to have their repairs carried out, and carried out quickly, but to make a profit as well. That is something that not even a politician could promise.
  Publicity is essential. I do not mean just printing a few leaflets. Stirling district council has yet to distribute the tenants' charter leaflet, which no doubt was printed at great expense by the Scottish Office, and it has yet to distribute the special leaflet about the right to buy. Indeed, before the general election campaign, when I met tenants on the doorstep who were desperate to buy but found it difficult to do so, I was surprised to discover that I could not even get copies of the leaflet from the district housing offices. I hope that we shall bear in mind the forgetfulness of some councils in circulating information on some matters.
  I said that I welcomed the Bill. I do so with a little sadness, if only because its aims are limited. It deals with three aspects of tenants' rights which are important, but it does not deal with the biggest problem, the dreadful

  197
  difficulty which too many tenants are experiencing in exercising their right to buy. I shall not go over the ground again about the councils which are failing to meet their obligations under the Act. I hope that my right hon. Friend is well appraised of the facts. I hope that he realises how few offers are made within the statutory two-month period. It takes an average of 22 months to buy a council house in Stirling. That is a major improvement on 36 months, but it is still too long. Only a tiny proportion, less than 10 per cent., of the offers are made within the statutory period.
  I am tired of receiving letters in every post about tenants whose rights are being denied by petty bureaucrats and petty dictators. I hope that the Minister will examine the returns of some district councils, particularly Stirling, with a critical eye. If my postbag is anything to go by, I think he will find them interesting reading. I hope that he will assure us that there will be further amendments to the Bill to strengthen the position of tenants who are exercising their right to buy, and to encourage them to do so.
  I hope also, incidentally, that my right hon. Friend will consider the disinclination of regional councils to offer surplus property on the same basis as one would expect of the district councils. It is wholly unacceptable to me, my constituents, and I hope to all hon. Members, for a council, for its own petty political ends, to deny people their statutory rights. We promised in our 1979 and 1980 manifestos that council tenants would be able to buy their council homes. For far too many people that promise has yet to be fulfilled.
  7.4 pm
  Mr. Hugh Brown: It saddens me somewhat to listen to a new Conservative Member who speaks with all the arrogance of youth — which is understandable—showing his ignorance of the housing problems of people in Scotland and, if I may say so, a complete lack of understanding of the background of the Labour and trade union movements which fought for generations for the right of Scottish people to have decent houses.
  I intended to make a short contribution in this debate, in the full knowledge that that could earn me a place on the Committee, until I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) threatening dire consequences, with late sittings and the rest. Now I am not so sure, although I should like the opportunity to hear the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) telling us in greater detail about the masses of correspondence that he receives in his postbag. I think that we could guarantee to knock some of the cockiness out of him if he were a member of the Committee.
  As my right hon. Friend said, we need a general debate on housing. He rightly covered a wide field, including repairs, grants, and all the rest. I shall concentrate more on what I regard as a tawdry little Bill. It is essentially a three-clause Bill. I know that officially it has only two clauses, but it is really a three-card trick. The clauses are so insignificant that it is no wonder that the Secretary of State said that it needs further amendment and that the clause on repairs will probably need to be dealt with by regulation.
  Let me give the background to the issue of sales. It is clear that we as a party oppose the indiscriminate sale of council houses. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Govan thinks he is still making his speech.
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Brown: Yes.
  Mr. McQuarrie: Why should the hon. Gentleman use the words "indiscriminate sale of council houses"? These council houses are being sold to sitting tenants. There is nothing indiscriminate about giving a person the right to buy the house he is sitting in, for which he is paying rent, but which he wants to purchase.
  Mr. Brown: I thought that the matter was clearly understood. It is giving a right to a tenant regardless of the housing plans and policies of the local authority. I thought that that was understood, even by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie).
  I re-read the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading of the Bill in 1980. I found it quite impressive when he said that the argument for making the change was that there was a need to improve
  "the quality of life in that housing" — [Official Report, 14 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1241.]
  in other words, council housing. He seemed to imply that an improvement in the quality of life would result merely from a change of ownership, a change of tenure, a change from the landlord-tenant relationship. We could spend a lot of time arguing about that. I assure him, however, that that is not the problem of the quality of life in many of the towns that I represent. The quality of life there is determined more by the lack of a job or the social problems that are involved in some of the housing schemes. I am talking only about my area now. Change of tenure does not solve any of the major social problems.
  Mr. Gerald Malone: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) will recollect when I was an opponent of his in earlier elections. Some housing in his constituency, particularly in the Easterhouse area, has since been rendered habitable. Part of the reason for that lies in the funds that are now being released by council house sales. These can be spent on substandard housing of that nature. That is what this policy means.
  Mr. Brown: I do not want to be offensive but does the hon. Gentleman think that I do not know what is going on in my constituency?
  I made the point to the Secretary of State about the quality of life and it is well accepted that the solution is not just that every tenant should have an automatic right to buy his council house.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) has now been elevated by the reading of his speeches being made obligatory. He also made a speech in that debate but I do not think that he was up to form because, strangely, he made not one reference to the Labour-controlled Lothian regional council, and even though it was about housing I found that surprising. However, referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan who had suggested that the Bill would drastically reduce the powers of housing authorities, he said:
  "My answer is, thank goodness. It is only by reducing the powers of housing authorities, local authorities and executives that one can increase individual rights and freedoms." — [Official Report, 14 January 1980; Vol. 976, c. 1277.]
  That is a commendable philosophical approach and we are all in favour of increasing the rights of individual citizens. However, like everything else, one can only increase the rights of art individual or group in a

  199
  community at the expense of another individual or group. The vexed question of selling council houses is not the simple straightforward ideological proposition that Conservative Members suggest.
  The hon. Gentleman's job in dealing with housing authorities is not made easier by his record of hostility to local authorities as shown in such comments. Therefore, I see no justification in continuing the policy of giving further discounts for the sale of council houses. We shall deal with that in more detail in Committee, but the Secretary of State referred to it. Someone who now qualifies for the maximum discount could, on a house worth £20,000 such as those which exist in the better parts of my constituency, receive an additional bonus of £2,000. I can find no logical justification for that. I see no practical reason why that increase in the discount is required. What is its purpose? Is it to sell more houses? Anybody who thought about it would not have been put off because for almost three years the maximum discount, as we said at the time, has been the bargain of the century. There is no big argument for this further discount.
  It is a well-known secret, for which we make no apology, that Labour-controlled authorities do not agree with the policy and they are legitimately entitled to exercise their discretion. I confess that there should be a compromise, but that is only my view and we shall discuss that in Committee.
  I am delighted that the Secretary of State has said, for whatever reason, that he will take into account the views of hon. Members on repairs. I accept that in good faith. It is coming to a sad pass if we cannot accept the word of the Secretary of State for Scotland of whatever party. Therefore, I accept that he will have genuine discussions with all concerned and take the views of hon. Members into account. However, I beg him to extend that to dropping the whole idea if necessary.
  I concede right away that there is a problem. There is no authority in Scotland that I know of whose tenants do not complain about the delay in getting repairs done. I wish that it was as simple as the hon. Member for Stirling seemed to suggest. No two housing authorities in Scotland operate in the same way. Some authorities will not repair broken windows or sashes or replace washers in taps. I am sure that the Minister with responsibility for housing will be fair enough to concede that even the smart Alecs of the business world who were advising us a few minutes ago would, if they sat down to make the comparisons, find it almost impossible to do so because of the difficulty of comparing like with like. I am sure that if the Minister is dispassionate and for once forgets about making propaganda points he will concede the enormous difficulty of trying to measure the performance of one authority against another on anything, never mind housing repairs, which is probably the most difficult and complicated problem facing every authority. It is not just peculiar to Labour-controlled authorities. The experience is shared by every authority in Scotland. Therefore, we need to give the matter more thought and study, and we need to have more evidence of the problems. We need to know whether the conditions of the new leases that are part of the tenants' rights legislation have been fulfilled. I understand that Glasgow has not come up to scratch in the time scale that was expected of authorities. It is my experience that there
  200
  are enormous difficulties in getting tenants to accept change because it is usually an attempt to save money. It is not always to improve the service.
  I do not care what Labour party policy is on this matter. The Labour party has difficult people as well as the Conservatives. They may have some cranky ideas. The inference seems to be that if in some English authorities a job can be done for half the price even though there is a fixed rate, that is a profit. I consider that is almost fraud. Therefore, I hope that we will not get cowboys——
  Mr. Michael Forsyth: There are numerous examples in a variety of services where local authorities have been able to make savings of more than half to the benefit of ratepayers and tenants. To suggest that it is fraud is absurd. The fraud is on the ratepayers and tenants when the system is not subject to competition.
  Mr. Brown: That is amateurish jargon. If we are looking for value for money it does not matter whether it is provided by private or public enterprise. I am saying only that I want some examination made of the consequences of the proposals. I accept in good faith that the Secretary of State wants to examine all pros and cons. As he readily admitted, there are snags. Could the system disadvantage people such as the elderly who cannot use it? An hon. Member who represents a constituency such as mine has not only the militants to contend with but people who deliberately misinterpret what I say. I have more inadequate constituents than ony other hon. Member. Therefore, I know that some are completely incapable of handling such a sophisticated mechanism as this. That is not a criticism of people. I hope that I have some kind of understanding of the people that I am sent here to represent. I have a better knowledge of some of the real problems that people face than some Conservative Members.
  I should like to see some kind of pilot scheme or examination. We want to improve the service to the customer as economically as possible consistent with good housing. I beg the Conservative Front Bench in particular not to give in to the ideology that believes that if everything is privatised all the problems will be solved. I hope that we shall have a most constructive Committee stage and, in spite of the threats of my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan, I look forward to serving on it.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. Michael Hirst: As I made clear in my maiden speech some months ago, I welcome any measure which promotes and encourages home ownership. One of the most significant achievements of my party in government after 1979 was the granting to every tenant of the right to buy his home. History will show that that was a profound advance in changing social attitudes and encouraging personal responsibility and self-reliance among the citizens of Scotland.
  From the figures which have been disclosed about council house sales, it appears that there has been more enthusiasm to buy council homes south of the border than there has been in Scotland. That is hardly surprising since Scotland has for far too long suffered from an unrealistically lower level of owner occupation than England, or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) said, most iron curtain countries as well, and attitudes up to now have reflected that.
  Mr. Maxton: The great bastion of free enterprise in Europe, West Germany, which most Conservative Members laud, has a lower level of home ownership than Scotland.
  Mr. Hirst: Bulgaria has 82 per cent. home ownership while Scotland has 35 per cent. I am not interested in emulating the example of some inferior country. I am interested in promoting home ownership on as wide a scale as possible.
  The attitudes reflected by the low levels of owner-occupation have been made no easier by the concerted campaign by the Labour party in this House — in opposing the Tenants' Rights, Etc. Bill originally—and in Scotland at large. The problem has been the concerted opposition by the Labour party to the principle of home ownership and the sale of council houses.
  It is perhaps all the more remarkable that so much progress has been made in Scotland. The people there will view with dismay the statement by the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that the Labour party opposes the Bill in principle, but that dismay will be tinged with relief in that Labour has no expectation of forming a Government so the right to buy will exist.
  The results of our policy are clear for all to see and it surprises me that Labour Members, campaigning in their constituencies in recent months, have not seen them. Many tenants have realised their ambition to own their own homes and they are rightly proud of their status as home owners. The improvements which they have made to their homes are clear to see, enhancing not only their properties but the quality of the whole neighbourhood in which they live.
  Contrary to the view of the right hon. Member for Govan, in my constituency house sales have taken place in all areas and for all types of properties, not in just the so-called desirable areas. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) must know of the success of the Easterhouse homesteaders scheme, which confirms clearly the desire among a large section of the population for home ownership.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Hirst: No, I will not give way.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Hirst: I have already given way and I am anxious to complete my speech. I ask the House to forgive me if I am somewhat parochial.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Hirst: No.
  In the two districts which I represent there has been an encouraging response to the sale of council homes. Indeed, Bearsden has the highest level of home purchases in Strathclyde.
  Mr. Dewar: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hirst: No. I am speaking of my personal experience in my constituency.
  Strathkelvin has had the fourth highest level of council house sales of all the 19 districts in Strathclyde. The Strathkelvin achievement is significant because it was done in the face of the opposition of the local Labour party, which described the sale of council houses as the crime of the century. It is a matter of great pleasure to me that I have many hundreds who are guilty of that crime.
  Mr. Norman Hogg rose——
  Mr. Hirst: No, I will not give way.
  The Secretary of State has been well aware of the way in which tenants have spoken of their hope that this policy would continue. Indeed, they knew that their right to buy their homes was safe under a Conservative Government. Labour Members might care to reflect on the fact that the 250,000 voters who deserted them at the last election compared with 1979 might have borne in mind Labour's intractable hostility to the sale of council homes.
  Mr. Dewar rose——
  Mr. Hirst: I will not give way.
  As my right hon. Friend said, the Building Societies Association's survey showed that there was a widespread desire for the right of tenants to buy their council homes. I know tenants who have been waiting for this legislation and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his speed in bringing forward the Bill, so satisfying the commitment which we made in our manifesto.
  It is reasonable and justifiable to offer a larger discount to a tenant who has occupied his home for 20 to 30 years. Tenants who fall into that category are usually well into the later part of their working lives, when it is less easy to obtain a mortgage and they have fewer years of working life left over which to spread the acquisition cost of a property. They will be glad to have something to show for the years of paying rent.
  I am also glad that children who succeed to a tenancy will now have the right to have the time that they spent in that home over the age of 16 acknowledged in calculating the level of discount. It is far more satisfactory that that category of buyer should have the right, rather than that it should be at the discretion of a local authority. I welcome the additional amendment which my right hon. Friend disclosed reducing the qualifying period of tenancy to two years for the right to buy. That is worthwhile and will be widely welcomed.
  I support the Bill because anything which stimulates council house sales must guarantee more funds for other housing needs. I hope that it will be possible for the net proceeds to be applied for sheltered housing needs. I make no apology for raising the point because my constituency is not well served with sheltered housing properties, and the age profile of my constituents is such that there will be an increasingly pressing need for sheltered housing in the next 10 years.
  In a parliamentary reply last July, the Minister for Housing and Construction said that the average time taken to process an application for the purchase of a council house was 11½ months compared with five and a half months for a new town. That seems an unreasonably long time and I hope that he will try to speed up the processing of applications, so removing from applicants the anxiety and worry of a lengthy wait to find out whether their applications have been successful.
  As the Secretary of State for Scotland said. 350,000 people are eligible to benefit from the Bill. I hope that they will take from this legislation the Government's green light to proceed with their applications to buy.
  7.28 pm
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: I do not share the faith in this measure which has been expressed by

  203
  Conservative Members or by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown), although he indicated opposition to much of the Bill.
  It seems that there has been no proper consultation, and the Secretary of State's speech was empty of any real indication of how the repair system will operate. I regard the way in which the Scottish Office has produced the measure — with amendments on Second Reading — as nothing short of sloppy and half-baked. The Bill shows that the Government are not following a coherent housing policy.
  Much has been said of the success of the Government's policy in relation to sales, but although 40,000 council houses have been sold, that is out of a total of over 1 million, which means that a vast number of houses in the public sector have not been, and are not likely to be, sold. Indeed, the problems relating to housing in Scotland, by and large affecting ordinary families, arise from the failure of the Government to give sufficient housing support grant to deal with the problems which those folk face. As the right hon. Member for Govan said, Dundee does not receive the housing support grant that it requires. I see day by day and week by week many of the difficulties with which tenants have to cope in trying to get repairs carried out and over modernisation. These difficulties have to be slung to one side because of the lack of finance from the Government.
  The Government admit in the Bill, in effect, that there are many people who are willing to buy their houses who do not need the financial incentive that is being made available by increasing the maximum discount from 50 to 60 per cent. That suggests to me that the Government are throwing away public money and not even fulfilling their own policy. I should like to see a more sensible approach by the Government that would provide additional aid for the refurbishment of unlettable properties. Alas, examples of such properties are to be found in many areas. These properties should then be put up for sale in a state that would make them much more attractive. The Government must broaden the approach that they have in mind for the disposal of council houses and ensure that it encompasses a wider area.
  For example, the population of Glasgow regard only about 20 per cent. of the housing stock as desirable. In Dundee, East about 350 houses within the Skarne housing development are empty, and more become empty with every day that passes. It will result either in disposal or demolition and I fear that the demolition contractors will be going into that development very soon.
  The Government have given no specific help to authorities which have barrack-type properties in their areas. These properties were erected in a fit of enthusiasm in the 1960s by Labour local authorities with the help, assistance and encouragement of the Government. The Government should be well aware of the problems that attach to multi-blocks such as Bucklemaker court and Butterburn court, which have been found to be unsafe. They are being virtually rebuilt while the tenants continue to occupy their homes. The paltry compensation of £200 per household that is being offered by the district council cannot meet any of the health problems that may well arise and the difficulties that are caused by the operation of drills and by hoists taking bricks to the uppermost levels of the blocks. However, the Government have not come forward
  204
  with any offer of assistance. The cost to the Dundee district council of remedial works to make the properties safe will amount to several million pounds. The Government should take account of these special cases. The Bill is silent in that respect and there is no evidence of a coherent housing policy.
  I suggest to the Government that they think again about their decision to cancel repair grants. The manner in which the Government have acted leads me to suspect that an order has come through from the Treasury. The way in which it has been implemented has led to chaos and there will be difficulties throughout the country. Applications have already been frozen in Dundee. People do not know where they stand and the telephone lines that are used to deal with the grants have been occupied solidly for days following the Government's announcement. Such a scheme cannot be choked off in such a short period, especially when account is taken of the volume of applications.
  If the Government considered it necessary to cut back the scheme, they should have given at least a year's notice. They should have been aware of the difficulties that would ensue. Attention has rightly been drawn to the impact which the decision will have upon small building firms. How can they plan ahead when a scheme which they hoped would continue for another year is terminated without notice? I remember the criticism of a Labour Government a few years ago when they stopped the regional employment premium without notice. If that criticism could be made of that Government, the present Government should show some sensitivity over the repairs grant.
  The repairs grant scheme is open to abuse and I would have been willing to consider suggestions for change. In my constituency I have come across people who have benefited from the 90 per cent. grant and substantial changes to their properties, but who could well have afforded to undertake those repairs themselves. They would have enjoyed the capital benefit of having an improved house. By contrast, I have come across people who have a house with a rateable value of only £10, £5 or even £1 above the cut-off point. As a result, they have been able to obtain no benefit under the scheme. Some of these people may not have any funds to enable them to carry out their own repairs.
  The present scheme is unfair and changes should have been announced. I should not have objected to means-testing to ensure that those who could afford to repair their own properties should go ahead and do so. Unfortunately, the Government have chosen to take simple but drastic action by reducing the grant from 90 to 50 per cent. The expenditure that will be saved could have been spread more widely and to greater effect.
  I am not convinced that the Government's proposals for repairs will work. We have not been given the details of what the Government have in mind, and in all courtesy we were entitled to have them. The scheme looks well on the surface, but I do not think that it will be capable of effective implementation. I accept that there is great dissatisfaction with repairs, or lack of repairs. In common with many other hon. Members, I become uptight about the way in which folk have not been able to get necessary repairs carried out—for example, the securing of doors and the sealing of windows in the depths of winter. They are entitled to that service. They pay their rent, and no

  205
  housing authority has an excuse for refusing to carry out its work with a degree of efficiency. However, there are practical problems and I shall rehearse them quickly.
  If a local authority does not receive any housing support grant and has fairly low capital reserves, will the Government pick up the tab for any repairs that are carried out by the tenant under the Bill? Where will the money come from? It is all very well for the Government to consider repairs to be, for example, the replacement of a door or the reglazing of a window, but what happens if an entire window frame is rotten and if every house in a development has rotten windows? That will be a modernisation programme and it will be a big job. The tenants may say, "Draughts are whistling through these windows and we shall get them repaired." If they do that, where will the money come from?
  If a repair is necessary and it is carried out privately by the tenant, and the local authority quibbles over the necessity of the repair or the extent of it, who will arbitrate? Once a repair has been done, where is the evidence? If a claim is taken to the sheriff, for example, it will be necessary to corroborate the extent of the repair and to value it to ensure that the local authority will not pay too much for it. We all know that there are cowboy operators in the building trade. If the tenant goes to the sheriff because of non-payment by the local authority, will legal aid be granted to enable his case to be properly presented? What procedure is intended? Will it be a simple appearance before the sheriff, when the sheriff will deal with the matter almost as an arbiter, or will the lawyers be trotted out, to the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar)? Being a retired lawyer, I can make that allegation.
  How will costs be assessed? The Bill talks about
  "not exceeding the costs that would have been incurred by the landlord".—
  What standard will be applied? If the repairs are carried out by the tenant, will the local authority be required to provide a list of authorised building contractors? I have had complaints that work carried out under repair grants is not done properly. One of my constituents was virtually driven into hospital because of the problem of getting the work done under the repair grant scheme. The tenants should be protected.
  Subsection (3)(b) of the proposed new section states that
  "the obligations of the landlord in respect of repairs to the dwelling-house shall cease to apply for such period and to such extent as may be determined by or under the scheme."
  I understand what that means in relation to a repair that has been carried out, but what happens if the repair is inadequate and the house is not in a fit state for occupation because it is not windproof or watertight? Will the local authority be under an obligation to repair that house and do the remedial work because of its other common law obligations to keep the house windproof and watertight? I hope that the Secretary of State will address himself to that practical problem.
  It is a pity that in the Bill the Scottish Office has not seen fit to address itself to the difficulties facing long leaseholders, such as the ones at Seafield estates, who have been deprived of their houses because there is no way, under the present law, to convert the long leasehold into proper ownership.
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Seafield estates, part of which are in my constituency. The long leaseholders were given the opportunity to purchase their leases a few years ago.
  Mr. Maxton: At a discount?
  Mr. McQuarrie: At a big discount. Quite a few did so. Very few people failed to take advantage of that. Therefore, it is unfair to criticise Seafield estates.
  Mr. Wilson: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has rushed to the defence of Seafield estates in view of the information that I have. However, at one time there was legislation on the statute book to deal with long leaseholds. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least support that proposition.
  The Bill is inadequate and badly prepared. The issues have not been thought out and, at the least, the Government should reconsider it. If they do not do so, for reasons of practicability, if nothing else, my right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) and I will vote against it.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) drew attention, as he often does, to the problems in the city of Dundee. I am sure that he will agree that many of them are brought about by the administration in the city.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the problem of the lack of funds for the housing authorities. I hope that he agrees that a substantial part of the problem is of their own making. The remedy lies in their own hands. They could easily increase the rents. If they did so, there would be an injection of substantial funds both from the Government and from the people living in the houses.
  However, people may say, "What about the unemployed and those on low incomes?" They will realise that the rents of the unemployed and those on low incomes are paid in full or substantially through Government funds. In Perth and Kinross district, the adjacent authority, where what is judged to be an economic rent is charged, more than 50 per cent. of the tenants receive funds from the taxpayer that pay either in full or substantially the rent charged. There is no shortage of prospective tenants for council houses in Perth and Kinross district or of prospective purchasers of council houses. Many lessons can be learnt from that.
  Mr. Wilson: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is frustrated that his usual sparring partner, the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) is not present to defend his local authority. Does he accept that properties such as the Skarne development and the multi-storey blocks, where substantial remedial work needs to be done, present a specific case for the Government to deal with? Does he accept that the housing problems in Dundee are much greater than those in Perth?
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman again shows his ignorance of the true situation. In percentage terms, the city of Perth has problems similar to those in Dundee. Unfortunately, we have ghetto areas. They exist whether one likes it or not, and I accept that something has to be done about them. I shall come to that later as I feel that we often concentrate on the wrong sectors when we talk about council houses.

  207
  I welcome the Bill. One of the Acts that we passed in the previous Parliament, which gave me satisfaction, was the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. I was pleased to play a small part in getting it on the statute book. If I have any reservation about the working of the Act—and I do—it is that Labour councils that opposed the sale were given too much rope and time before they were made to acquiesce in the demands by their tenants to the right that Parliament had given them to purchase the homes in which they lived. We were too soft with those Labour councils.
  We in the Conservative party can be proud that we gave so many people in Scotland the chance to become owner-occupiers. Between September 1980 and March 1983 nearly 30,000 families bought their public sector homes in Scotland. Whatever one's political views, one must accept that those 30,000 people have firmer roots than before. They now see themselves as having a stake in the community in which they live. I am also pleased that there are about 15,000 outstanding applications. I wish that there were 30,000 or 50,000.
  However, it must be wrong for it to take nearly 12 months to process the sale of a council house, when the SSHA can do it in nine months, which is still too long, and the new town corporations can do it in five and a half months.
  Mr. Norman Hogg: The new town corporations have always sold some of their houses. That has always been the practice. No provision for staffing or anything else was given to the district councils to deal with the problem of council house sales.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman's intervention is remarkable. He will understand why when he reads the report of this debate tomorrow. He says that, because the new towns were experienced in the sale of houses, they were able to process applications for ownership more quickly and that local authorities, with all their highly paid specialist staff, were incapable of producing in three years the machinery to reduce the waiting time. If ever there were a condemnation and indictment of local authorities, the hon. Gentleman has just made it.
  The level of owner-occupation in Scotland is still far too low. If we seriously want to deal with the ghastly human relations and environmental problems in many of Scotland's housing estates, we must acknowledge that individual accountability and responsibility can be substantially improved by owner-occupation.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown) often brings sanity to our debates. He has an opinion of his own and does not simply mouth the policy that he believes will be acceptable to his Front Bench. I do not always agree with my Front Bench and have voted against it more often than some Opposition Members have voted against theirs.
  The hon. Member for Provan has vast experience of local government and central Government matters and housing. He should go outside his own parish and see what has happened elsewhere. That is the art of the possible which is all that we can hope for. If the hon. Gentleman examined areas in which council house sales had been the pattern for some time he would find that many of the environmental problems on some of the down-market
  208
  estates have vanished. Accountability and responsibility are potent factors which affect the way in which people behave.
  Ownership, whether it be of a car or of a house, alters people's perception of property. That perception is quite different if the property belongs to someone else. Whatever the rights or wrongs of the case, and whatever the differences of policy, if, as I believe they do, Opposition Members care deeply about problems of human relations, they must acknowledge that there must be common ground between them and the Conservatives. We should agree that, if there is a means of improving the environment that works at an acceptable cost to the taxpayer, we should pursue it more vigorously. The hon. Member for Provan should bring his experience to bear. If he is short of places to visit, I can supply him with a list of addresses.
  Mr. Hugh Brown: I boast that I have probably tramped round more dirty back courts and deprived areas in Scotland than any other hon. Member. I include one place in Perth near Muirton park where, on the initiative of the district council, unbreakable glass had been installed. Unfortunately, vandals found that they could burn it. Therefore, I know a wee bit about what happens outside Glasgow.
  Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman visited the area some time ago and there have been substantial changes. That is my point.
  The owner-occupier has all the incentives to keep his property — including the garden — in good condition. That is rarely the case in rented property. Moreover, the owner-occupier has all the incentives to ensure that public property adjacent to his is not vandalised. All the evidence supports that view. I have never understood why that aspect of the sale of council houses to those who occupy them has been opposed by Opposition Members. They have obviously not studied the case in detail. I have never advocated the financial argument in favour of the sale of council houses on the grounds that such sales will save resources. The real argument for selling council houses lies in what accountability and responsibility do for the purchasers. The main reason for selling public sector housing is to give more people in Scotland a chance to purchase their own homes. The Tory party is committed to a property-owning democracy. That is one of the reasons why I am so proud to be a Conservative.
  Solely the improvement in the environment and in human relations that goes hand in hand with owner-occupation justifies the sale of council properties to sitting tenants. It is extremely sad that, compared with Scotland, in Bulgaria 82 per cent., in Yugoslavia 71 per cent., in Hungary 66 per cent. and in Poland 50 per cent. of the population own their own homes and that we are so far behind in the owner-occupier league.
  Mr. Dewar: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman equates home ownership with almost every social virtue. May we assume that he is an enormous admirer of every other social aspect of Bulgaria?
  Mr. Walker: I was about to mention the United States, which would have completely destroyed the hon. Gentleman's argument. I am a pragmatic politician. I examine what has been achieved elsewhere. That is the art of the possible. I have never believed that we should

  209
  indulge in pursuing theories that cannot be seen to work. I have spent a lifetime listening to people who theorise about what should be done and met many who make a complete muck of the situation. The difference between being theoretical and practical is that a practical person adapts and alters policy in the light of experience. Therein lies a message for the Labour party.
  Mr. Dewar: If 82 per cent. of Bulgarians own their own homes and that is a mark of respectability and an effective social system, does the hon. Gentleman admire Bulgaria in other ways or has something gone wrong?
  Mr. Walker: I have probably spent much more time behind the iron curtain than the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I am happy to discuss trading and the problems of equality behind the iron curtain if that is what he wants. However, this is not the time or place to do so. The hon. Gentleman would complain if I never found anything to applaud in a Communist or pseudo-Communist country. Many countries that are run on the principles of quite different political ideologies can teach us something. Surely learning is not beneath Britain, the home of democracy. We examine what others do and try to improve on their performance.
  Could it be that the god-like attitude of some councils and some housing officials about the allocation of houses and the diminishing desire of the Labour party to cancel all council house sales—that was once its proud boast— has brought about fundamental changes? I believe that they have. British people now want to own their council houses so much that it is clear that the Labour party is pursuing the wrong policy. I can find something to applaud in Bulgaria. The Labour party should realise that it, too, can learn.
  The hostility of local authorities to council house sales was a factor—some would say a major factor—in the decline of support for the Labour party in the June general election. For example, the December 1982 letter issued by the Labour-controlled Glasgow district council to tenants whose houses required modernisation asked them to forgo their right to buy for 10 years and said that if they did not comply they would be forced to pay the council a proportion of the modernisation costs.
  The impact of that type of policy will be seen in future elections as, indeed, will the impact of the views of Opposition Members to this Bill. Labour Members may laugh and jest, but I remind them that in my constituency the Labour party got what can only be described as a derisory vote. No one can ever say that at any time have I tried to accommodate the Opposition's views in my approach, either during the election or in the period before it.
  I believe that Scottish tenants will welcome clause 1 and the provision to increase the discount by 1 per cent. a year for those who have been tenants for between 20 and 30 years, taking the maximum discount from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. The Scottish Office estimates that between 350,000 and 400,000 local authority tenants stand to benefit from these increased discounts. That is a substantial number of people. Given that in many of those houses there will be more than one voter, the Labour party should think carefully before it rejects the Bill and this clause.
  The right to repair has properly exercised the minds of several hon. Members. The hon. Member for Dundee,
  210
  East made a particularly good contribution in this regard, because I believe that we are treading in areas that could present problems.
  It is right to entitle tenants to carry our repairs which the landlord will not do although he has an obligation. Every hon. Member knows that people come to see Members of Parliament only when they have problems or wish to complain. They never tell us how good the local authority is, but they will tell us how ghastly it is and what the problems are. I do not receive letters on the scale of those received by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), but he is not the only hon. Member who gets such correspondence. Many hon. Members have had letters from tenants complaining about the lack of repairs. It is, therefore, right that tenants should carry out repairs themselves. However, we must examine this proposal carefully in Committee.
  We must ensure that when the Bill is passed, as it will be, the publicity is sufficient and adequate to ensure that there are no doubts among either the councils or the tenants. There was an element of doubt after we passed the last Act, and it was some time before we saw real benefits.
  I was concerned when I read the letter which we all received from the Scottish Tenants Association, because it touched on areas that could present problems. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) doubted whether the right to carry out repairs could be enforced. That is perhaps something on which we can all agree. If we can, we shall begin to make progress.
  It is interesting to compare local authority sales on Tayside. In Perth and Kinross 8·8 per cent. of the housing stock has either been sold or is in the process of being sold. In Angus district, the other authority in my constituency, the figure is 6·2 per cent., and the city of Dundee, whose records, not surprisingly, are incomplete, has sold only 1·4 per cent. That should leave no one in any doubt about how local authorities behave towards sales and how they acquiesce in the law.
  This is the only place where the law can be changed; it cannot be done at local authority level. Yet to listen to some local councillors and even some Labour Members one would think that local councils could make the law. Their job is to administer it. The law is made in this House and the other place. If Labour Members are sensible and want the law to be changed, they should start to encourage the sale of council houses so that they are seen to be the promoters of such a policy. By doing so, they may regain some of the votes lost during the election.
  For too long Scotland has spent too much of the nation's resources and effort on massive schemes that have produced ghastly problems. It is right and proper now to concentrate the resources available on the elderly, the disabled and others with specialist needs. However, there is a responsibility on the Government to look carefully and in detail at how they can remove the damp and condensation that afflict much of the local government housing stock in Scotland.
  It is no good saying, "Yes, it is desirable to do such things." I should like to see the reactivation of the report of the Select Committee, whose work was of value. It spent much time looking at these matters and in some way its report should be reactivated. If resources become available, I strongly recommend to my right hon. Friend that they should be allocated to the removal of damp and condensation, not to other grandiose schemes which may look great——
  Mr. Dewar: Like clause 2.
  Mr. Walker: Clause 2 is very good, and I intended to skim over it. There are things in it on which I should like to speak, but my hon. Friend the Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) and other hon. Members are still waiting to intervene, and I have already taken up my allotted time.
  My message to Labour Members is that if you oppose the Bill, as I understand you will——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been here sufficiently long to know that I do not get involved in these matters.
  Mr. Walker: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course you do not get involved. Indeed, I remember with fondness the days when you did get involved—the voice of sanity in our employment debates.
  Labour Members should think carefully before supporting the policy as outlined by their Front Bench spokesman, the right hon. Member for Govan, otherwise the many votes lost at the last general election will be doubled at the next.
  8.9 pm
  Mr. Norman Hogg: I shall not attempt to follow the arguments of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), because such a task would defy the collective talents of Jung, Freud and R. D. Laing. However, one point of interest—and it is one to which all politicians should pay attention — was his correlation between home ownership in Bulgaria and the results of general elections. I have made a study of Bulgarian election results and I have discovered that the Government there have been returned 100 per cent. at every election since 1947. Therefore, we shall take account of what the hon. Gentleman said about that.
  I fear that you missed something rather good, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) told us that he gets 300 letters every week from council house tenants in his constituency. I worked out that he has only 24 weeks to go until every council house tenant in Stirling has written to him. I am sure that it will come as a great relief to him and to his secretary when that has happened.
  I was interested in what the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst)—who I am sure has joined the hon. Member for Stirling in the Dining Room—had to say about the success rate of selling houses in Bearsden. I had the honour of representing Bearsden in this House, as did many of my Labour predecessors, because until now Bearsden has had a Tory Member for only six months. The present hon. Member has been in office for only three months. One could drive round Bearsden, although it is not something that I would recommend, until one was blue in the face and not sight a council house. However, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden proudly told us how many houses the council had sold. I checked, and I found that it had sold five houses in the last quarter recorded in the statistics of the Scottish Office. If that is something to shout about, the hon. Gentleman does not have much to talk about here.
  Let me make it clear at the beginning that I advise the Scottish branch of the Institute of Housing. All the arguments about the sale of council houses have been well
  212
  presented by my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan). Clause 1 will increase sales and reduce rent income to the authorities. That has serious consequences for the revenue budgets, which will not be wholly compensated for by increased capital receipts, thereby leading to higher rate contributions to housing revenue account.
  How ludicrous that is when one considers that this legislation forces the local authorities to do things which they did not originally intend or which it was not their policy to do—and councils are elected in their own right. The Government are forcing on councils financial provisions which are inconsistent with any good commercial practice. No private housing organisation could cope with the things being asked of the local authorities. That is a point to which the Conservative party would do well to address itself.
  It is regrettable that the regulations referred to in clause 2 have not been brought before the House in at least draft form. The Secretary of State seemed to be suggesting that it would be wrong to bring forward the regulations in their totality before he had heard the opinions and the collective wisdom of the House and the Standing Committee. However, there are already draft regulations for England and Wales and we could have had draft regulations before us today so that the debate about clause 2 would not take place in a vacuum, which is what is happening. We are having to relate our comments to what is happening in England and Wales. I must therefore assume that the Government will follow the pattern in England and Wales, which is what they usually do. We are being asked to write a blank cheque and all will be revealed to us later.
  Such a course will result in two things. The tenants will undertake their own repairs and all the cowboy firms in the building industry — I say with respect to those hon. Members who have connections with the building industry that the industry has produced its share of cowboys— and every dubious fly-by-night building contractor or jobber will be in on the act. They will not provide the kind of service that we get from the much-maligned direct labour organisations, or provide a 24-hour service. Try calling some of these people out and one will find that although they tout for business and put their addresses in the yellow pages, one cannot find them when one has a job that requires action.
  Clause 2 is a thinly disguised attack on direct labour organisations. Some Conservative Back Benchers are quite plain about where they stand on this. The difference between direct labour organisations and the private builder is that the former are accountable to elected representatives. In my constituency, if repairs are not carried out the DLO hears from me, and I know that my hon. Friends do the same for their constituents. In DLOs, repairs are programmed and determined on a basis of priority. This is related to financial management, and that financial management will be seriously eroded if we have the so-called right to repairs.
  The real problem will arise over giving instructions for repairs, which will be most apparent on the issue of dampness. We heard about dampness from the hon. Member for Tayside, North, and I and all of my colleagues have had experience of a tenant telling us that his house was damp, while the council told us that it was suffering from condensation. I am usually on the side of those who say that the house is damp. A tenant may decide to bring in a contractor for a major repair aimed at curing

  213
  dampness, and an argument could result over the nature of the problem and its resolution. As the Bill stands, such an argument will have to go before the sheriff for adjudication. This cannot be a formula for good tenant-authority relations.
  If a house has dampness caused by condensation and the remedy involves cavity wall insulation and the installation of central heating, is it in order for the tenant to instruct the work to be charged to the local authority as long as the cost is not more than it would be if the local authority did the work? I should like the Minister's view on that, as there is considerable interest among the housing managers who have talked to me about this. They want to know exactly what is the Government's position. Presumably, tenants will want to know what costs the local authority will meet before giving instructions for the work to be done. This represents a considerable burden for local authorities, as jobbing works are seldom done, or not done, on the basis of individual job costs.
  There is also the question of the quality control of materials and workmanship, and this is certainly a problem with private contractors. Part of any additional work will revolve round the every day decisions of local authorities. For example, the decision not to put in a bath may now be the subject of an appeal to the sheriff. Another issue which the local authority will need to consider is the liability for third party claims in respect of private contractors instructed by tenants and working on council property. We shall have to consider the health and safety at work responsibilities of local authorities in respect of a tenant's contractor working on local authority property.
  A scheme similar to the one outlined in the Bill has operated in the London borough of Havering, about which I am surprised we have not heard. There is a considerable difference between a council introducing a voluntary scheme which can be controlled or abandoned as it sees fit, and a statutory scheme which by its nature is permanent and cannot truly account for local circumstances. No doubt we shall find out something more about all that when the Minister replies to the debate.
  I hope that the Minister will say something about the role of the sheriff. The Scottish branch of the Institute of Housing is far from happy with that matter and has made representations to me. It feels that the arguments of the parties concerned should be considered in another forum. My right hon. Friend the Member for Govan suggested that. In Committee the Opposition will table amendments to take away that adjudication from the sheriff and place it with a more appropriate body. Someone could be nominated by a responsible body within the building profession, or an independent person could be appointed by the housing authorities or by COSLA. Referring the matter to a sheriff is not conducive to good tenant-local authority relations. Reference to the law in such a matter is no answer. It is a practical question about building, rather than legal liability. I hope that we can shift it out of the hands of the lawyer.
  In two clauses the Bill manages to express the prejudices and ill-founded ideological nonsenses currently in vogue in the Tory party, and especially in the remnants of the Tory party in Scotland. The so-called rights which the Bill contains are bogus. It does not serve the aims of good housing management. It reduces the number of houses available to let. It does not in any way deal with the real housing problems facing Scotland today.
  214
  The Bill undermines those authorities which provide a good repair service, and it gives preference to the fag end of the building industry. The Bill does not merit the support of the House.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: By the time the debate ends, we shall have spoken for four and a quarter hours on a three-clause Bill. It is no wonder that people wonder what we do in this place when we take so long to deal with such a short Bill.
  I welcome the Bill because it increases the right-to-buy discount to 60 per cent. and gives older people the opportunity to end their days in a home that they can hand over to their children. I welcome the provision that gives children of tenants the opportunity to have the years that they spent with their parents taken into account.
  I wish to refer specifically to clause 2. Much has been made of that clause. I agree with those hon. Members who said that it would have been more satisfactory had my right hon. Friend brought forward some form of draft regulations on how the scheme would operate. Not only is the tenant affected—the much-maligned small builder is also affected. He must lay out the cash to buy the goods to carry out the work. Invariably, those who have authorised the work do not pay for at least four weeks, and sometimes it is even longer. We must introduce a scheme that is satisfactory to both tenant and builder.
  In many cases tenants can be cowboys. Having received the money from the local authority they do not pay the builder.
  Mr. Ernie Ross: Never.
  Mr. McQuarrie: I refer especially to tenants in Dundee, West. A system must be evolved that provides security for the small builder so that he receives his money within a reasonable time. My right hon. Friend should consider including in the legislation a provision that the local authority will pay the money once the job has been approved.
  No one has mentioned whether estimates must be provided for the work. Surely, some form of total estimate would be prepared by a recognised builder. I agree with several hon. Members that there should be a register of builders who should be members of the Scottish Building Employers Federation. We should then not have any cowboys operating in the business. Fortunately, we do not have many in Scotland, but I should not like those that exist to be encouraged. When the Minister considers these regulations, he should note that if local authorities are to be responsible they should have a register of contractors.
  Problems may be caused if the work has not been carried out to the tenant's satisfaction. One or two hon. Members have said that there should be an avenue of arbitration other than to the sheriff. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) knows better than any other hon. Member about the time needed to place a case in the sheriff court. The hon. Member has spoken often in the House about the overburdened sheriff courts in Glasgow and elsewhere. If these cases were put before the sheriff court there would be further problems not just for tenants but for small business men.
  I recommend that we use the Chartered Institute of Arbritrators or an organisation such as the Faculty of Architects and Surveyors Ltd. which could act much faster than the sheriff court.

  215
  After the 1968 storm in Glasgow, firms of surveyors were employed by the city corporation to check the builders' work. A similar system could apply in a dispute between a tenant and builder. The Minister should give that careful thought. It would be wrong to pass a regulation whereby the sheriff court determined answers.
  This small Bill merits acceptance by the House. The main discussion has been about improvement grants which have nothing to do with the Bill. I do not object to the Opposition taking the opportunity to address themselves to that subject today. [Interruption.] To some degree I support the Opposition's comments.
  As was correctly said by several Opposition Members, small builders have made plans for their contracts. If the contracts are suddenly taken away—as has happened— the contractors will be heading for disaster. In Scotland, 5,000 building trade operatives could be thrown out of work and a number of businesses made bankrupt. I should not like that to happen. I appeal to the Minister to look at this matter. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) just said, unless there is some assurance from the Minister that money will be forthcoming for these affairs, the local authorities will face serious problems. Banff and Buchan district council has no money for either private or public sector housing improvement grants. Will the Minister tell us where we shall get money to save businesses and people's jobs?
  I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will have a satisfactory passage through the House. There are amendments to be made which will no doubt be presented in Committee. We look forward to them with interest. In the meantime, I commend my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend for bringing the Bill before the House.
  8.30 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: The Liberal party has for many years supported the principle of selling council houses. It might be worth reminding hon. Members that we were selling council houses in Inverclyde long before the Government were elected. It might also be worth reminding the House that Inverclyde will shortly be returning to a Liberal administration which I am sure the good people of Inverclyde will welcome.
  We are believers in local government. It appears to us that Conservative Members no longer are. The decision whether to sell council houses should ideally be taken by elected members of local authorities who know their local needs. That is the line that we have always advocated and preferred. The reason for that is not difficult to explain if one considers two examples. With a west of Scotland authority such as Inverclyde, where there is a high proportion of council tenants and an increasing demand by people to become home owners, it seems to make sense to transfer those council tenants to home ownership by direct sale. That is why we introduced that policy when we were first in control of that council many years ago. It proved popular at the time.
  It is worth looking also at a different type of community where there is rapid growth and where there is no doubt that selling a large number of council houses within a short period affects the housing stock to the disadvantage of people in that area. That is why we always prefer that the decision should be taken by the directly elected local council.
  Mr. John Corrie: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should not allow people in certain areas to buy their council houses because of the party that is in power in that area?
  Mr. Bruce: I am not suggesting that. I am saying that if we believe in local democracy we should allow it to work. Over the past few years we have established that the Government do not believe in local democracy and are pursuing a series of policies that are designed to abolish it. Many Conservative councillors are beginning to say just that, including those in my area who believe that local government has a short future because of the Government's actions.
  We believe that is wrong. That does not mean that we do not believe in the principle. People have the right to vote locally and to decide their priorities according to local needs. If one believes in democracy, one should believe in local democracy. What worries me about the Conservative party is that it seems to think that democracy is fine as long as that party is top of the heap. When it is not top of the heap, it seeks to take power to act against the wishes of the local community.
  The representations that have been received by myself and other hon. Members have not been against the principle of increasing the discount from 50 to 60 per cent. If the Government wish to encourage discounted home ownership throughout the country, I am not sure that I would even take issue. However, I believe that the Government should be prepared to pay when a local authority finishes up out of pocket.
  The Secretary of State suggested that the consequences of this legislation would be neither a gain nor a loss, at least in the short run. The Government would have a right at a later date to add more capital funds, whether they were a Labour, an alliance or a Conservative Government, if they wished to support additional council house building. In the short run that might be acceptable. If the Government are proved wrong in their forecast, and it does not result in a no gain, no loss position, but in a loss to the local council, I hope that they will make good that loss. We are worried that by introducing this increase in discount, which in many ways may seem acceptable and which is particularly attractive to those who are generally well housed and would benefit from it, resources may be taken from other housing priorities.
  Many right hon. and hon. Members have questioned whether the Government have an overall housing policy or whether, as some outside observers may believe, they have, understandably, an enthusiasm for pursuing a policy which I do not deny is popular. However, to an extent, they have tunnel vision on this aspect and underestimate the need to provide for other forms of housing need. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) was keen to tell the House about his postbag, but what about the letters that we all receive from people who are trying to get a council house for the first time, or sheltered housing, or accommodation for the young, single homeless and for young couples trying to make a start? If the application reduces the funds available for such people, there will be understandable cause for concern. I hope that the Government will monitor the implications of their actions and will be prepared to compensate local authorities if their forecasts are wrong.
  We have heard the list of organisations that provide public housing which the Secretary of State proposes to

  217
  bring into the scheme, but it seems to be a dog's breakfast as to what is in and what is out. I urge the Minister to consider the scheme more thoroughly. If there is to be a scheme of public authority housing, it should be a fair and across-the-board scheme, and not one for some sorts of housing and not others operated on what appears to be an arbitrary basis.
  As the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) and others said, although the Government's decision to cut the housing repair grant is not a direct matter for the Bill, it is odd that the two come juxtaposed, and that the Government seek to withdraw money from one source and to require local authorities to give additional discounts within a week of each other.
  The decision will pose considerable difficulties for many local authorities. I spoke today to Gordon district council. It has been overwhelmed with applications for housing improvement grants, which it has actively encouraged because the Government urged it to do so and guaranteed that it would get the money. It is three months behind in processing applications. At the council meeting next week it will have to impose a moratorium. If the Government believe that that will increase their popularity—and my constituents will want to understand how they can do that while insisting that local authorities discount council houses further—they should consider more seriously the implications of their actions.
  We in the Liberal party do not oppose the principles of the Government's proposal or even the extension of the discount, but we suggest that if the Government have miscalculated, they should compensate the local authorities involved and take account of these other arguments. We seek the Government's assurances that they will act in good faith on that matter and not tell the House one thing now and, if it proves to be wrong, let local authorities ride it out. That would cause a loss of faith between local authorities and central Government.
  Clause 2 is an enabling clause and is something of a pig in a poke. We are being asked to approve a clause that would enable the Secretary of State to bring forward regulations, without knowing what those regulations would be. Hon. Members would be right to say that they wished to have a good look at the regulations to see whether they are practicable before they endorse them fully. If we give a Second Reading to the Bill, it should be on the clear understanding that the Government will provide more details and will consult, as the Secretary of State said they will, to see whether such a scheme is workable and in the interests of tenants. We have all received representations from groups that are worried that they might be supporting new regulations which act against the interests of tenants. No Opposition Member would support regulations that had that effect, and we need an assurance that the objective is to increase tenants' rights, as the name of the Bill suggests, not to reduce them.
  Some local authorities are worried about the implications of the regulations, including my local authority of Gordon and Tweeddale district council. They are worried because it is slightly odd that, when the Government are imposing such restraints on local government spending, they propose to introduce regulations that will loosen a local authority's control over its budget. If tenants are entitled to carry out repairs and to present the bill to the local authority, how can the local authority anticipate the volume of such claims? Will the
  218
  Scottish Office say that it does not accept responsibility for the implications on local government funding if a local authority experiences a sudden increase in claims, which could cause considerable embarrassment? My colleagues wish to have an assurance from the Minister that, if that happens, he will not pull the rug from under the local authority and say, "Get on with it. We only introduced the regulations. The fact that they have proved so popular is your responsibility." The House would have more confidence in the Government if they were prepared to honour the implications, because they are opening up uncertain expenditure that, ultimately, central Government must be prepared to back.
  I have set out the Liberal party's reservations about the Bill. We tabled an instruction which shows our concern that compensation should be paid to local authorities that are out of pocket. If we can have assurances from the Minister that that will be taken into account, my colleagues and I will support the Bill.
  8.41 pm
  Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is interesting that the Government are bringing forward changes in the succession of tenancy. They blame the need for that on the intransigence of Labour local authorities, but when the previous tenants' rights legislation was discussed in Committee the problems of tenancy were raised by the Opposition. Although the Government have made these changes, as they move down the path they will encounter more difficulties.
  Although I may believe that the right to buy council houses is unfair, it is equally unfair that a woman who has looked after her elderly parents for 10 to 12 years before their death and who has been the main wage earner in their house should be discriminated against. If the law is unfair, it should be removed. We should not pick on women, and sometimes men, who have given up much of their social lives to look after elderly parents. However, what can the Government do about the succession to tenancy when, for many reasons, local authorities have different regulations about tenancies? In Glasgow, someone may take over a tenancy from a parent at the age of 18, if he lives in the house, not from his date of birth.
  The Government must consider the entire matter, because there are many difficulties. If a tenant dies and leaves two daughters and a son, who will have the right to buy the house? No one would deny that the three people living in the house have an equal right to remain there, but there can be only one purchaser. That will create difficulties, because once the purchase is made no protection an be afforded to the remaining brothers or sisters in the home. A brother or sister could easily say to his or her relatives, "I am turning you out of the home because I am now the legal owner." These difficulties were pointed out two or three years ago, but the Government are looking only at a part of the problem that the sale of council houses has thrown up.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that only the good housing stock has been bought in cities such as Glasgow and, indeed, throughout Scotland. I can go to the good areas —I detest using the phrase "good areas" because the vast majority of council tenants are decent. hard-working people; I am referring to the high demand areas—where people are buying their homes. It is easy to identify them because the tenants appear to go down to Dodge City, buy

  219
  their own doors, take off the council doors and put up the new doors as a badge to show other people that they have bought their homes.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Martin: It is all very well for the Under-Secretary of State to say, "Hear, hear," but in other parts of Glasgow many thousands of people want to leave their council estates and go to the high demand areas which are being sold off. We owe something to those people. In the 1950s, when the new housing estates on the perimeter of Glasgow were built, those tenants were giving the city centre a breathing space because they were prepared to leave their own communities and go to the peripheral areas. Those people are now saying that they have served their apprenticeship and that, while there is good housing stock —some in the city centre and some on the perimeter—it is hard for them to get into those areas. They have been in those houses for 20 years and through no fault of their own, they cannot get out. The Government are reducing their chances of getting into those decent areas.
  The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) has many happy memories of the Glasgow storm of 1968 because it made him a millionaire. The hon. Gentleman was a contractor and he made a killing out of the Glasgow storm. I do not have many happy memories of that storm because I was left homeless with one child and a pregnant wife. It took 12 months to get my repairs done, not because there was no money—the house was insured and the insurer was prepared to ensure that the repairs were done — but because no tradesmen were available in Glasgow. In 1968 inexperienced tradesmen were falling off roofs and being killed. Slater companies were going to the jobcentres and taking the first unemployed men available, as long as those men were prepared to say that they were slaters.
  There is difficulty with repairs even at the moment. Many small contractors in the cities will not touch grant-aided repairs or re-roofing contracts because they say that the local authorities are far too slow in handing over the grants once the work is done. If that is the case, even if the Government give powers to tenants to get quotations and to get repairs done, the same contractors will say that they will not touch local government work because it takes too long for the money to be handed over. If this legislation is passed, the Government must ensure that the money is available. Local authorities certainly do not have that sort of finance.
  Tenants often talk to me about rain penetration. Many of them live in multi-storey flats. Sometimes they live 22 storeys up. Indeed, as I have said before, I have 32-storey blocks in my constituency. In order to have a repair carried out, the tenant will have to find a contractor who is prepared to put cradles on the side of the building. He will have to contend with contractors who will not go above a certain height if the wind is at a certain speed. As a result, six or seven tradesmen could be standing idle doing nothing. Such a repair is terrible responsibility to ask any tenant to take on. Some tenants will go that far, and will present the local authority with a bill for several thousand pounds, for perhaps a very small repair. Therefore, the provisions are ill founded and should be reconsidered.
  220
  I was brought up in Glasgow, and a lot of renovation work has been carried out there. The renovation of houses provides work not only for direct labour organisations, but for both small and large private companies. The most important factor is that it gives people housing, and gets them back to the city centre and to the communities to which they once belonged. It also makes the city a more pleasant place in which to live. Therefore, the Under-Secretary of State should concentrate on the problems that the withdrawal of grant has caused and on the difficulties that every city throughout Scotland will face.
  8.52 pm
  Mr. John Corrie: I warmly welcome the Bill, although not because of the way in which it has been drawn up. We are in the realms of legislation by regulation and that is almost unacceptable to the House. I shall want the House to see the draft of the regulations to be enacted after this tiny Bill has been passed. In that way I shall at least have some idea of how the tenants are to handle having repairs carried out.
  I am constantly surprised that Labour Members should still oppose the sale of council houses.
  Mr. Maxton: Who said that?
  Mr. Corrie: Labour Members are often heard saying that they are opposed to the sale of council dwellings. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) was right to say that a new door on a house almost certainly meant that someone had bought his house. That is because the owner takes a pride in the property that he has just bought. During the last election campaign candidates who knocked on such doors found that before the inhabitants bought their houses they were strong supporters of the official Opposition, but that having bought them, they had changed parties. That was certainly the case in my constituency.
  Mr. Maxton rose——
  Mr. Canavan rose——
  Mr. Corrie: I have the canvass cards to prove that. Those owners have changed not only half way to the SDP but all the way to the Conservative party.
  Mr. Maxton: In one area in Cathcart we canvassed 40 people who had bought their own houses. Of them, 39 intended to vote Labour, and one was a Tory voter who had always voted Tory.
  Mr. Corrie: The canvass cards in my constituency show exactly the opposite, which shows that one cannot believe everything that one is told on the doorstep.
  Another myth is that such provisions reduce the housing stock of the local authorities. That is a long-term prospect. It is unlikely that the occupant, whether he is purchasing the house or not, will vacate it. In fact, he will probably continue to live there for the next 30 to 40 years.
  I have misgivings about clause 2. I wonder about some of the misgivings put before us by tenants' associations and Age Concern. I am glad that the Secretary of State when opening the debate clarified some matters, but I wish to put several others to him.
  Many of the faults that I discover when I visit blocks of flats are structural. If such a structural fault exists in a block of flats, a person whose flat is affected by the fault will be unable to repair it on his own. If all the tenants in the block got together and arranged for a contractor to

  221
  carry out the repairs, when the local authority received the estimate would the tenants be allowed to go ahead with the repairs, which might turn out to be large and expensive?
  The same applies to dampness and condensation. The Select Committee examined the evidence from several Scottish cities where enormous damage was caused by condensation. Such damage could not be tackled by individual tenants. What would happen if several tenants got together and put forward a scheme to the local authority asking whether the tenants could repair the block?
  On one estate in my constituency about 240 houses cannot use heating appliances because major repairs are required. If the tenants arranged for a private contractor to carry out the repairs, what would the local authority do when faced with an enormous bill? The same could apply to windows. What would happen if an entire street of council tenants were told that they would not be part of a modernisation scheme but then formed a tenants' association to repair their houses, received a discount from the contractor because of the quantity of work involved and produced an enormous bill for the council?
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), will not give the impression that such legislation will open a Pandora's box and that all the repairs left undone can suddenly be carried out by tenants, simply by borrowing money, getting the repairs done and then getting the money back from the council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that the larger repair jobs would have to be inspected before permission could be given for them to be carried out. If that is the case, I foresee many councils saying that they have inspected the work and that the repair cannot be carried out simply because they do not have the money. We must not give the impression that while, on the one hand, we are trying to control Government and local authority expenditure, on the other hand all the money needed for repairs and maintenance will suddenly be available.
  I support the Bill in principle, but many questions will have to be asked and, I hope, answered in Committee.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: The Bill may be a little piece of legislation, but it is misleading in its intentions. The ethos of the Bill is based on the virtue of home ownership rather than the necessities of those who will continue to pay rent. No matter how many thousands of people have bought their homes, there are still more than 1 million tenants in Scotland. Despite what the Secretary of State describes as the overwhelmingly popular aspect of the sales, the Government now find it necessary to increase the maximum discount from 50 to 60 per cent. I can only conclude that that is to encourage a policy that is not going as well as has been suggested. I wonder how those who took the 50 per cent. maximum will feel about people coming along now and being entitled to the 60 per cent. maximum. However, I understand that it is only in trade union matters that the Government believe in retrospective legislation.
  Nevertheless, if the Government are seriously concerned about Scottish tenants, I suggest that there should be a rent discount for those who have been rent payers for many years, man and boy or woman and girl. The Government's policies have been largely directed at
  222
  jacking up rents throughout Scotland, well beyond the increases in the retail price index. Surely that is a matter to which the Government should direct more attention.
  Also on the subject of sales policy, I wrote to the Minister about Orlit houses, in which structural faults were discovered after some houses were sold. I understand that the Scottish Special Housing Association has suggested the repurchase of those houses. It has always been my understanding of Scottish legal practice, although I am not a lawyer, that caveat emptor prevails and that the purchaser has to go through the necessary valuations and legal arrangements to make sure of what he is buying. It is important that the Minister should clarify the position in this respect. Ownership has its own commitments and responsibilities, and I think that the Government will find many owner-occupiers on their back in the coming weeks about the way they have handled improvement grants. If this is the measure of the Government's treatment of home owners, it shows a double standard.
  When it comes to repairs, it is laudable in principle that the Government are trying to give tenants more authority over their own lives, their own tenancies, but as the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. McQuarrie) pointed out, will they be expected to produce two or three estimates, which is the accepted practice in most walks of life? Will a do-it-yourself tariff be prepared by the Scottish Office where certain things are listed, and other repairs, which might be regarded by tenants as essential, are excluded and, therefore, excluded from the reimbursement? Perhaps the Minister will comment on the discussions that he had with the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and some of its misgivings, and practical suggestions, about amendments that might be made to this legislation.
  Finally, the matter was well summed up in the Glasgow Evening Times of 15 October, which said:
  "The axe is poised over £2·5m worth of council house repairs in Glasgow."
  It says that we are reaching a stage where
  "Among the work which may be shelved is gutter replacement, roof repairs and the eradication of woodworm and dry rot."
  I know all about the poem
  "The boy stood on the burning deck",
  but how can we accept a situation where tenants are not allowed repairs involving dry rot and woodworm? There is no way in which a local authority or a tenant can win the battle against those time factors. If the Government were to address themselves more to the overall shortage of cash resources facing Scottish local authorities they would do a better service to the tenants of Scotland.
  The Bill has a rather dishonest, open cheque approach. I fear that local authorities will be inundated with repair bills from tenants and will then be faced with the same cutbacks in financial support from the Government that have been experienced within the past week over the improvement grants.
  9.5 pm
  Mr. Donald Dewar: The adjectives that come to mind when describing the Bill are "depressing" and "inadequate". The Bill completely fails to measure up to the magnitude of the housing crisis in Scotland. It gives us no hope, no appreciation of the reality of circumstances, and no inspiration. The only thing that I can say to the Government which, superficially, might be thought to be kind is that their housing policy over the

  223
  past four or five years has been consistent. The trouble is that it has been consistently wrong. This is merely a continuation of the old argument about council house sales policy with all the old faults. It is a case of experience teaching Ministers nothing.
  Labour Members object fundamentally to clause 1. The operation of the present sales policy is an extremely bad bargain for the public purse and local authorities, not as a collection of councillors, not as a bureaucratic piece of government machinery, but for the public purse in a much wider sense. It is a bad bargain for the people of Scotland.
  In 1982 the average selling price of a council house was, according to a recent parliamentary answer, £8,375 and the average discount was 45 per cent. I was looking at an extremely good paper that was recently produced by the university of Aberdeen on the experiences in that city. It is interesting to note, for example, that in my former constituency, south Aberdeen, semi-detached houses in the Kincorth housing scheme were valued at just over £21,000. If the kind of discounts that are likely to be applicable in a settled scheme such as that are allowed, one begins to see that we are asking local authorities to sell off assets in a way which will make the management of their housing stock peculiarly difficult and which could not be justified in the light of the good business practice that the new race and the new generation of Tory Back Benchers is constantly urging upon us.
  More important than the financial argument—in this alone I agree with the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) — is the social argument, which is decisive. It has cropped up again and again during the course of the debate. Over the years Tory spokesmen have talked a great deal about choice, and about choice in housing. To Labour Members choice is a key issue but in a different sense. If the best of the housing stock is sold off — there is no doubt that that will happen — the remaining pool of letting accommodation will be impoverished. There has been no denial that that is happening. For a long time the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) was in charge of housing policy and he tried to disguise that fact. He thought that his amiable manner would compensate for the poverty of his argument at Question Time. The argument was a strict denial of what was happening. A recent parliamentary answer to a question from me dated 11 July shows that in 1982 in Scotland 9,220 houses were sold under the tenants' rights legislation but only 1,446 flats.
  I commend the Aberdeen university study to the Minister. I am sure that it will be in his Department. In a careful and controlled way, looking at all the figures and experience, that study confirmed what probably all Labour Members know from experience in their constituency— that the semis and terraced houses sell and, by and large, the flats do not.
  The product of the Government's policy is that those who have been fortunate in the lottery of allocation are doubly fortunate because they can capitalise on their luck by buying at these enormous discounts. The tragedy is that in the name of giving people choice we are pursuing a prejudiced policy which will reduce choice for those who wish to exercise the right to continue to rent property in the public sector. There is no especial virtue in going for that option. Nor is there any virtue in deciding to become
  224
  an owner-occupier. It is a matter of personal preference and we should be providing a range of choice so that people can exercise their judgment.
  In my constituency, as in many others, there is a constant stream of people who, understandably and rightly, are bitter because, having waited for a long time in the sophisticated, complicated and often frustrating process of allocation, they now see the housing which they covet—I do not mean covet in any narrow or unpleasant sense but in the sense that it is the right type and in the right place, the type of house which they have always wanted —being taken out of the letting pool for ever, and with present Government policies there is no prospect of its being replaced. Thus in terms of choice, there is a massive question mark—to put it as charitably as I can—over the effect of what the Government are trying to do.
  I want there to be a legitimate home ownership option for as wide a range of people as possible in Scotland, and local government has a part to play in that. I should like to see in the future possibly the examination of the policy of building to sell by local authorities. Homesteading, which has been referred to in terms of the Glenelg Quadrant experiment, is something from which we can learn in the future. The kind of partnership scheme in South Rogerfield and Priesthill, which I am sure the Minister welcomed when it was initiated by Glasgow district council, has something to offer as part of the mix of opportunity in our housing stock.
  What I find extraordinary is the fact that, at the same time as we are considering the Bill, the Minister is announcing initiatives—if one can so call them—in improvement and repair grants which put at risk those very schemes and imaginative experiments in housing. In the last year or so Scottish Office Ministers have been saying — to adopt the phrase of my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan)— that the sky is the limit, that the more people who approach local authorities and sign up for 90 per cent. improvement grants the better.
  Local authorities and those applying to them were literally whooped on by ministerial clamour and were told that there would be no limit on the amount that could be spent. Indeed, on 10 October the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) wrote to the Glasgow housing convenor congratulating him on his efforts. One week later—not because of a variation in the level of grant but because of the attached announcements about next year's finance — housing repair and improvement grants came to a shuddering dead stop. I urge the Minister to address himself, at least in passing, to this problem because it is extremely relevant to what we are discussing in the wider context of housing policy.
  Does the hon. Gentleman dispute what my right hon. Friend the Member for Govan said about his letter to Glasgow district council — I will deal with that one authority—saying that it could expect on the non-HRA account the same as, or perhaps less than, it was initially allocated in the current year, meaning that in 1984–85 it could expect £29 million as the best possible option? Does the right hon. Gentleman dispute that authority's calculation that the carry-over—even working as hard as it can to clear the backlog in the last six months of this year — into 1984–85 will be £57 million? If he does not seriously dispute those figures, Glasgow will not be able to honour its legal commitments.

  225
  Even if we managed to drive the Minister from his present intransigence, we should still be working on the basis that if that £57 million were found in 1984–85 not one new grant application would be processed in the second half of this and the whole of the next financial year. That is the situation which the city of Glasgow is facing, and it can be repeated in many other parts of Scotland.
  It is fashionable—I have some sympathy for it—in Conservative circles sometimes to criticise the more extreme options of local government policy that are pursued by the far Left beyond the Labour party—the argument that there should be no rate or rent increases, no cuts and no redundancies. That which the Minister has done over the past few days — knowingly or, I fear, perhaps unknowingly—is just as destructive a form of anarchy and it has not even the redeeming virtue of compassion.
  Only a few weeks ago the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) appeared all bushy-tailed and bright-eyed on my television screen to tell me and other viewers how he had discovered a great campaign to increase the range of housing repairs and improvement grants and to raise the rateable value ceiling so that more of the burghers of Bearsden could improve their properties. Little did he think that only a few weeks later the whole system would be brought to what I described, I think rightly, as a shuddering stop. He said not a word about that.
  Mr. Hirst rose——
  Mr. Dewar: I shall let the hon. Gentleman intervene in due course, although he did not give way to me. He has a confounded cheek to refer to the Glenelg Quadrant experiment and commend it to the House as a pattern for future initiatives. The experiment will be a non-starter unless improvement and repair grants are available to those who move in to homesteads. If the hon. Gentleman is worried about the future of that sort of innovation in housing policy, he should be knocking loudly and insistently at the door of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State demanding that he reconsiders what Glasgow councillors have described—in my view properly—as a betrayal.
  It was pathetic to read in the columns of The Scotsman the other day that some loyal party apparatchik, representing himself as the agent in Glasgow for the Conservative party, had dissociated himself from Councillor Aitken and claimed that he did not speak for the Conservative party in Glasgow. I think that it is likely that Councillor Aitken does not speak for the Tory party in Glasgow because I fear that its members are a sad and supine lot on the whole.
  I am satisfied that, when the enormity of what has happened becomes clear, Councillor Aitken's cries of pain will reflect the cries of pain that will come from Conservative voters in Glasgow, in the district council of Strathkelvin and Bearsden and in many other parts of Scotland. I hope that the Minister will tell us how he reconciles his oratory and sometimes hypocritical cant about being a unique champion of the owner-occupier with what he has done.
  The hon. Gentleman's claims begin to appear extremely hollow when we consider that the Conservative party has deliberately forced up rates. They have not increased because of local government extravagance,
  226
  whose performance has been rather better than that of central Government over the past few years. They have increased because the Secretary of State has consistently cut the Exchequer contribution. The percentage of local government expenditure met by Exchequer contributions has consistently fallen.
  The Government claim to be especially concerned for ratepayers. They have blithely promised over a number of years to reform and, indeed, abolish, the domestic rate. However, a White Paper has appeared that comes out with the extraordinary gloss that the whole idea has been abandoned because there is no public demand for radical reform. If the Government had said, "We would have liked to do it and we promised to do it but we have reconsidered our promise because we realise that there is no workable solution," I would have had some respect for that approach and recognised the difficulties that they face. To blame the long-suffering public for their lack of action and to say, "We have put off our proposals; we could have implemented them but there is no clear public demand for change," seems to be another example of the blatant dishonesty that we have seen in almost every facet of the Government's housing policy.
  It appears that there is some common ground on the right to repair. There is often a problem with the delivery of service and I think that I will be joined by most of my right hon. and hon. Friends in arguing that the real problem lies with resources. Given the cuts in housing support grant that have been introduced consistently over the years, there is bound to be a breakdown at the point of delivery of services. I do not accept that the problem stems from innate inefficiency in the public sector, as no doubt the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) would argue and has argued in many a tiresome pamphlet. However, there is a problem and on occasion tenants suffer. It is a problem that we must resolve.
  As my hon. Friends have said consistently in the debate, the problem is that we are faced with an enabling measure. We are faced with no more than a political slogan. We do not know what lies behind it or the reality of the scheme hatched up in the recesses of the Scottish Office. The Minister has been remarkably coy about the details. He has said in correspondence with me that it would be discourteous to the House and in some way a slight of Parliament for him to reveal his hand in terms of the outline of the scheme before the Bill is on the statute book. I fear that it smacks of expediency, but I welcome the fact that he is now paying lip service to the need to respect Parliament and parliamentary processes.
  I hope that the Minister remembers those fine words when he comes to the proposal in the recent White Paper on rating and valuation in Scotland to lump together a group of orders cutting the rate support grant of individual authorities on the ground that their spending is unreasonable and excessive. I hope that the Minister will remember his fine words when he considers that proposal, which means that the House cannot properly scrutinise the case of an individual authority. I can think of nothing more insulting to the concept of parliamentary scrutiny and the authority of the House.
  However, we still do not know much about what is going on. It is important to ask what sort of animal is the scheme that we are being asked to buy. There are two broad approaches, one of which I find palatable and the other certainly not. First, we might be trying to create a fallback position when a district authority in Scotland has

  227
  culpably fallen short of its duties to repair a house after repeated requests for the work to be done. One might try to create a scheme whereby that tenant would go to the private sector, hire his own contractor, do the work and recover the cost from the district council. That is one concept. It is what the Scottish Consumer Council thinks clause 2 is all about. It states that it supports
  "the principle of allowing tenants to engage their own contractors to carry out repairs which would otherwise have to be done by their landlords."
  There is another basis for one of the schemes. It would be based on the experience of Havering—a sort of son of Havering. In the London borough of Havering, there is a scheme that has been working for some time that is a method of privatisation by the back door. The idea is that it is not a fallback provision for a desperate situation when the landlord has failed to carry out his responsibilities but an open encouragement for tenants to take over the landlord's responsibilities. I see the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) nodding his head in delight. I do not think that he is the author of anything much worth considering, but at least in spirit he would love to be the author of that scheme.
  The scheme is about the handyman with his Black and Decker tools deciding to do the work himself, not to cost his time and to make a profit. Although he gets only 75 per cent. of the real cost of the job, because he is not costing his own time and he is putting the money in his hip pocket he is making a notional profit. I use that word in a specialised sense. In that way, everyone is supposed to be happy.
  I do not want to be party to a scheme that is merely a form of replacing a proper and adequate public service with piecemeal privatisation that some Conservative Back Benchers would like. If, after close consideration, it turns out that the scheme smacks of that, our agreement in principle will come to a sharp halt. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram), said in a recent letter to me that I was raising legitimate issues of public concern but that the proper place to debate them was in the House. I welcome that, but I make it clear that the proper place to debate them is in the House when one has time to do so and one can table amendments. It is not appropriate to conduct consultations after the Bill is on the statute book when we have only one and a half hours in which to debate an order which we cannot amend, scrutinise properly or debate.
  If we are not presented with a schedule and the Government do not come forward with draft schemes, how can we debate the subject properly in Committee? Must we have recourse to an endless series of new clauses each of which deals with one facet of what might be an order or could have been included in a schedule? The process will be extremely ugly and long-winded. It is in the Minister's interests to reveal his hand and produce a schedule so that we may have an informed and constructive debate for the common cause of achieving the right scheme.
  Perhaps I can help the Minister by asking a few questions that will arise in Committee. He might like to anticipate answers to them now. I have been examining the English scheme which, we are assured, will not be followed slavishly. Does the Minister expect "costimates" by which nothing under £20 or over £200 will be included
  228
  in the scheme? If so, that reveals much about the type of scheme it is and what type of work will be dealt with. Will common repairs be excluded from the scheme? That is another fundamental matter that limits the range of the scheme. They are excluded in the Department of the Environment consultation paper. We are entitled to know what the Minister has in mind.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Govan asked a vital question — what safeguards will there be for pensioners or those on supplementary benefit? A pensioner is unlikely to have a Black and Decker tool or the energy to carry out repairs. A person on supplementary benefit will not be able to employ a contractor as he will not be able to spend money before being recompensed. There is a danger that the better organised sectors of public housing that are more capable of dealing with bureaucracy or sophisticated systems will use these provisions to attract out-of-turn resources, thus distorting the distribution of resources in the public sector. We shall want to examine that closely in Committee.
  Perhaps the Minister would like to say whether, as has been suggested to me, there will be not reimbursement but a system of rent credit for expenses incurred in getting work done. The Minister must know what he has in mind. When we have the schedule of rates, which represents the cost to the local authority of doing the work, will there be a 75 per cent. reimbursement as is the case in Havering or will there be a minimum reimbursement of 75 per cent. as is laid down in the Department of the Environment consultation document? Is the Minister prepared to say that the scheme will reimburse in full the costs borne by tenants who have had to have recourse to it for essential repairs?
  What are the Minister's views about arbitration or a tribunal rather than sheriff court procedures? I believe strongly that we should simplify the system. The problem with common law remedies available to a tenant is that they are unworkable as they involve going to the courts. That is a difficult, expensive and forbidding process. If we build recourse to the courts into the new system which gives tenants more accessible rights we shall build in exactly the same faults as those contained in existing common law rights. The Minister must address himself to the problem of simplification.
  I am airing only a small selection of points that I look forward to canvassing in Committee. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to two vital propositions in the English consultation document. Paragraph 6.v states that a possible further ground for refusal might be that
  "the landlord intends to carry out the repairs within 28 days of the tenant's application".
  Is that likely to be included as a specified ground in the Scottish scheme? If so, I warn the Minister that 28 days is too short. Paragraph 6.vii is even more interesting. It says that a further ground for refusal might be that
  "the repair is not reasonably necessary for the personal comfort of the tenant and the remedy is part of a planned and budgeted programme of maintenance which will be carried out by the landlord … not more than one year from the date of the tenant's application."
  Someone who has rain pouring through his roof will go home with a song in his heart when he learns that there is a planned programme for doing something about it within about a year. Will that be in the Scottish scheme? We must know the answers to these questions if we are to have any sort of legitimate and intelligent debate. There must be adequate scrutiny as well as good will on the part of

  229
  Ministers. There must be a willingness to listen, as they have not listened before, to the weight of evidence and representation, be it from Shelter, the Scottish Consumer Council, the Scottish Tenants Organisation or the vast number of others who will no doubt want to bend the Minister's ear.
  If we do not get that form of good will, whatever scheme the Minister introduces will be a waste of time. I draw his attention to the document issued by Havering council on tenant participation and I commend paragraph 1·4 to his attention. It states:
  "The success of a local authority tenant self-help repairs scheme may be particularly dependent upon the efficiency of its administration, the manner in which the scheme is 'marketed'"—
  that is interesting—
  "to its tenants, the determination of elected representatives and the commitment and enthusiasm of all local authority officers".
  Such trust, which according to Havering is essential if the scheme is to succeed, has been badly damaged over the last four or five years. The Minister will have to show much flexibility and the willingness to receive new ideas if we are to get a scheme that has support over a broad range, otherwise what we do will be a total waste of time. It will be unworkable and will bring heartbreak and confusion rather than help to hard-pressed tenants.
  This is a minor unimportant Bill in the totality of the disaster in the Scottish housing sector. The new build programme is at a standstill; the shortfall in sheltered housing, even taking the Minister's own criteria, is some 30,000 housing units; and under this Government we have seen housing support grant cut by almost two thirds in cash terms. If we look at the expenditure White Paper, which brings worse and more depressing news year after year, all we are offered is more cuts to come.
  Now there is even a threat to take further measures to control the ability of local authorities to take a contribution from the rate fund to help with the housing account. That is another piece of the mechanism of oppression that is making a mockery out of local democracy.
  I hope that the Minister will redeem himself, at least to a marginal extent, by being helpful with this legislation. However, his and the Government's record is a form of statutory vandalism based on predjudice and blinkered insensitivity to the real problems facing tenants in the Scottish public sector. Measured against the grim reality —and in many ways it is grim—of falling resources and crumbling standards, the Bill is a pitiful apology for what ought to be an enlightened and radical housing policy. We shall protest in the Lobby tonight.
  9.33 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I confess to feeling quite breathless after that gallop around the course from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I thought that the speech of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) spread itself across a larger area of housing than that dealt with by the Bill, but he was surpassed by the hon. Member for Garscadden, who even managed to touch on the rating and valuation White Paper. Conservative Members who know of the hon. Gentleman's aspirations this week will understand why he spread his views so wide.
  In view of the way that the debate has developed, it may be convenient for the House if I deal briefly with the point made by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend,
  230
  although it is perhaps not strictly within the scope of the Bill. They both referred to the improvement and repairs grants, which have been a matter of some debate. Let me try to put this into context. I listened with much attention to the display of anger from the right hon. Member for Govan, and cast my mind back to when the enhancement of these two grants was introduced. I could not remember any great cries of welcome then from the right hon. Member for Govan. Tonight I did not hear any cries of welcome for the success that this enhancement has achieved within his city of Glasgow. For all that he has said, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that as a result of this enhancement, some £200 million will have been spent under these grants over last year and up to 31 March this year. That in itself is something for which we in Scotland should be grateful.
  The special financial arrangements which allowed authorities to spend outwith their cash limits on improvement and repairs grants and the higher level of repairs grants were always temporary, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Govan knows. We extended the scheme once before, when we raised the higher grant level from nine months to two years, and both the grant levels and the financial arrangements have been a considerable success in stimulating work. However, we never led anyone to suppose that these arrangements could last for ever and we have given authorities six months' notice that they are to come to an end. Throughout the summer, local authorities asked me to give them the earliest possible notification, and by making the announcement last week, that is what we sought to do.
  We recognise that the ending of the special arrangements will require authorities to make hard decisions about priorities, but they have always had to consider discretionary grants against an assessment of wider priorities. Some authorities have complained that the ending of the financial arrangements will give them an unmanageable problem for next year because of the extent of the commitments that they have taken on. Let me reassure them and the right hon. Member for Govan that we shall fully cover all legally binding commitments entered into before 20 October in determining authorities' allocations for the next financial year. My Department has given a broad hint to authorities of the likely availability of resources next year as a framework for planning, although I emphasise that no final decisions have been taken, and my officials will consider the implications of their programmes with authorities.
  I listened carefully to what the right hon. Member for Govan had to say. Glasgow district council has requested a meeting and my officials are seeking to arrange a meeting with the district council later this week. However, it is important, as we made clear in the letter that we sent to authorities, that we know the extent of their commitments in expenditure for next year. Perhaps the importance is exemplified by the figures that the right hon. Member for Govan gave, which show how important it is to make sure that the figures are accurate.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of £55 million on the HRA, which is somewhat odd as it is already to receive 70 per cent. of this year's figure of £60 million. It is hard to accept, although these matters must be looked at, that Glasgow has already committed more than £30 million to something which, if it had, would be ultra vires.
  Mr. Millan: The hon. Gentleman says that he is giving me an assurance that if commitments are made they will be met. If the commitments are £112 million, does that mean that Glasgow will get at least such an allocation next year? That will mean that no further allocations for repairs can be taken, but will Glasgow get the £112 million? If it does, what is the purpose of the letter that the Minister sent last week, which contradicts the assertion that he is making now?
  Mr. Ancram: I said from the time that the announcement was made, and I said it again tonight, that commitments that have been legally incurred—that is applications that have been properly approved with expenditure ramifications for next year—will be covered in the allocations that are made to those authorities. I cannot be any more specific with figures because, as I told the right hon. Gentleman, we do not know the figures; it is those that we are asking the local authorities to provide for us.
  Mr. Millan: If Glasgow is committed to £112 million, and if the allocation—based on the letter last week—is to be only £89 million, how will Glasgow receive £112 million? Where will the difference of £23 million come from? Will it be additional money, or will it be deducted from another authority?
  Mr. Ancram: We cannot make any predictions until we know the figures. The right hon. Gentleman must accept my reassurance on the matter.
  The right hon. Gentleman showed uncharacteristic coyness when talking about the Bill. I sympathise with his difficulties because I have been following the debate within the Labour party during the summer about a change in policy. I understand that the matter was referred to a higher authority for some form of divine guidance. Whether or not that divine guidance has been given, the right hon. Gentleman tonight paid a short visit to the Bill and left it with a sigh of relief.
  Hidden in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, like a ferret in the undergrowth, was a quiet opposition to the Bill. If he hoped that his categorical assurances that he was opposed to the sale of council houses would not be noticed, I must tell him that we will ensure that they are noticed—just as we shall ensure that the similar attitude of the Scottish National party will be made well known to the tenants of Scotland who want to own their council houses.
  Mr. Millan rose——
  Mr. Ancram: I have given way to the right hon. Gentleman twice. He must allow me to continue with my speech.
  Opposition Members must realise that the right to buy gives people living in the public sector probably their only practical opportunity to become home owners. It breaks down barriers; it gives those who wish to own their own home access to capital and a firm stake in society. The receipts generated bring in valuable additional resources to housing authorities. That is why the right to buy has enjoyed wide support.
  Since 1979 more than 75,000 public sector tenants in Scotland have expressed an interest in buying their homes. Nearly 40,000 sales have been completed and there are many more in the pipeline. In broad terms, we shall shortly
  232
  reach the stage where one in every 20 eligible tenants will have bought their homes. That is something that we should view with pride.
  I am especially encouraged because recent applications have been running at more than 1,500 per month, which is a large and sustained increase over the 1981 level. That confounds the claim of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) that interest faded away after the initial spate of applications. Far from fizzling out, the rate of applications has risen steadily and shows no signs of levelling off.
  Mr. Craigen: If that is so, why do the Government need to encourage more sales through higher discounts?
  Mr. Ancram: If the hon. Gentleman will listen to the remainder of my speech, his question will be answered.
  The improvements to the right-to-buy provisions contained in the Bill will enable more people to become home owners. The main beneficiaries will be those who have been tenants for more than 20 years. The increase in the maximum discount from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. will enable more longstanding tenants—many of them nearing the end of their working lives or already in retirement — to buy at prices that fairly reflect their tenancy record and the resources likely to be available to them.
  It appears that Opposition Members who oppose the right to buy also oppose any rise in the discount. As usual, they speak about discounts as though it were in some way a charge on local authorities. They do not believe that authorities should be generating receipts from sales, but at the same time they argue that authorities should be generating higher receipts to combat housing needs. They must make up their minds.
  I believe that tenants have a right not only to buy their own homes but to buy at a discount which reflects their tenancy records. Tenants who buy are not scroungers. They have been paying rent regularly for 10, 20 or 30 years. They are the ones who have contributed substantially to the costs of their housing. It is only fair and equitable that the price that they pay at the end of the day should reflect this. This is why we introduced a rising scale of discount related to the length of tenancy.
  It should also be remembered—the hon. Member for Garscadden may remember this from the days when he practised law full time—that right-to-buy sales are sales of occupied dwellings where the tenants have full security of tenure. If the tenants do not buy, they are unlikely to move away. Any house sold on the open market with a sitting tenant, as the hon. Gentleman knows, commands a substantially lower price than its value with vacant possession—often by as much as one third or more. It is right that the price to the tenant should reflect this.
  A number of hon. Gentlemen said that only the better houses are being sold. There is some evidence that the majority of sales have been of semi-detached and terraced houses with gardens, and that sales have tended to be in the more popular areas. This is only what one might expect initially. Under local authority allocation policies, it tends to be the older tenants who qualify for the more desirable houses. Increasing sales are now taking place across the middle range of stock and in less popular areas. I have no doubt that sales in these estates will have a knock-on effect, breaking down barriers between one type of development and another and between one type of tenure and another, to the benefit of all.
  Mr. Dewar: If there is such evidence—I know that the policy has been monitored by the Scottish Office— will the Minister agree to have it published so that we can evaluate it?
  Mr. Ancram: I am surprised that during his tours around Scotland the hon. Gentleman has not seen what I have seen—the increasing number of council houses that are being sold in estates other than the best estates. Although I believe in statistics, I believe also in the evidence that I see. The right hon. Member for Provan made a gentle dig at me when he talked about the Secretary of State's statement some time ago that diversification improved the quality of life. I had hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would have seen in his city of Glasgow that where diversification has taken place it has improved the quality of life. I made this clear to his council in a way which has already been referred to tonight. There is evidence that an uplift occurs in an area where diversification is created by the sale of council houses and in other ways. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman should discount this.
  The right hon. Member for Provan accused me of being hostile to local authorities. I am not, but I believe that local authorities should serve people rather than dictate to them. Perhaps that is the difference between his political philosophy and mine.
  Those who allege that only the best of the housing stock is being sold, as usual go on to claim that in some way this reduces the choice available for remaining tenants or those on the waiting list. This of course is nonsense. There is little evidence that if tenants were not allowed to buy their own homes in the public sector they would move out to buy in the private sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Corrie) made the point very well, that the vast majority would carry on renting, generally for a considerable number of years, and the houses would not become available for reletting on a time scale which is relevant to current or forseeable needs.
  Mr. Martin rose——
  Mr. Ancram: I shall not give way because I do not have much time and I have much to cover.
  Few can seriously believe that the majority of tenants will pack their bags and leave tomorrow if they have not bought. The sale of council houses has no measurable effect on the prospects of those currently seeking houses or transfers.
  A number of my hon. Friends have mentioned delays in the sales of certain properties. In particular, I listened carefully to what my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) and for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) had to say. The majority of housing authorities have responded favourably to the introduction of the right to buy. I remain worried, however, about the length of time which a small number of authorities appear to be taking to process sales. I am determined that the wishes of tenants will not be needlessly frustrated. A few authorities appear to be dragging their feet over sales. It is not simply their tenants' wishes and aspirations which those councils are opposing; they are opposing the wishes of the House as well.
  I believe that we have been indulgent towards these authorities. We recognise that they might need time to adapt and work out the necessary procedures to cope with the new rights which have been given to tenants. It is now,
  234
  however, nearly three years since the right to buy was introduced. In January of this year my predecessor wrote to a number of authorities which appeared to be failing in their statutory duties. Most have subsequently given undertakings or evidence of improved performance. I continue, however, to be worried by the activities of a few authorities and I shall be watching their performance closely over the coming months. I trust, however, that even at this late stage they will seek an improvement in their records.
  Our policies seek above all to increase choice in housing. I recognise that not everyone will choose or be able to buy. We are equally concerned to extend the right of those who will continue renting to help them enjoy as many of the benefits of owner occupation as possible: in particular, the freedom to live in their own homes in the way that they wish—to improve, decorate and carry out repairs to their wishes.
  The tenants' charter has already taken considerable strides in this direction. The introduction of a right to repair will be a further major advance along this road. At the election, the strengthening of tenants' rights to repair had the support of all the major parties.
  I think it is generally agreed that housing authorities" repairs services could and should be made more efficient and cost-effective; and that many authorities at present do not provide an adequate response to tenants' requirements, which are only in the best interests of the maintenance and improvement of the stock. Delays, lack of action, bureaucracy and shoddy work are frequent causes of complaint. I am sure that we all have them in our constituencies. All of us will have examples of what I believe has led to the need to introduce this right.
  There is a case in my constituency of a man who secured the tenancy of a house in 1976 and reported at the time that there were loose floorboards. Several times every year he approached the housing department to remind it of the need for the repairs. At no time did it deny that this was necessary, but it took him until earlier this year to have the repairs effected. Two months after he brought the matter to me, those repairs were effected. It is an excellent example of where this right is needed.
  The Bill sets out the substantive features of our proposed right to repair scheme. It is the framework within which it will operate. The scheme will enable tenants to carry out repairs which would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord and they will reimbursed.
  The right hon. Member for Govan seemed to attack us for not yet having held our consultations. Until the principle has been adopted, as I hope it will be in the vote at the end of the debate, it would have been discourteous to the House to have carried out consultations. Had I done so, he would have been the first to point out to me the discourtesy.
  If the principle is approved today, we shall wish to proceed to early consultations with the local authorities and other interested bodies on the detailed operation of the scheme, which will be the subject of subsequent regulations. I hope to begin the detailed consultations within two to three weeks and if hon. Members who have asked for further information would find it helpful, I shall be making a copy of our consultation paper, describing our proposals for the scheme, available in time for their consideration of the relevant clauses in Committee. The form of that paper will allow members of the Committee to express their views because, as my right hon. Friend

  235
  said, we are sincere about wishing to consult on this scheme. We wish to get the scheme right and we wish to consult as widely as possible. I hope that we can reassure the members of the Committee that we want to get the right scheme, and that if they approve the principle we shall go ahead and produce it as a result of those consultations.
  My right hon. Friend has already given some details of the scheme, and I hope that we can deal with more of them in Committee. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mr. Hogg) asked how local authorities would determine the cost of carrying out repairs themselves so that the tenant could claim from the council. It is difficult to believe that authorities cannot calculate the cost of individual repairs; how else can an authority satisfy itself that it is getting value for money from its repair service? I envisage that in practice authorities will wish to draw up, and regularly revise, a schedule of costs for typical repairs, and the estimated cost of individual repairs could be determined by reference to that schedule as needed.
  The hon. Members for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) asked whether Government funds would be made available to housing authorities for repairs. The repairs that I see arising out of this scheme are those that would otherwise be the responsibility of the landlord, and there would be no repairs that are not at present the landlord's responsibility. If they are being carried out properly at present, there should be no extra expense as a result of the scheme.
  The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North asked about repairs to multi-storey flats and about structural faults. I accept at this stage, although it must be a matter for consideration in consultation, that it will probably be necessary to exclude such major structural repairs. It will probably also be necessary to exclude repairs that are common to several dwellings. The hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) asked about my discussions with the Federation of Housing Associations. The federation has made several useful suggestions about the right of repair, and I shall take them into account. I have also given an undertaking that the federation will be included in the forthcoming consultations.
  One of the lessons and features of the general election was the continuous stream of evidence that traditional attitudes to housing in Scotland are changing. People rightly want more freedom and more choice in their housing. Tenants are no longer prepared to accept the unnecessary restrictions or the pettifogging bureaucracy that has become synonymous with too many council estates in Scotland. They look to their rights. They want the right to buy, not necessarily for today, not even sometimes for tomorrow, but for the future occasion when they might wish to make the transfer from tenant to owner. We have given them that right, and in the Bill we extend it and confirm it.
  Those people also wish to know that the years of paying rent are not wasted years, but that if they eventually decide to buy, those hard-earned rent payments and the care and love that they have given to their home will be to their credit. The Bill again extends and confirms that. They also wish to know that if they exercise their right to remain as tenants, they will have a basic say in the houses which are their homes, and that they will not be frustrated by
  236
  restrictions which prevent their enjoyment, or delays in repairs and maintenance which can only undermine their pleasure in the home that is their base. They wish to know that those rights will not be taken away from them. They have heard nothing from the right hon. Member for Govan to suggest that that will not be so, but I fear that that is his loss and not theirs, because the people of Scotland will reject him as they rejected him before because he is not prepared to listen to what they want. I ask my hon. Friends to give the Bill a resounding Second Reading.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 127.

  Division No. 47]

  [10.00 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Alexander, Richard

  Dover, Denshore

  Alton, David

  Dunn, Robert

  Amess, David

  Eggar, Tim

  Ancram, Michael

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Arnold, Tom

  Evennett, David

  Ashby, David

  Eyre, Reginald

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Fallon, Michael

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Favell, Anthony

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Forman, Nigel

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Baldry, Anthony

  Fox, Marcus

  Batiste, Spencer

  Franks, Cecil

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Beith, A. J.

  Galley, Roy

  Bellingham, Henry

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

  Greenway, Harry

  Benyon, William

  Grist, Ian

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Harvey, Robert

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Bottomley, Peter

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

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

  Hawksley, Warren

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hayes, J.

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hayward, Robert

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hickmet, Richard

  Bright, Graham

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brinton, Tim

  Hirst, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

  Browne, John

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Holt, Richard

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Howard, Michael

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Howells, Geraint

  Budgen, Nick

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Butcher, John

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Butterfill, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Jessel, Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Carttiss, Michael

  Johnston, Russell

  Cartwright, John

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Kennedy, Charles

  Chope, Christopher

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Churchill, W. S.

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

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

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Cope, John

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Corrie, John

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Couchman, James

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Crouch, David

  Lightbown, David

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Dicks, T.

  Lord, Michael

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Nicholas

  237

  McCrea, Rev William

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  MacGregor, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Sims, Roger

  Maclean, David John.

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Major, John

  Speed, Keith

  Malins, Humfrey

  Speller, Tony

  Malone, Gerald

  Spencer, D.

  Maples, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Marland, Paul

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Marlow, Antony

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mather, Carol

  Stern, Michael

  Maude, Francis

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Mellor, David

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Merchant, Piers

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Sumberg, David

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Moate, Roger

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Needham, Richard

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Neubert, Michael

  Thurnham, Peter

  Newton, Tony

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Norris, Steven

  Tracey, Richard

  Onslow, Cranley

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Oppenheim, Philip

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Ottaway, Richard

  Viggers, Peter

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Wainwright, R.

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Parris, Matthew

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Walden, George

  Penhaligon, David

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Pollock, Alexander

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Powley, John

  Wallace, James

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Ward, John

  Price, Sir David

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Watson, John

  Raffan, Keith

  Watts, John

  Rathbone, Tim

  Wheeler, John

  Renton, Tim

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Wilkinson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wood, Timothy

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Woodcock, Michael

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Rost, Peter

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Rowe, Andrew

  Ryder, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Mr. Archie Hamilton and Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Ashton, Joe

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Blair, Anthony

  238

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lambie, David

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Leighton, Ronald

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

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Loyden, Edward

  Clarke, Thomas

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Clay, Robert

  McGuire, Michael

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Cohen, Harry

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Coleman, Donald

  McTaggart, Robert

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Madden, Max

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Martin, Michael

  Cowans, Harry

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Craigen, J. M.

  Maxton, John

  Crowther, Stan

  Michie, William

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

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

  Nellist, David

  Deakins, Eric

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Dewar, Donald

  O'Neill, Martin

  Dixon, Donald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dobson, Frank

  Parry, Robert

  Dormand, Jack

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Douglas, Dick

  Pike, Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Prescott, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Redmond, M.

  Eadie, Alex

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Eastham, Ken

  Robertson, George

  Edwards, R. (W'hampt'n SE)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Fatchett, Derek

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Fisher, Mark

  Skinner, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

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

  Foster, Derek

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

  Foulkes, George

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Strang, Gavin

  Garrett, W. E.

  Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

  Gourlay, Harry

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Tinn, James

  Hardy, Peter

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Wareing, Robert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Welsh, Michael

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  White, James

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Home Robertson, John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Winnick, David

  Hughes, Mark (Durham)

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Mr. Norman Hogg and Mr. Hugh McCartney.

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).
  Mr. Speaker: I must inform the House that I have not selected the instruction in the name of the leader of the Liberal party.

  Gas
  10.11 pm
  Mr. John Smith: I beg to move
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Gas Corporation (Transfer of Shares of Subsidiaries) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 967), dated 5th July 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
  Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to take at the same time the following motions:
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Gas Act 1972 (Modifications) Order 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 968), dated 5th July 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th July, be annulled.
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the British Gas Corporation (Further Disposal of Offshore Interests) Directions 1983 (S.I., 1983, No. 1096), dated 26th July 1983, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th July, be annulled.
  Mr. Smith: The orders which the Opposition pray against are directions and a further step in the process of forcing the British Gas Corporation to sell off all its oil interests and some of its gas interests on the continental shelf.
  The British Gas Corporation has a minority but substantial interest in several fields in the North sea— Beryl A, Beryl B, Hutton, North West Hutton, Montrose and Fulmar. For years the envious eyes of the Tory asset strippers have been fixed upon them.
  The Opposition resolutely oppose the entire privatisation process, both in principle and in practice, and therefore we oppose the orders. We must consider what is involved. It is axiomatic that every company which is searching for hydrocarbons on our continental shelf often finds oil and gas together. The British Gas Corporation, in the course of its very successful development of our gas resources, has become involved in oil discoveries in the fields which I have mentioned. That has been done in the same way as private sector oil companies find gas. Acting within statutory powers conferred by the Conservative Government of 1972, the British Gas Corporation has developed its oil interest commercially. Until now, successive Governments have viewed such action with favour and encouragement. Both the corporation's onshore interests and its offshore interest at Wytch Farm in Dorset have been developed successfully. The corporation's geologists and production engineers have a success story to report, but what is their reward for their commercial inventiveness and ingenuity in developing these important new resources for the United Kingdom and the taxpayers whom they serve?
  At one time it was thought to be the responsibility of Ministers in the Department of Energy and other Departments to develop and encourage the public sector industries which were in their sphere of responsibility. However, the reward of the British Gas Corporation for its success and endeavour was to be told that it must disgorge those assets, sack the staff who were responsible for the exploitation and development, and hand over the proceeds of its commercial flair and success to the Treasury.
  Again, the Tory attitude to public enterprise is simple: if the public enterprise is making a loss it is to be derided; if it is making a profit it has to be sold off. This case, involving North Sea oil interests, has even worse features.
  240
  It is clear, as a result of the forced sale of those oil interests in the North sea, that the British Gas Corporation will lose income of £100 million each year. Over the next three years, that is £300 million of which the British Gas Corporation will be deprived. That will have an immediate and direct effect on the corporation's finances, and unless the Government compensate it in some way by altering its financial targets or in some other way moderating the obligations placed upon it, the cost of this £100 million per year will fall directly on the gas consumer. That will be a further burden which this Government have put on the gas consumer.
  We already have the gas levy, under which large sums of money are raised—a direct tax on gas users in this country. This tax is raised in a skilful political way, without anyone being aware that it is a tax, and in respect of which the odium is deposited at the doorstep of the publicly owned industry. That satisfies many of the Government's purposes. That £100 million a year of which the British Gas Corporation is deprived will have to be made up by the gas consumers — the domestic or industrial users—who will have to find an extra £100 million every year as a result of the Government's proposals. This Government have a unique talent for expropriation without compensation—and that is what is involved in robbing the British Gas Corporation's assets in the way proposed.
  Secondly, these proposals are positively harmful to the British Gas Corporation. Not only is it losing valuable assets of about £500 million in the asset-stripping that is involved here, but it will also be deprived of the skills, knowledge and expertise that have been built up by its staff over the years in the development of these fields. In the North sea, knowledge is valuable, and the knowledge of skilled personnel is particularly valuable. Basically, the same skills are used in the exploitation of oil reserves as of gas reserves. The corporation will have to get rid of some of the staff who have been involved in that exploitation, because the asset has been taken away.
  Of course, it is no incentive to the geologists, engineers and managers of the British Gas Corporation to know that whenever they discover oil in the course of their search and exploitation of gas, they will eventually be deprived of it, because the Government make this arbitrary line that the corporation is never to be allowed to develop any ancillary oil interests. We should remember that not an extra barrel of oil will be recovered as a result of these proposals.
  Thirdly, apparently not just oil interests will be included in these instruments. It is clear that gas also will be excluded, and that the British Gas Corporation will lose any gas that it discovers in the fields that I mentioned. Methane is excluded from the participation arrangements, but it is not excluded from the transfer of ownership. I understand that the corporation sought the minor concession that it be allowed to keep any gas there but that the Secretary of State refused.
  This is a particularly bad case of the nation selling off its seed corn. It is profligate financing to attempt to hold down the public sector borrowing requirement by selling capital assets on the scale indulged in by the Government, and they are selling them so as to raise about £500 million. It is a classic case of selling the silver to pay the tradesmen's bills.
  I ask the House to consider whether the Secretary of State for Energy—who I am told had a talent, in his previous life before entering the House, for making money

  241
  —would deal with his own assets in the way in which he proposes to deal with public assets in this case. Would he contemplate, should he be fortunate enough to have the oil interest holding which the British Gas Corporation has in the North Sea, selling it at this time? Of course he would not. He would consider it more prudent to preserve the investment in these fields and derive the substantial income of £100 million a year which would come his way.
  If it is not the way in which Conservative Members would behave with their own assets, why on earth do they propose that the assets of the British people should be dealt with in this way by those who are alleged to be their trustees?
  We hear a great deal from the Conservative party about the taxpayer. I urge British taxpayers to remind themselves that in this case they are being deprived of their assets; the British citizen, both as taxpayer and gas consumer, will foot the bill for the Government's ideological prejudices.
  Those are the main principles on which we oppose this privatisation exercise. One would have thought that a particularly valuable asset such as we are discussing should be retained for the nation. However, certain questions must be asked about the techniques which the Government are adopting in this disreputable manoeuvre.
  About a year ago we debated a prayer moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) against the initial directions which were used in this process. At that time the Government were involved in a somewhat complicated procedure. They proposed that the British Gas Corporation should set up no less than six subsidiary companies, companies A to F, which were to hold the interests which existed on behalf of the British Gas Corporation in each of the fields involved, and one of which was to hold the future exploration rights of the corporation.
  I understand that only two of those companies were set up and that four remained as it were, prospective companies or companies to which no assets were ever transferred. It was never clearly explained at the time why it was necessary for the Government to go through such an elaborate manoeuvre to dispose of the interests. Why were only two companies formed and not the original six which Parliament was told a year ago were necessary?
  It is important to know the answer, because all this manoeuvring arises from a legal problem which we believe the Government have in selling off the minority interests in the oilfields. The problem arises because it is common for the various companies involved — nearly always more than one and usually quite a number — in any oilfield to have operating and contractual agreements among themselves. It is common practice in those agreements—and we believe it to be the case in the fields to which we are referring — that a minority interest cannot be sold without permission or agreement, with some pre-emption rights being given to the others with interests in the fields.
  This is a problem which the Government face because in most fields the majority interest is held by American companies such as Amerada. Indeed, I understand that in all the four fields there are substantial American interests. If the Government were to follow the normal practice and say, "We will instruct the British Gas Corporation to sell off its interest in each of these fields", the pre-emption rights would come into effect and the American majority
  242
  holders would be able to have the first shot at buying the minority interests which the British Gas Corporation holds.
  Those in the Conservative party with an eye to the presentation of the policy considered that that did not look too handsome. They did not wish it to be seen that a British public corporation was being forced to sell off its interests to a foreign multinational oil company or gas corporation. They had to find a way to escape from the obligations in which the gas corporation had become involved through its partnership agreements. That is why we have the elaborate arrangement that we are discussing.
  A different formulation was proposed to subsidiaries for future exploration funds. One of the orders that we are considering provides that two subsidiary companies have to be set up. I ask the Secretary of State directly— I hope that he will answer my question directly — to explain the complications that face the gas corporation. What are the contractual obligations that the corporation and the council entered into when they were operating in the relevant fields? Are they a factor in the Government having seen fit to embark on these complicated manoeuvres? Why is there not a straight-forward selling off if there is no difficulty of the sort that I have described? I think that the right hon. Gentleman owes the House a frank explanation.
  One of the orders transfers ownership from the gas corporation to the Secretary of State and to a nominee of his. I refer to Statutory Instrument 1983 No. 967. A direct change of ownership is involved at that stage. Until that point the gas corporation is merely setting up subsidiaries and changing the rights of ownership between the subsidiaries. That is all carried out under the gas corporation's umbrella. There must be a change of ownership from the corporation to the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State for Industry is clearly a different legal entity from the corporation.
  Is the corporation not in breach of the agreements that it entered into, or has it told the majority holders that they had better not complain? Did it say, "Perhaps you have rights, but if you exercise them you will not get any licences and future exploration rights in the North Sea"? Did it advise them that they would be better to keep quiet and not exercise whatever rights they may have? I hope that the Secretary of State will explain frankly whether the transfer of ownership was implied in the very instruments that the House is now discussing. Do they or do they not have the effect that I am suggesting? Are the Government responsible for causing the corporation to be in breach of its obligations? If the right hon. Gentleman will deal with that in detail, I am sure that we will be greatly obliged. In Statutory Instrument, 1983, No. 1096 the Government are making sure that the future discoveries of the corporation will also be sold off. There will be the package of what they already know they have and discoveries in certain fields that are described in the statutory instrument. I think that this is an attempt to make it a more attractive package for the private sector market.
  It appears that under the instruments the Gas Corporation will be given the right to 51 per cent. of the oil that is discovered. Presumably this is intended eventually to go to BNOC. However, as I read the relevant instrument it appears that it will go to the Gas Corporation. Is it the Secretary of State's intention to direct the gas corporation to pass it on to BNOC? If that is so, why is it not set out in the statutory instrument? Is that not done

  243
  because it would cause other legal difficulties in the general area to which I have referred? If not, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman can give us a simple explanation.
  Those who read the financial press carefully will read a great deal about a mysterious company called Enterprise Oil, which is described as the company which has been set up to take over the oil-producing interests of British Gas. More information is given today in the Financial Times. The information has not been given to the House. It appears regularly in the press but it is never given to the House, despite an undertaking given by a Minister in a debate a year ago that the House would be fully informed by the Government of the method chosen for this operation.
  Apparently, this mysterious company has two directors — Mr. Peter Elwes who is a director of Kleinwort, Benson and Mr. Julian West who is on secondment from the Department of Energy, in which he is an assistant secretary. The report continues:
  "The department refused to comment last night on the identity of the company's prospective chairman.
  Enterprise Oil has eight full-time staff temporarily housed in four rooms at Kleinwort, Benson's Fenchurch street offices in the City."
  None of that information has ever been given to the House. No doubt the Secretary of State will make up for that deficiency tonight.
  Who set up Enterprise Oil? What are its purposes? What are its expenses? Who is paying the salaries of Mr. Elwes and Mr. West? Is it the taxpayer? Under what Vote are they being paid by the Government or the taxpayer? What is the cost of divesting the British Gas Corporation of the company's functions?
  I understand that the company has gone to the lengths of extracting all of the Gas Corporation's relevant files and carting them round to the offices of the mysterious Mr. Elwes and Mr. West. All the British Gas Corporation's files and information have been quietly spirited along the back streets into the City and handed over to the men who represent Enterprise Oil. Is the Secretary of State the spirit behind Enterprise Oil? If so, how much is he charging us, the taxpayers, for running the operation?
  We know that the principal beneficiaries of most privatisation enterprises are in the City. They buy the concern and get the expenses of the sale. They do very well out of those expenses. It is time that the Secretary of State informed us of the cost to the British taxpayer of the sale. That is a legitimate consideration to take into account when assessing whether it is desirable that these matters be proceeded with. I should like the Secretary of State to give some direct and detailed information about the costs involved and much fuller information about Enterprise Oil than has previously been given to Parliament or the public.
  If, in future, the British Gas Corporation discovers oil, shall we go through this exercise again? Will we have to set up subsidiary companies to ensure that it is never allowed to exploit oil? Are we to look forward to a succession of these orders? It is quite possible for the British Gas Corporation to be allocated a field, set out to search for gas and find a substantial amount of oil. If, as I hope, licences are issued to the Gas Corporation in future and it finds oil, presumably we will have to go through this pantomime again to ensure that it is denied the benefits of
  244
  its commercial success. Will more orders relating to exploration by the gas corporation have to be laid before the House?
  I hope that the Secretary of State will go into substantial detail about what safeguards will apply in relation to the buyers of any interests. We have the curious arrangement with Britoil—the so-called golden share—which gave the Government rights in the disposition. Are there to be any restrictions on who buys the substantial interests? They amount to £500 million in the North sea. The North sea is not a normal commercial operation. It is Britain's most important strategic asset. Control of its ownership is vital to Britain. Are foreign interests to be allowed to buy? If not, what protection will there be to stop foreign interests controlling an important sector of the North sea? If the Government are proposing any safeguards, this is the time for the Secretary of State to tell us about them.
  This is a sorry tale. The taxpayer will lose—£500 million-worth of assets are to be taken away. The British Gas Corporation must lose — its assets are being expropriated without a halfpenny of compensation. The gas consumer will lose, because £100 million that currently comes into the finances of the corporation will no longer be available. Presumably that will have to be made up by increases in charges to both domestic and industrial users.
  The public interest generally will lose because there will be less public control over an important sector of our North sea oil interests. The whole matter defies the logic of energy development. Wherever there is oil, there is usually gas. As the private sector freely deals in both, why should our most important public sector gas company be denied the rights that even the smallest private sector operator is given by common consent in the world's oil and gas provinces?
  There is an ideological obsession in the Conservative party that, whenever public enterprise is successful, it must be robbed of the benefits of its success. Even if it defies energy and commercial logic, that ideological obsession must be pursued.
  It is sometimes said that the Secretary of State for Energy represents the moderate wing of the Conservative party—that he is the wet in waiting. As a result of his interventions, minor modifications have been carefully leaked by his supporters to the press. After all, instead of forcing the BGC to give up 24 blocks, he let it keep four, so that only 20 will now be sold off. Is not that the mark of a moderate? Did he not also tell the BGC that it should not worry too much, because, according to The Observer, it will in future be allowed to swap its oil interests for gas interests? Was it not he who leaked to the press the information that in future it might be allowed to keep the money from some of the sales that it was forced to make?
  In effect that is saying, "I admit I am robbing you now, but we might not always do so if you are nice to me and drop some of your opposition to some of the proposals." The Secretary of State should be ashamed of the way in which he inherited the proposals fashioned by his predecessor, who unfortunately is now in a more damaging position in the Government. He should be ashamed of the way in which he is treating public enterprise, the way in which the taxpayer is being robbed and the public interest diminished. For all these reasons, we intend to vote against the orders.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I remind the House that we are also discussing the two other motions and that the debate must end at 11.30 pm.
  10.38 pm
  The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Peter Walker): I welcome the opportunity provided by this debate and thank the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) for his understanding of my "wet" position. I am not sure about his position in the Labour party; whether someone on the moderate wing of that party is called a "dry" and those on the Left wing are called "wets". I know that in the summer months the right hon. and learned Gentlemen took an active part in a certain campaign within his party and failed. When I last took part in a leadership campaign in my party I failed and was sacked from the Shadow Cabinet within 24 hours.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State would have liked to attend the debate, as this is a sphere over which he has responsibilities, but I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will deeply regret the news that a dreadful explosion in a hotel in his constituency has killed quite a number of people, and understandably he has rushed there this evening. He asked me to convey his apologies to the House for his absence.
  We are tonight debating the sequence of events in August 1982 when the BGC was directed to prepare a scheme so that six North sea oilfields in which it had an interest could be transferred from the public to the private sector. I recognise that the Labour party is opposed to any such move. When we believe that it is better, if possible for a commercial activity to take place in the private sector, it is described as an ideological, extreme belief, as is the belief of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it is much better that these events should be controlled by the public sector. I admire a great deal of the activity of and work done by the nationalised industries, and of those working in them, and I have had Cabinet responsibility for every nationalised industry except the Post Office, but I do not think that it is an ideal system on which to base commercial operations. Whether there is a Conservative or a Labour Government, one of the problems is the substantial interference of the politician and the civil servant.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman has had responsibilities in many Departments and been involved in making things happen in industry and fixing investment programmes for industry. I mean no disrespect, because the same argument applies to myself, but he has far less knowledge than those involved in the industries. There are clearly activities of an essentially commercial operation that should go into the private sector. It is good that they should do so, and I welcome the opportunity of seeing that that takes place in this industry.
  I listened with fascination to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's version of events, with strange companies and organisations emerging, but the process has been simple. The advice given to the Gas Corporation on the best way to handle the scheme was to transfer the assets into a company called British Gas North Sea Oil Holdings Ltd. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why there were not six companies, but two. This was because the British Gas Corporation agree that the need was to transfer these assets into two companies to see that a sensible transfer took place, with no problems over participation and pre-emption rights. The participation
  246
  problems were dealt with by transferring the participation arrangements into a company called British Gas (P. A.D.) Ltd. Two of these instruments provide for these two companies, into which the British Gas Corporation transferred the assets to be transferred to my control, and that transfer took place on 1 September.
  As for the so-called "new" company of Enterprise Oil, it is not a new company. On 1 September, when this company was transferred into the ownership of the Department, the name British Gas North Sea Oil Holdings Ltd., was changed to Enterprise Oil. It is the same company that has existed throughout and to which the Gas Corporation transferred its assets. In doing this I transferred the ownership of the other company concerned, British Gas (P.A.D.) Ltd., to BNOC. BNOC thus owns the company and has the 51 per cent. participation rights firmly in its hands. This has been done in a smooth, sensible, well-thought-out way, through a scheme prepared by the British Gas Corporation.
  I renamed the company Enterprise Oil for the purpose of preparing it to be passed to the private sector. The Government have decided that the disposal will proceed by means of a stock market flotation of all of the ordinary share capital of the company. It will be an actively managed exploration and production company, and this will have a number of important advantages.
  Mr. Allan Rogers: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how he can control the position of a company that is to be publicly floated?
  Mr. Walker: I did not say that I would do that. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is not listening. I said that the company would be floated, and I added that this would have a number of advantages. It will create a new, vigorous British oil company that can be active not only in our own seas, but overseas, as new opportunities occur. It will result in the maximum participation of members of the public, employees of the company and others taking an interest and an active stake in this company. The management consists, not of a small group, but of about 16 people, who are managing the company efficiently and effectively. The total staff of the company will be about 30 or 40 by the time floatation takes place.
  It is desirable to have a chairman of considerable experience of the North sea and the oil industry. I am pleased to tell the House that Mr. William Bell has agreed to accept the chairmanship of the company. He has been a senior director of Shell International. He was previously managing director of Shell Expro, and he was responsible for all the major Shell developments in the northern part of the North sea. We are lucky to find a person of such experience and high reputation in the oil industry willing to take on the chairmanship.
  Mr. Gordon Wilson: The Minister has expounded the decision of the Department of Energy over the appointment of the chairman. In view of the involvement of the company in the Scottish sector of the North sea, will the registered office and head office be established in Scotland, as was the case with Britoil?
  Mr. Walker: The location of the head office and the activities of the company will be decisions for the board of directors.
  The company is the original company registered by the British Gas Corporation—[Interruption.] It is exactly

  247
  the same company. Some staff have been seconded from British Gas. The lovely dream idea that it is a new company with all new people is wrong. It is the same company.
  The company is preparing itself—[Interruption.]
  Mr. John Smith rose——
  Mr. Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, having displayed such total ignorance and misunderstanding of the position, should not become ill-tempered because of the exposure of his ignorance.
  It is our objective to ensure that the company will operate freely. The right hon. and learned Gentleman emphasised the importance of ensuring that the company is not taken over by overseas interests. We shall consider, in the articles of association, ways to ensure that in the early years of the company it is not purchased from overseas, if the Government consider that that is the correct approach.
  The safeguards built into the Britoil procedure will be considered for this floatation——
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: To ensure that objective, do the Government intend to have a shareholding in the company?
  Mr. Walker: We must see the manner in which the objective is achieved. It might be achieved by some form of token share. Basically, the whole of the share capital will be floated.
  The Government will endeavour to ensure that as the firm builds up its employees will have opportunities for participation in the equity. We shall study stock option schemes for the employees coming into the company. We shall ensure that the flotation is carried out in such a way that small investors have opportunities for ownership. We want the flotation to be carried out as soon as possible, but it will depend on the judgment of when the company is ready and after taking into account the market conditions at the time.
  Mr. John Smith: Will the Secretary of State please answer two questions? First, did the British Gas Corporation have contractual obligations to its other partners in these fields about how it was to dispose of any of its interests? If so, what were they and how have they been circumvented? Secondly, what is the cost of selling this interest?
  Mr. Walker: All the British Gas Corporation's contractual obligations were transferred to Enterprise Oil. All the contractual obligations that existed with the British Gas Corporation exist now with Enterprise Oil. All the contractual obligations of pre-emption rights were transferred to this company. It is a straight transfer of the contractual position of the oilfields.
  There is no way in which the cost of flotation can be estimated. It depends upon the nature, timing and the manner in which it is done. When it is done I am sure that the matter will become public knowledge.
  Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State says that the contractual obligations follow with the transfer of ownership to the subsidiaries, but he knows that under this order they have been transferred to him. That is moving ownership out of the British Gas Corporation to him, and
  248
  ownership will then be passed to others. Is that not a breach of some of the contractual pre-emption obligations in the oilfield agreements?
  Secondly, can he not give us a glimmer of the cost of privatisation? Is it fair to come to Parliament to recommend something without even being able to tell Parliament the cost of the operation?
  Mr. Walker: On the first point, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had listened carefully he would know that the contractual rights were transferred to this company. The company was transferred to me. The company has remained in its entity, with all its contractual rights, and there has been a change of name. The contractual rights are still with that company. It is a simple operation which eradicates, doubtless to the distress of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, any problems of participation and the rights of other partners in these oilfields. Those matters have been looked after in the national interest. It is a scheme made by the British Gas Corporation and one of which no criticism can possibly be made.
  It is absurd to suggest that someone should give the cost of a flotation before the price and the timing are fixed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made a guess at what he considers the company is worth, and he can make a similar guess about when the offer will take place.
  We are certain that the nation will receive a proper market value for these assets. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech implied that the assets were being given away and that the Treasury or the public were to get nothing for them—that it was just a loss to the British Gas Corporation. We know that the full market value will be paid.
  Mr. John Carlisle: Has my right hon. Friend received any private indication of the value of the company, and has he had any private bids for the company?
  Mr. Walker: No. There will be other changes in this company which will, of course, affect its valuation. An important part of the valuation will be the quality of the management that takes over the company, as Opposition Members will witness.
  The third statutory instrument requires the British Gas Corporation to prepare plans to transfer the eight offshore licences which it enjoys in oil prospecting territory. The directions follow the same basic structure as those covering the first disposal exercise. The main requirement is for the corporation to draw up a scheme to transfer its interest in the licences to a new BGC subsidiary. After the scheme has been implemented, I envisage transferring the new company to my control by means of an order under section 11(5) of the Oil and Gas (Enterprise) Act 1982.
  My intention is that the new company should then be combined with Enterprise Oil before the flotation. It will create a more attractive spread of interests and add to Enterprise Oil's growth prospects and value.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State said that when the shares are floated he will consider several matters, such as small investors, employees and the golden share. He said that they will become matters of public knowledge. Will they be matters for debate in the House before the share issue is floated?
  Mr. Walker: I shall ensure that decisions about the share issue that affect my Department are made known to

  249
  the House before the flotation. Tonight I am telling the House that it will be a 100 per cent. disposal of shares and that the terms of the flotation will be prepared by the company.
  In relation to the exploration acreage, the direction calls for an independent petroleum consultant's report, and that is being carried out by Energy Resource Consultants, the firm chosen by the corporation. BNOC will participate fully in the transfer, as it did in the previous one. Legislation may be necessary during this disposal to ensure that the British Gas Corporation does not suffer from any tax charge as a result of the disposal.
  I express my gratitude to the Gas Corporation for the way in which it has co-operated in the transfer and assisted in ensuring that the new company gets under way.
  Mr. John Smith: I asked the Secretary of State specifically about the £100 million of income which the Gas Corporation will lose as a result of the transfer. Will a change be made in its financial targets, or will it receive no compensation?
  Mr. Walker: It will be taken fully into consideration when deciding future financial targets of the Gas Corporation. That is another example of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's nonsense arguments. He tries to give the impression that the corporation will lose £100 million a year. If it were receiving £100 million a year from oil revenues, that would affect the financial targets set by any Government, Labour or Conservative, for the corporation. To suggest that moving these assets from the corporation to private commercial activity and disposing of them for a substantial capital sum that will go to the Treasury will have an adverse effect on the gas industry is nonsense, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows it.
  I am pleased to say that the difference between the two sides of the House is that the Opposition, despite all their difficulties, their political interference and their Civil Service interference, remain basically in favour of nationalisation. I hope that they continue to favour nationalisation and enter the next general election in favour of nationalisation, but I am delighted to say that the Government will not.
  10.58 pm
  Mr. James Wallace: From the closing remarks of the Secretary of State, and from the speech of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), it is clear that the House has again become the forum for another bout in the doctrinaire battle between the two major parties that has continued for far too long. The Government propose privatisation, and almost by a reflex Pavlovian reaction the Opposition feel obliged to resist it. As this move by the Government was motivated especially by dogma and doctrine, I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will not support the Government this evening. As this deal is motivated by ideology, it is not the best deal for the British nation.
  We heard briefly some of the proposals for the flotation of the company. I have no doubt that, having had their fingers burnt in some past transactions, officials at the Department of Energy will be much more careful in the marketing of this asset. We have already heard that they have tarted it up with the title Enterprise Oil. No doubt much will happen between now and the day when the share issue comes to the market, but, with financial columnists
  250
  suggesting that the oil market is depressed and fearing that it will slide down next spring, nothing the Secretary of State said tonight reassures us that the nation will reap full value for its assets.
  The Secretary of State has been light on the detail of the marketing of the shares. We have not been reassured but have been given pious expressions of intention that it will include some means of employee participation, that it will include some means whereby the small investor is given an incentive to participate. Without such reassurance, we find the package unacceptable.
  We also believe that this privatisation of national assets smacks of financial irresponsibility. Had it been presented to us as an overall package in which one national asset was being exchanged for another, if we could have had some reassurance that the funds which will accrue to the Treasury from the sale of these assets will be used for investment in the economy 's infrastructure or to develop another worthwhile national asset — for example, to underwrite a share in the gas gathering in the northern and middle sectors of the North sea, which would not only help to ensure our future energy and gas supplies but would have a significant impact on employment in steel and related service industries — my right hon. and hon. Friends might have been more warmly disposed towards it.
  But that is not what is being offered. We are told that we must sell off a national asset, but we have not been assured that the money will be used for investment in another national asset. We can only suspect that it will be used further to reduce the public sector borrowing requirement. That is not sound financial management. It is hardly the household economics that the Prime Minister preaches to us. I do not think that the Prime Minister's Victorian forebears would have approved of selling a valuable part of the landed estate to pay the weekly wine bill. Had they done so, they would have been well on the way to financial ruin.
  Apart from the financial aspects, we believe that the move will have a detrimental effect, and possibly a continuing one, on the British Gas Corporation. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has expounded on this point at considerable length, and I wholeheartedly agree with many of his sentiments. It should not be forgotten that in the mid 1960s, when the exploration of gas in the North sea was hardly a fashionable activity, the British Gas Council, as it then was, took the risk initiative of seeking gas resources in the North sea. In the course of exploration, it found oil. That is hardly surprising as it is almost impossible to prospect for gas without finding oil but in the development of these oil resources it has acted prudently and has shown sound commercial management. Indeed, in the recent survey and efficiency audit of the British Gas Corporation undertaken by Deloitte, a copy of which is in the Library, it was found that as an exploration company, the British Gas Corporation had met its objectives and had been successful in achieving licences in its exploration track record and ownership of reserves and in the return on capital employed. It found that the exploration department had a highly motivated and effective team which was essential for successful oil or gas exploration activity. Despite that sound financial management and enthusiasm, it seems to have got little in return from the Government but a kick

  251
  in the teeth. It is little wonder that in some British Gas Corporation circles it is thought that Enterprise Oil should be "Expropriation Oil".
  One suspects that the instruction given by the previous Secretary of State to confine future licence applications to areas expected to yield gas rather than oil will continue to have a demoralising effect on the British Gas Corporation. Until now the BGC has had a widespread interest in our offshore activities. One can only suspect that if the geologists and teams are confined to the very narrow and small area in the southern part of the North sea, or around Morecambe bay, they will not find that continuing to work for the BGC restores the morale that the Government have done so much to dash.
  I do not know whether the information was leaked to the press, but it is said that as a future deal the BGC may be allowed to swap some of its oil discoveries for gas interests, or to keep the revenues from its gas sales. That would be welcome. It would show a degree of flexibility that was not forthcoming from the Secretary of State's predecessor.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East wondered whether the Secretary of State was wet or dry. I rather thought that that term was old hat. During the Tory party conference, Sir Robin Day told us that the "in" words nowadays were "consolidators" and "radicals". If the Secretary of State shows some flexibility, and allows the BGC to apply for licences outwith the restricted area of his predecessor and to do swaps, he may be seen to be starting a third group in the Cabinet—the "unravellers". However, as things go, he has not unravelled enough, and we shall certainly not support the Government tonight.
  11.6 pm
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: I listened with some care to the right hon. Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith). Apparently, he has forgotten the speech that he made in the House in 1975. Under section 13 of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act, the North Sea assets of the National Coal Board were sold without compensation. Today, the right hon. and learned Member has argued that there is a tax on the consumer, but was there not a tax on the coal consumer? Under that section the Government offered no compensation for the assets. Surely that is disgraceful.
  Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a transfer within the public sector is quite different from a transfer from the public to the private sector. While he is busy considering that point, will he also tell me why he complained about that at the time if it is all right now?
  Mr. Skeet: I complained about it at the time, because, on that occasion, the consumer came out very badly, just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman alleges that the consumer is now coming out badly. The BGC has been selling expensively, and deriving its raw material from the continental shelf at 6p per therm, or on average 10p per therm. Indeed, the price has probably gone up to 15p per therm. If it is making a large profit, it can afford to lower its prices.
  The Labour Government sold the NCB's assets in 1975, disposed of the shares in BP in 1977 and acquired the shares of the Burmah Oil Company for virtually basic prices in 1976. Labour Members are concerned about the
  252
  elaborate procedure laid down in the statutory instrument of August 1982, but they themselves had no procedure at all at the time. That disposes of all the arguments which have been advanced. All that remains is a sword without a blade or a handle.
  I congratulate the Secretary of State on the flotation. The five commercial oilfields and the eight exploration licences which cover 20 blocks will be a considerable asset to the company. How will my right hon. Friend evaluate for sale the amount of potentially unexplored acreage? He has said that he wishes to interest the small purchaser of assets. If he disposes of the assets next year, I hope that he will consider the market conditions. Rowe and Pitman say in their October 1983 Oil Monthly publication:
  "Our assessment is that OPEC production will drift down over the fourth quarter to average 18 mb/d. This will probably lead to a realisation of overstocking in January, when prices will fall abruptly, taking OPEC production down with it."
  Further down the page, they say that a price-cutting war could bring the price down to $20 per barrel. I do not accept that view, but a flotation may be difficult at this time. Although I congratulate the Secretary of State on his actions, he may face difficulties in the market.
  When my right hon. Friend is evaluating the assets, what does he consider will be the market price of crude oil per barrel? The public would be interested to know the answer. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will answer that question by letter. Wood Mackenzie's estimate of the assets in 1981 was £425 million, but that assumed an oil price of $35 per barrel, which has since fallen to $30. Phillips and Drew, in the same year, valued the assets at £455 million. Before we can work out the puzzle, we must know what the Secretary of State estimates will be the prevailing price of oil.
  The exchange rate is also a crucial factor in the evaluation. Of importance is the likely discount on asset value, and the potential value of the undrilled areas. I appreciate that those questions cannot be answered immediately. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the market extremely carefully before he arranges the flotation.
  A further asset disposal is Wytch Farm. The relevant provisions are section 7(2) of the Gas Act 1972 and Statutory Instrument 1981 No. 1459 which was to come into operation on 13 October 1981. That was three years ago. What has happened to that? Is the British Gas Corporation still sitting on it and not disposing of the property, or shall we be told that that asset is to be realised soon?
  I shall be much obliged if my right hon. Friend will answer the questions that I have put to him.
  The point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East has been shot to smithereens and he is left with no case and he had to embellish his argument to fill in the time. The Liberals must realise that practical administration and commercialism are far more satisfactory ways of running companies than any ideology which emanates from their argument.
  11.14 pm
  Mr. Allan Rogers: The last remarks of the hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) encapsulated the ideological way in which the Government are proceeding with privatisation. It is sad to see such a valuable national asset being given away.
  The petroleum and oil industry is a high risk industry in which in normal market conditions people who put up

  253
  risk capital often lose their money. In this case, the public has put up the risk capital over the years but now that the investment has proved successful the profit that should accrue to the people of this country is to be handed over to private individuals. It is no more than a rip-off of public assets. Those assets do not belong only to those represented by the Labour party. I assume that Conservative Members also represent the ordinary people of this country—the pensioners, those on fixed incomes and the workers of this country —rather rather than just the City or the big farming interests that the Secretary of State supported so strongly in his previous incarnation. If that is so, they should be fighting to keep these assets under public control.
  The Secretary of State cannot justify his ideological position. He accuses the Opposition of ideological obsession, but he is clearly so obsessed with privatisation that he can no longer act in the public interest in carrying out his duties as the custodian of the government of this country and the values enshrined in the public bodies for which he is responsible. He is acting as the Opposition would expect him to act. He is acting for the friends who finance his party and who put the Conservatives into power.
  I in no way accuse the right hon. Gentleman of hypocrisy in his views or his politics. He is acting in accordance with the dictates of his party and his ethos and looking after his friends. That is what this privatisation is all about.
  Not one decent argument has been put forward to justify this action. The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North talked about the Secretary of State keeping a careful eye on the market—currency exchange problems, the world price of oil and gas and all the other nuances—so as to choose precisely the right time for flotation. I see the hon. Gentleman nod his agreement. But if profits are now accruing to the nation after all the risks that have been taken by the nation with public money, why should the Government go in for this exercise at all except to hand over the money to their friends? That is what privatisation is about and will continue to be about, and the longer the Conservatives remain in power the greater will be the rip-off of British assets into their friends' pockets. The sooner they are exposed, the better.
  11. 18 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: In trying to justify his action in setting up these two companies, the Secretary of State said that some of the British Gas Corporation's interests were being consolidated into one company, now known as Enterprise Oil. One of his criticisms of the public sector was that it was not designed to operate in what he chose to call a market-oriented sphere but let us consider the people whom he has put in charge initially of Enterprise Oil. I do not disparage civil servants in any way. One of them, Mr. West, was a civil servant. We now find that Mr. Bill Bell, whom I know fairly well and who recently retired from Shell, receives a reincarnation as chairman of this new company.
  It is a mystery to us, and it will certainly be a mystery to the people of this country, to know how our people will benefit from this integration of the British Gas Corporation's enterprises in parts of the North sea into a private sector company which will be floated in the market in due time. How will the nation benefit? Where is the greater enlargement of the nation's wealth, income or
  254
  assets? This is just a doctrinal device, which I do not believe that the Secretary of State himself believes in. He was a member of the Government who in 1972 gave the British Gas Corporation extensive powers, and those powers have been used very well by the corporation.
  We know that there is an additional order. Some of the fields which have yet to be tested—perhaps high risk fields, or perhaps very choice blocks; we do not know that, because drilling has not begun—are to be consolidated into Enterprise Oil to make it a much more attractive proposition.
  The Secretary of State seems to be saying, "We have put together some blocks that are already producing oil and some blocks that we anticipate will produce oil to make them a marketable proposition." At the same time he makes no judgment as to how the nation will keep some control over assets which at present belong, 100 per cent., to the nation. He is unwilling at present even to go as far as his predecessor—that most doctrinal of all doctrinal men — went with Britoil, when he kept the golden shares. He gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) to keep the House fully informed, but it will not be sufficient to do that by means of a written answer. When the articles of association of the company are known and drawn up, and when the Secretary of State has made up his mind whether and how the nation will have a continuing interest in Enterprise Oil, will he undertake to make a statement to the House about his method and approach, whether there will be a tender offer, or what type of marketing operation it will be?
  The hon. Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) put questions of greater import to the Secretary of State. I shall not go over what he said about the price of oil, but there is an air of déjà vu about tonight's debate. It is 10 years since 1973 and the crisis that befell not just this country but the whole Western world. One of the most significant changes that took place during that period was the decline in the interest in terms of ownership and control of oil by the "seven sisters". Off the top of my head, I believe that the seven sisters had control at that time of about 60 to 70 per cent. of the free world's oil. That has declined to about 30 per cent. today, because producing Governments have said, "This important asset belongs to us as producers." This Government, 10 years after that hard lesson, being an oil producer, go the other way. If that is not doctrinal nonsense, I do not know what is. All other producer Governments with sense are holding on to assets.
  We are uniquely privileged because we can act as honest broker between the OPEC nations and some of the consuming nations. The Secretary of State will give up some of that bargaining counter when he gives up control of these assets. The power of Britain to act as honest broker was seen in the summer, when the former Secretary of State went parading round the OPEC nations of the Middle East trying to keep up the price of oil.
  This is an important international commodity, yet this stupid doctrinal Government say, "No, we will not keep it in the public sector. We will put it in the private sector." If that does not weaken us strategically, commercially and in our international relations, I do not know what does. There is no reason for doing it—because the nation will not benefit in wealth, income or expertise—except for reasons of doctrine and because the Government need some cash to alleviate the results of their stupid management of the economy.
  11.26 pm
  Mr. John Smith: The Secretary of State did not answer some crucial points. He totally failed to explain how the British Gas Corporation would be compensated for the loss of £100 million a year in income. Either some alteration must be made in the corporation's finances or another £100 million must be extracted from British gas consumers.
  The right hon. Gentleman simply said—in the bland manner of Ministers in the House these days—that some account might be taken of it by the Treasury in future negotiations of the obligations of the corporation and that some adjustment might be made. If that adjustment will compensate the corporation, then the PSBR reasons for this exercise seem much less convincing. If not, the penalty will be paid by the gas consumer. We are entitled to know which path the Government intend to follow.
  What above all was distressing was the way in which the Secretary of State was unable to say what public benefit was involved in this whole operation. He did not explain how it would increase and develop our resources in the North sea. He did not argue that somehow everything would be better managed in the new and unknown hands into which the assets are destined to go. The right hon. Gentleman did not say how it would benefit the strategy for energy deployment both for gas and oil in the North sea.
  We were simply told that hon. Members on one side were all privatisers and those on the other were all nationalisers, with a great deal of spice thrown in about political interference interrupting commercial judgment. The right hon. Gentleman knows that all the commercial judgment of the British Gas Corporation was totally against what is happening. Those making that judgment had the common sense to realise that if they had a first-class asset, they would be foolish to sell it off.
  This is a classic exercise of political interference—of the ideological gentlemen in Whitehall telling the commercial management of a successful public enterprise what it must do to serve the interests of their party when the people in control of that organisation know what the interests of the nation are. I challenge the Secretary of State to say what public interest is being served. In the minute or two remaining for the debate perhaps he will try to answer the questions which he ducked earlier.
  11.29 pm
  Mr. Peter Walker: The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) returned to the extraordinary argument of what must happen to the accounts of the British Gas Corporation if one removes an asset from it. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet) made it clear that when this was done in respect to the coal industry, no compensation—
  Mr. John Smith: Really!
  Mr. Walker: The right hon. and learned Gentleman may not like it, but he knows that his argument is an absurdity. If the Government fix a financial target for the British Gas Corporation, they take into account the various forms of income that go into that target. If at a particular time the financial target agreed by the Treasury was 3½ per cent. and as the result of a change it was felt that there should be a higher or lower figure, depending on the impact of that move, that would be done.
  256
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman dealt with the matter on a purely PSBR basis. I have never put forward that argument in this context. The Government wish to create a commercially viable free enterprise concern that will be free of political interference of the nature that nationalised industries suffer under both Labour and Conservative Governments. We believe that that will be a better way of obtaining commercial success, and success for the country.
  The right hon. Gentleman began with the remarkable story—
  It being half-past Eleven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 4 (Statutory Instruments, &c. (Procedure)).
  The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 204.

  Division No. 48]

  [11.30 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Johnston, Russell

  Beith, A. J.

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kirkwood, Archibald

  Blair, Anthony

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McCartney, Hugh

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

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Madden, Max

  Carlisle, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Marek, Dr John

  Clay, Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Martin, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Maxton, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Michie, William

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Cowans, Harry

  Nellist, David

  Craigen, J. M.

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Crowther, Stan

  O'Neill, Martin

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Parry, Robert

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Penhaligon, David

  Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

  Pike, Peter

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

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Dewar, Donald

  Prescott, John

  Dixon, Donald

  Rogers, Allan

  Dobson, Frank

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Dormand, Jack

  Rowlands, Ted

  Douglas, Dick

  Skinner, Dennis

  Duffy, A. E. P.

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

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

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

  Eadie, Alex

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Eastham, Ken

  Strang, Gavin

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Wallace, James

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Fisher, Mark

  Wareing, Robert

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Welsh, Michael

  George, Bruce

  Wilson, Gordon

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Winnick, David

  Hardy, Peter

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mr. Norman Hogg and Mr. Allen McKay.

  Home Robertson, John

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Amess, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Arnold, Tom

  Benyon, William

  Ashby, David

  Berry, Sir Anthony

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Baldry, Anthony

  Bottomley, Peter

  Batiste, Spencer

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

  257

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hickmet, Richard

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Hind, Kenneth

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Hirst, Michael

  Bright, Graham

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Brinton, Tim

  Howard, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Jessel, Toby

  Butcher, John

  Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Butterfill, John

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Knowles, Michael

  Carttiss, Michael

  Lang, Ian

  Chope, Christopher

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Churchill, W. S.

  Lee, John (Pendle)

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

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Lightbown, David

  Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Colvin, Michael

  Lord, Michael

  Cope, John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Couchman, James

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  MacGregor, John

  Dicks, T.

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Maclean, David John.

  Dover, Denshore

  Malins, Humfrey

  Dunn, Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Eggar, Tim

  Maples, John

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Marland, Paul

  Evennett, David

  Marlow, Antony

  Eyre, Reginald

  Mather, Carol

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Mellor, David

  Favell, Anthony

  Merchant, Piers

  Forman, Nigel

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Fox, Marcus

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Galley, Roy

  Moate, Roger

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Morrison, Hon C, (Devizes)

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Murphy, Christopher

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Needham, Richard

  Harvey, Robert

  Neubert, Michael

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Newton, Tony

  Hawksley, Warren

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hayes, J.

  Norris, Steven

  Hayward, Robert

  Oppenheim, Philip

  258

  Ottaway, Richard

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Parris, Matthew

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Pollock, Alexander

  Sumberg, David

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Powley, John

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Price, Sir David

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Raffan, Keith

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Thome, Neil (Ilford S)

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Thurnham, Peter

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Tracey, Richard

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Rost, Peter

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Rowe, Andrew

  Viggers, Peter

  Ryder, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Walden, George

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Watson, John

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Watts, John

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Wheeler, John

  Sims, Roger

  Wilkinson, John

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Speed, Keith

  Wood, Timothy

  Speller, Tony

  Woodcock, Michael

  Spencer, D.

  Yeo, Tim

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Squire, Robin

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stern, Michael

  Mr. Douglas Hogg and Mr. John Major.

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Question accordingly negatived.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Richard Needham and Mr. Secretary Ridley be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr. John Moore and Mr. Fred Silvester be added to the Committee.— [Mr. Boscawen.]

  Royal Military School of Music
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.42 pm
  Mr. Toby Jessel: British army bands are the envy of the entire world. They have a high standard of excellence. They lift the spirits of the nation. Who does not feel uplifted by the sight and sound of a British Army band on one of our royal or state occasions? They are without doubt one of our finest traditions. As part of the traditional British scene, they help to attract visitors whose spending generates employment and income and yields tax to the Government. The amount of that yield cannot be measured, but it undoubtedly exists and allowance should be made for it. Some such allowance should be offset against the cost of bands.
  With regard to their military value, military bands do not merely enhance morale and promote recruiting. Their members serve as medical orderlies or take other roles in war time; and Field Marshal Sir Gerald Templar wrote in a foreword to the book "A Hundred Years of Military Music":
  "All soldiers who understand regimental soldiering properly appreciate what military music contributes to military efficiency in the broadest sense. Sometimes those in positions of authority who decide on questions of army organisation have been tempted to see in bands a fruitful source for economy in man-power and money. Usually better judgments have prevailed before too much damage has been done."
  The immensely high standard of British Army bands is linked inextricably with the famous name of Kneller Hall, the Royal Military School of Music at Whitton, which is in the Twickenham constituency. The Daily Telegraph recently described Kneller Hall as "world renowned". It trains Army bandmasters and instrumentalists to a level of precision, strength, control and musicianship which, in military music, has never been surpassed.
  It is an efficient training. It is tried and proven, with its quality and fame distilled from vast experience and woven into an effective system. Kneller Hall is also enormously popular— 25,000 visitors pay to come annually to its celebrated outdoor summer concerts. The bandmasters and pupils benefit from the stimulus of an audience, 80 per cent. of whom are said to come from within 10 miles. However, of the rest, some travel very long distances.
  At one concert this summer the audience numbered 5,000 almost enough to fill the Royal Albert Hall. Thus, Kneller Hall does a great deal for the popularity and public image of the Army.
  Furthermore, it helps our national economy. The name and fame of Kneller Hall help to attract 15 or 20 per cent. of its pupils and bandmasters who are sent to train from overseas, mainly Commonwealth countries. I have here the programme of a concert that I attended on 18 August at which four student bandmasters conducted——one from Australia, one from Ghana, one from Pakistan and one from Woolwich.
  The export earnings of Boosey and Hawkes, Britain's largest musical instrument manufacturers, are helped by its association with the name of Kneller Hall.
  Within Twickenham and Whitton, Kneller Hall is a highly prized asset. The odd one person in 50 who does not like the fireworks that go with the celebrated Kneller Hall performances of Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture is heavily outnumbered by those who delight and rejoice in its glory.
  260
  All this is now at risk. There are rumours of a joint services music school. To save money, Army band training would combine with that of the Royal Marines and the Royal Air Force. Kneller Hall would not be large enough, without building at heavy expense new quarters on land which the chief executive of Richmond upon Thames borough council, on behalf of that authority, has described as
  "a very valuable pocket of greenery and break in the built up area which contributes to local character."
  He continues:
  "It has some good trees. The Council would object to any loss of the open ground in the very strongest way and there would undoubtedly by a great public outcry against any loss".
  He means loss of open space.
  At the suggested venue for a joint school at Eastney near Southsea in Hampshire, the home of the Royal Marines, there is a barracks with surplus capacity. The theme that I wish to stress is that the quite modest savings that would arise do not justify putting at risk, by huge disruption, the absolutely first class standards of an internationally famous institution.
  I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on his appointment, and I am glad to see him here deputising for the Minister of State. I ask my hon. Friend to examine with extreme care all the points that I shall make concerning cost. I have given his Department notice of these points. I ask him to put them to the Minister of State, who was kind enough to see me in July to discuss this matter. I am sure that the Minister of State is fully aware of my anxiety.
  First, I fear a drop in standards. The Royal Marine bands are excellent, but their system of training is completely different. I shall not go into detail now, but I do not believe that the two bands will gel together. On the contrary, I believe that they will both suffer. I ask my hon. Friend to take technical advice from all three services as to exactly how the efficiency of training would be affected. There is no security aspect to this matter, and there is no need to keep secret the advice that he receives on this or any other question that I may raise.
  The top orchestral instrument players in London orchestras and in the colleges of music in London who give tuition in Kneller Hall, which is 10 miles from central London, are unlikely to travel to Eastney, on the Hampshire coast.
  Is my hon. Friend able to provide figures for the savings envisaged both on annual revenue and on capital accounts? I hope that he can provide them now, but if he cannot I hope that he will tell me that he will soon do so in writing. In particular, have the following items been taken into account? First, on the capital account, how much could be raised by the sale of Kneller Hall? What is the site value that the Property Services Agency has estimated to the Ministry of Defence? Kneller Hall is a grade 2 listed building, which cannot be much altered. With those difficulties in the way of conversion, what amount could it be expected to raise as a hotel or country club or a company headquarters? The amount that could be raised for those three, or for any other use, must be limited.
  The land cannot be built on, as the Secretary of State for the Environment would have to be consulted and I have no doubt he would endorse the outlook of the Richmond upon Thames borough council. I understand—perhaps my hon. Friend can confirm this either now or in writing later—that it is not, and it is never, the practice of the

  261
  Ministry of Defence, when disposing of land, to use its legal powers to override planning procedures to give itself planning permission and then to sell the land with planning permission that would not have been obtained had the land been sold privately.
  Next on the capital account, what is the value of the living quarters at Kneller Hall? What value would be attached to the living quarters at Eastney, which could be sold if the Royal Military School of Music were to stay at Kneller Hall? What allowance has been made for the cost of repairing the roof at Kneller Hall? As it is a listed building, these repairs have to be done, even if the Army moves out. Constituents living nearby tell me that they have seen that work has begun. What is the cost of that work, is it already under contract, and has it been allowed for in these calculations?
  As to revenue savings, what savings will there be per year for the joint school at Eastney, and can this figure be analysed into two components? How much of the saving is from adult recruiting, which means a shorter training course, and how much is from joining the three schools together? In other words, if there is to be adult recruiting in any case, and it is done at Kneller Hall, which would mean that Kneller Hall is kept on, would not the savings there be already quite substantial, and would not additional savings from the merging of the three schools into one be fairly small? Are foreign and overseas students to be given accommodation at the Eastney joint school, if it is set up, and, if not, how much income would be lost from them?
  The total defence budget for 1983–84 is, I am told, just under £16·5 billion. I do not know what might be saved from closing Kneller Hall, but if it were £1 million a year that is only one sixteen thousandth part of our defence budget, and, in a population of 55 million, for every man, woman and child the saving would be under 2p per head per year. If the saving were £500,000, it would be 1p per head per year.
  There is so little to gain and so much to lose. Therefore, I hope that another look will he taken at this matter and that the scheme will be dropped.
  11.55 pm
  The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel) on his alacrity in securing the Adjournment debate almost immediately after the return of the House from the recess. I thank him for his kind remarks about me.
  My hon. Friend has displayed the greatest vigour and persistence in keeping the merits of Kneller Hall before Ministers. He had a meeting with my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces a few days ago, and another with my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces before the summer recess. Again tonight he has represented the interests of his constituency eloquently and forcefully.
  I wish, first, to record my own appreciation and very high regard for the musical skill of our Army bands and Army bandsmen, which is admired and recognised the world over. In the Army's long tradition of musical excellence, Kneller Hall, as the home and focus of Army music, has a proud and honoured place not only in the Army, not only in this country, but internationally.
  One hundred and twenty five years ago the regimental band was virtually unknown outside the regiment. If the regiment wished to have its own band, it was left to it to
  262
  find the musicians and to pay all the costs. A bandmaster was hired to train the band. It is perhaps not surprising that as a result of that system—or lack of system—musical standards throughout the Army were abysmally low. At the victory parade on the conclusion of the Crimean war a number of those private regimental bands played together. I am told that they had had no rehearsal. The result can be imagined. The Duke of Cambridge, appalled by the cacophony, decided that something must be done. He resolved to set up a military school of music and the first military music class was formed at Kneller Hall in 1857. Kneller Hall quickly improved the overall musical standards in the British Army. It has gone on upholding those standards ever since.
  Bandmasters remain at the school for three years receiving both musical and command training. The course for pupil bandsmen lasts one year, and most of the adult recruits to the bands will arrive at Kneller Hall within two or three years from entry for musical training. The pupil bandsmen's course also trains about 20 foreign students a year.
  Those two courses, the pupil bandsmen's course and the student bandmaster's course, have over the years ensured that the standards of musical excellence in the regiments are fully maintained. Kneller Hall, as well as being the focal point for regimental music, has also been the foundation of musical tradition in the armies and police forces of many foreign and Commonwealth countries. Kneller Hall is proud of its traditions and of the magnificent job or work it continues to do. It has every reason to be proud.
  I know, too, that Kneller Hall has a very special place in the affections of the local community. Every summer, open-air concerts are given at Kneller Hall. These are an extremely popular local event and attract an audience not only from the local community, but from overseas as well. As my hon. Friend said, about 25,000 people attended the recent season of open-air concerts. It is also a matter, I know, of considerable local pride that musicians from Kneller Hall provide trumpeters to perform at major public and state occasions. In June this year, at the military musical pageant at Wembley, about 1,500 musicians were gathered under Lieutenant-Colonel Duncan Beat, who is the director of music at Kneller Hall.
  All that is convincing evidence of the firmly established reputation which Kneller Hall has throughout the world in military music. Its motto, Nulli Secundus, is well deserved, and I can assure my hon. Friend of our respect and admiration for the skill and tradition of the Army bands and of our recognition of the important and historic part that Kneller Hall has played in this.
  May I now deal with the specific issue of the Government's consideration of the organisation of musical training for all three services, which has prompted my hon. Friend's debate and his anxiety. As my hon. Friend understands, the Government, in every activity and in every Department, are committed to finding the most cost-effective way of meeting their obligations.
  The study of musician training in the services is one of a series of studies that have been conducted by the training studies steering group chaired by my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces. Those studies are part of our wider efforts to ensure the most cost-effective use of defence resources and are designed to examine a particular area of training carried out by two or more of the services to ensure that it is being done as

  263
  efficiently and cost-effectively as possible and to examine the scope for further economies through rationalisation or privatisation.
  In some cases we have sought the assistance of an outside consultant specialising in the field under study. This was true of the musician training study as well as two others currently under way into engineer officer training and general automated data processing training. By using outside expertise in this way we believe that we can profit from an objective and up-to-date view of our training methods.
  Musician training in the services has been under study for about two years. As part of our examination we invited an outside music specialist to make an independent assessment of our training methods and practices. His report made a valuable contribution to our work.
  We have been looking not only at Kneller Hall, the home of Army musical training, but also at the Royal Marine school of music at Deal and the Royal Air Force school at Uxbridge. We have been assessing the practicability and the cost effectiveness of a tri-service defence school of music. With the advice of the principal directors of music we have looked at the shape of possible courses at a defence school of music and we have considered the possible sites for such a school.
  We worked from the premise that the high musical standards of the services had to be maintained and that single-service ceremonial and other traditions should not be affected. We examined the teaching arrangements at the three schools—Deal, Kneller Hall and Uxbridge—to find a common core curriculum which would be the basis of a new combined school. We then considered making provision for the other differing requirements of the services by means of single-service courses. Any defence school of music would have separate service wings and to ensure that musical standards would not fall the principal directors of music of the services would be closely involved in the study at all times and would design the courses and the musical accommodation required.
  We are now considering the results of that study. No final decisions have been made. I can assure my hon. Friend that the study certainly includes comparisons of the financial and manpower costs of the various options as they affect the three service schools of music.
  These estimates take into account comparative operating costs and all potential capital savings and expenditure. Important as the financial considerations are, they are not the only factors to be borne in mind.
  We have also had to look at the suitability of existing training and support facilities and sites for the options
  264
  under consideration. Where facilities and sites would require modernisation, we have had to consider the cost and practicality of such programmes. Manpower is, of course, another important factor. All the options that we have considered have different manpower implications for military and civilian numbers. In all this we have been guided by the need for cost effectiveness and efficiency in our training organisation, balanced against our desire to preserve the essential musical and ceremonial traditions of all three services.
  My hon. Friend said that the costings were wrong. I can assure him that my Department will consider all the figures carefully. The savings identified at Kneller Hall do not include the cost of roof repairs which are under way. The savings relate to future maintenance and modernisation which will be needed if Kneller Hall remains open. He asked about the publication of the costings. We are not in a position to publish them as yet, they are still being examined, but we shall consider his request to publish. He spoke about the concept of a defence school of music and whether it offered any manpower or financial savings. We shall be looking at the totality of the package. He mentioned the geography and asked whether outside experts and lecturers would be prepared to travel. I draw his attention to the fact that I understand that there is no difficulty in obtaining outside experts to travel to Deal.
  My hon. Friend asked about the residual value of Kneller Hall, and the planning position there. Again, I assure him that all his points will be considered. He mentioned the drop in standards, which I covered earlier in my remarks, and asked about the training of foreign students at Eastney. I assure him that I shall ensure that my Department writes to him about the training of foreign students.
  I assure my hon. Friend that no decision about service musical training will be taken which puts at risk the standards or quality of any of the service bands. We wish to maintain those standards. Indeed, we wish to ensure that the facilities provided for that training are improved, not the reverse. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's extremely valuable comments during the debate, and I assure him that all his points will be taken fully into account when we take the final decision on the future of service musical training in general and Kneller Hall in particular. My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces will write to my hon. Friend as soon as a decision has been made.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes past Twelve o' clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Sixth Form and Tertiary Colleges
  Sixth Form and Tertiary Colleges
  School Rolls
  School Rolls
  Deprived Areas
  Deprived Areas
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Careers Teachers
  Careers Teachers
  Standards
  Standards
  Music Provision
  Music Provision
  Liverpool Institute High School for Boys
  Liverpool Institute High School for Boys
  Nursery Provision
  Nursery Provision
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Blackburn
  Blackburn
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  Voluntary Music Tuition
  Voluntary Music Tuition
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  Teachers
  Teachers
  European Organisation for Nuclear Research
  European Organisation for Nuclear Research
  Students (Salaries)
  Students (Salaries)
  University Grants Committee
  University Grants Committee
EMPLOYMENT
  Ministerial Responsibilities
  Ministerial Responsibilities
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Juvenile Prisoners
  Juvenile Prisoners
ENVIRONMENT
  Special Grants
  Special Grants
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Liverpool (Ministerial Visit)
  Secure Tenants
  Secure Tenants
  Housing (Sanitation)
  Housing (Sanitation)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Housing (Overcrowding)
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Council House Waiting Lists
  Homelessness
  Homelessness
  House Building
  House Building
  Shared Accommodation
  Shared Accommodation
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Sequestrations, Dundee
  Sequestrations, Dundee
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  Consumer Credit Act 1974
  British Telecommunications (Licence)
  British Telecommunications (Licence)
PRIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Bootle
  Bootle
  The Family
  The Family
  Netherlands and West Germany (Visit)
  Netherlands and West Germany (Visit)
  Hong Kong (Meeting)
  Hong Kong (Meeting)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Northern Ireland (Taxation)
  Northern Ireland (Taxation)
  Government Departments (Costs)
  Government Departments (Costs)
  European Commission
  European Commission
DEFENCE
  Army Training (Review)
  Army Training (Review)
  Falklands Campaign (Battle Honours)
  Falklands Campaign (Battle Honours)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Ultra Heat Treated Milk
  Ultra Heat Treated Milk
  Free Range Eggs
  Free Range Eggs
  European Community (Refunds)
  European Community (Refunds)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pensions (Payment Arrangements)
  Pensions (Payment Arrangements)
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Northwick Park Hospital
  Dental Charges
  Dental Charges
  Brent (Ministerial Visit)
  Brent (Ministerial Visit)
  North-West Thames Area (Nursing Ratios)
  North-West Thames Area (Nursing Ratios)
  Nurses (Brent)
  Nurses (Brent)
  Wembley Hospital (Recruitment)
  Wembley Hospital (Recruitment)
  Juvenile Diabetes
  Juvenile Diabetes
  Housing Benefits Scheme
  Housing Benefits Scheme
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
TRANSPORT
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  Container Terminal, Falmouth
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Soviet Union (Baltics States)
  Soviet Union (Baltics States)
  Foreign Affairs Councils
  Foreign Affairs Councils
WALES
  NHS Management Inquiry
  NHS Management Inquiry

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

Lord Graham of Edmonton
Thomas Edward Graham, Esquire, having been created Baron Graham of Edmonton, of Edmonton in Greater London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Jacques and the Lord Underhill, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Peyton of Yeovil
The Right Honourable John Wynne William Peyton, having been created Baron Peyton of Yeovil, of Yeovil in the County of Somerset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Zuckerman and the Lord Home of the Hirsel.
Several Lords—Took the Oath or Affirmed.

British Gas Corporation: Disposal of Assets
2.44 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 when they expect the disposal of British Gas Corporation oil assets to be completed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy (The Earl of Avon): My Lords, the Government intend to complete the disposal of the British Gas Corporation's oilfield interests as soon as possible.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that astonishingly uninformative reply, may I ask him whether it is the Government's intention to carry through the disposal of the off-shore assets by way of a holding company, or asset by asset?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, there is already a company called Enterprise Oil. My noble friend is also probably aware that in the other place later today they are to discuss orders relating to this subject, and I believe it would not be right for me to anticipate my right honourable friend's speech.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, why do the Government persist in their doctrinaire policy of hiving off parts of very profitable nationalised enterprises—profits which are of course necessary to offset some of the loss-making social assets? Will the Government
128
reconsider their policy in relation to this vital national asset?
The Earl of Avon: No, my Lords, the Government will not reconsider it. Having just been to the electorate and received such an endorsement of their policies, that is hardly necessary.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that, if the disposal is asset by asset, far from being an ideological caper this would encourage the smaller companies to go into the North Sea and profit by buying PRT-paying assets, which they could offset against their exploration expenditure?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I shall bear in mind the remarks of my noble friend, but I still hope he will agree that at the moment I cannot comment on the method.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the noble Earl the Minister say to what use up until now the money which has accrued to the Government from the sale of these British public assets has been put? Is there any truth in the rumour that some of it was used to assist in tax reductions for the better-off? Can the noble Earl confirm or deny that, and at the same time tell us what is to be done with the money that has accrued to the Government from the sale of these public assets?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course, when something accrues to the Government it accrues to the Government as a whole, and it is a matter of what the Government pay out as a whole. It is just like housekeeping. Because you sell one thing, you do not keep the money from what you sell for one particular item; it all goes into the budget. It is exactly the same in regard to this point.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind, and pass on for the information of noble Lords opposite, the point that, thanks to the Government's tax concessions in the last Budget, there is now an upsurge of interest and of investment in the North Sea, for which the industry and the country should be jolly grateful?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I totally agree with what my noble friend says, and I can add that the exploration results are also encouraging.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, despite what has just been said, will the noble Earl the Minister agree that one of the principles of British Governments over very many years—indeed, decades—has been public accountability as to what has been done with public moneys, taxes or otherwise, which have been gathered, and how they have been distributed, usually by means of the Consolidated Fund?
The Earl of Avon: Indeed, my Lords, and I am sure that the present Government are following the system which has been followed for many years.

Diego Garcia: Consultation with United States
2.47 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what agreement exists between the Governments of the United States and the United Kingdom about the consultation or joint decision governing military operations from Diego Garcia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): My Lords, the terms which govern consultation between the Governments of the United Kingdom and United States about the use of Diego Garcia are set down in Article 3 of the 1976 Exchange of Notes, which has been published as Cmnd. 6413.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, given that the House will remember that at the time of the abortive United States attempt to rescue their hostages in Tehran it was believed that there had been no prior consultation or warning, and in view of that, will the Government undertake to review the operation of the agreement which the noble Baroness has just mentioned?
Baroness Young: My Lords, so far as the attempted rescue of the United States embassy personnel held in Tehran is concerned, I cannot add anything to what was said at the time by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. However, with regard to the nature of Article 3, to which I have referred, I can do no better than quote what "consultation" means, which is:
"Both Governments shall consult periodically on joint objectives, policies and activities in the area. As regards the use of the facility in normal circumstances, the commanding officer and the officer in charge of the United Kingdom service element shall inform each other of intended movement of ships and aircraft. In other circumstances the use of the facility shall be a matter for the joint decision of the two Governments".
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the apprehension is that there is no strict consultation as there should be under Article 3, and will she give the House a firm assurance that she and her right honourable friend are absolutely satisfied that this periodic, strict consultation is proceeding? Secondly, can she say what developments are now taking place in Diego Garcia, and is she satisfied that Her Majesty's Government are able to monitor those developments? Can the noble Baroness also say what are the views of Her Majesty's Government on the recommendation from the New Delhi non-alligned conference that this whole area should be demilitarised?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I hope I have made it perfectly clear that under the conditions that have been agreed there is consultation between the United Kingdom and the United States. On the question of any expansion of the plans of the United States, I would say that we have agreed to a request by the
130
United States to improve the facilities on the island as funds become available. The main improvements proposed are to provide better refuelling arrangements, to expand the storage, maintenance and wharf installations, and to upgrade the airfield by constructing a new aircraft taxi-way and a parking apron.
On the proposal to which the noble Lord finally referred, which I think is that of an Indian Ocean peace zone, I can confirm that we play a part in the United Nations ad hoc committee which was set up to discuss the proposal to designate the Indian Ocean as a zone of peace, but we believe that it would be premature to hold a conference to implement the proposal until the views of the states concerned can be brought much closer together.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the consultations to which she has referred include consultations about the fate of the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia whose treatment contrasts so sharply with that of the inhabitants of the Falklands? Many of those former inhabitants are now living in misery and penury on the island of Mauritius.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the relations with Mauritius are good. As the noble Lord will know, the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia are living in Mauritius, and I have no reason to believe that their position is any other than satisfactory.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the fact that the co-operation between the United States and ourselves at Diego Garcia is regarded by many people as an excellent example of that co-operation between the United States and this country on which the peace of the world depends?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I agree with what he says.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Baroness not agree that the co-operation to which the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, referred is that of master and poodle?
Baroness Young: My Lords, no.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is it not the case that the excellence of the agreement that has been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, does not extend to those former inhabitants of Diego Garcia? Is the noble Baroness really saying that she is satisfied that they themselves are content with their new lot in Mauritius where they are having to live in shanty towns, often without employment or hope of employment? Is this not, in fact, a forced exile that they are suffering?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the answer I gave to the noble Lord on his earlier question.

Interest Rates: Britain and the EC
2.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how real interest rates in this country compare with those in other countries within the European Community.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, there are difficulties of calculation but, broadly, real short-time interest rates in the United Kingdom do not appear to be out of line with those in other countries of the European Community.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer. Will the noble Lord not agree that, generally speaking, interest rates within Britain and the Community are still too high to facilitate the recovery of industry for which we are all waiting? Does he not think that it would be a desirable initiative for Her Majesty's Government to try to lead the Community in bringing down interest rates and thus have an impact on countries outside the Community which may have higher rates?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I agree entirely with the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question. The best way of bringing down interest rates is to follow a responsible financial and monetary policy. This is what this country is doing, as are other countries; for example, Western Germany.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that, after a lapse of four years, Her Majesty's Government are rapidly coming to the conclusion that there is a relationship between interest rates and the exchange rate?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, these are complex matters. There is a most important relationship between the level of the Government's borrowing requirement and interest rates. That is a matter to which the Government's policies are directed. I am only too glad to have the noble Lord's support for those policies.

National Insurance Surcharge
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the continuing high level of unemployment, when they propose to abolish the National Insurance surcharge.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said in another place:
"We hope during the present Parliament to abolish Labour's pernicious tax on jobs, the National Insurance surcharge".
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the remark that he has made. May I ask him whether this measure that he has reiterated will take place as soon as possible to enable industry to get going again?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I realise the importance of this matter. It is however a matter, as the noble Lord will appreciate, that will need to be the subject of decision by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to other priorities in the economy.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on Grenada. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord Bellwin who will repeat a Statement on radioactive waste. This will be followed, again, by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur who will repeat a Statement on the National Health Service management inquiry.

Consolidation Bills
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That pursuant to Standing Order No. 48, the Lords following be appointed to join with a Committee of the Commons as the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills:

Airedale, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Bledisloe, V.

Brightman, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Gisborough, L.

Grey, E.

Hanworth, V.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Mishcon, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman; and that a Message be sent to the Commons to propose that the Joint Committee do meet on Wednesday 2nd of November next at half-past Four o'clock in Committee Room No. 4.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

The Defence Estimates
2.57 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw)The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw) rose to move that this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 (Cmnd. 8951).
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name in the Order Paper.
It is one of the great strengths of our Parliamentary system that in your Lordships' House there resides a unique blend of knowledge and experience on so many aspects of our national life. Fortunately, that is particularly true when we come to debate the crucial questions concerning the defence of our country. Today, we shall hear the views of some who have spent their professional lives in our forces and have occupied great positions in their leadership. Now, freed from their immediate responsibilities, they will give the House and a wider public the benefit of their considerable experience.
Noble Lords will be delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, the most recently retired Chief of Defence Staff, is to make his maiden speech in this debate. He has explained to me that he has a long-standing engagement this evening and will have to leave the debate early, but I feel sure that your Lordships will understand and agree that we are fortunate that he is able to contribute to today's debate.
I can therefore assure all noble Lords who take part in this debate that my colleagues and I will pay great attention to their views. For my part, I shall seek to present the issues as the Government see them and to indicate the nature of our response.
As one who has been closely concerned with the major decisions on defence during the last four years and at another period in the early 1970s, I have two main reflections. First, the really big decisions are the more worrying because they are both intensely complicated in technological terms and often far-reaching and irreversible. Second, my intense admiration for the dedication and leadership of our forces at the highest level has grown with my experience. Indeed, in a world so full of criticisms and recriminations, I can say that I look back only with gratitude to those Service leaders and staffs with whom I have been associated in these periods.
Of course it is true that there are those who question the fundamental basis of our defence policy, our membership of, and strong support for, the NATO Alliance. But I believe they are few in number, so it is important to proclaim both to our friends and allies as well as to our adversaries that collective defence through NATO enjoys very widespread support among the British people.
This NATO Alliance is no less important today than when it was formed 30 years ago. The nature of the threat and of the military balance is described in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 which is the focus of our debate today. The Soviet Union maintains vast military forces, both conventional and nuclear. These are well in excess of what is required for defensive purposes. We have seen a tremendous expansion in the Soviet Union's armed might. Their forces are constantly being improved and modernised.
The Warsaw Pact now outnumbers NATO in central Europe by about two and a half to one in main battle tanks, artillery and fixed wing aircraft. Soviet superiority in numbers of weapons used to be offset by the superior quality of Western equipment. But we can no longer count on that advantage as the quality of
134
Soviet equipment increasingly matches that of our own. Their superiority in conventional weapons used to be outweighed by Western nuclear superiority. However, Soviet efforts over the last two decades have changed the position dramatically. They have achieved broad parity with the United States at the strategic level. There is a growing imbalance in their favour in conventional and intermediate range nuclear systems.
We must look not only at the capabilities of the Soviet Union, but also at their intentions. We have no reason to believe the Soviet Union is planning any immediate attack on the West. But intentions can change. They have shown what they are prepared to do when they see it is in their interests to resort to the use of military force, as we have seen in Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan.
The first duty of any Government is the security of their people. We must be prepared to devote the resources to ensure that we maintain modern and effective forces. There is no way in which we could face such a challenge alone. Our political and economic survival is so closely bound up with that of Europe and North America that our continued security and freedom cannot be taken in isolation. It is therefore an important strength of the NATO Alliance that it brings together 16 sovereign nations working together by consent.
Our own contribution to NATO is a substantial one, in which we can take pride. It is firmly rooted in our political commitment to the Alliance as the cornerstone of our foreign and defence policies. We have four major roles in NATO. First, there is the defence of the United Kingdom base itself. This vital task is not simply a matter of protecting our own homeland. The United Kingdom is an important base from which many tens of thousands of reinforcements, American as well as British, would reach the European mainland.
Secondly, we make a major contribution by stationing substantial forces in Europe, the British Army of the Rhine and RAF (Germany). Just as the presence of United States forces in Europe demonstrates American commitment, the British forces in Europe show our commitment to the Alliance and to forward defence.
Thirdly, we make a major maritime contribution around our coasts and in the Eastern Atlantic. We are not—as a well-known publication on fighting ships would have us believe—planning to emasculate the Royal Navy. We will maintain a powerful modern fleet, capable of operating worldwide in addition to its role in the Eastern Atlantic and Channel, where the Royal Navy provides some 70 per cent. of all ready NATO maritime forces.
Plans for the fleet in the longer term envisage a carrier force of three ships, two amphibious assault ships, a substantial number of destroyers and frigates and an increasing number of nuclear powered Fleet submarines. There are currently 36 ships on order for the Royal Navy, including the third ASW carrier "Ark Royal", three Type 42 destroyers and four nuclear powered Fleet submarines. Seven Type 22 frigates are also on order, including replacements for three of the warships lost in the South Atlantic. We will order the

135
fourth replacement later this year and we have already announced our intention to order a further Type 22 frigate, another nuclear powered Fleet submarine, two more Fleet minesweepers and the first of a new class of conventionally powered submarines. In fact, this Government have already ordered 33 warships, valued at £1,875 million, since we first took office in May 1979, and the total value of these orders which we have just announced amounts to a further £600 million. It is also worth noting that expenditure on new warship construction in 1981–82 was the highest in real terms for the 19 years for which records are readily available.
And the fourth of our major roles is in the provision of nuclear forces. The United Kingdom's independent strategic deterrent provides a second centre of decision-making. This adds to the uncertainties facing a potential aggressor. It is an important contribution to the Alliance as well as the ultimate guarantee of our national security. The effectiveness of our strategic forces has been ensured into the 1990s by the Chevaline programme of improvements to the Polaris force, while Trident D5 will provide an effective deterrent into the next century. Successive British Governments have regarded the maintenance of an independent strategic capability as absolutely essential. This Government are no exception.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, will the noble Viscount forgive me if I ask him just one question? Can he give us an assurance that the light forces of the Royal Navy will be better protected against modern missiles in the future than they clearly were during the Falklands campaign?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that is certainly our purpose and our intention and we shall work to that end. Our contribution to the Alliance must he good not just in its breadth but in its quality. At least as important as the quality of our equipment is the quality of our servicemen and women. As noble Lords will I am sure agree, that quality is of the highest and has been seen to be so whenever and wherever tested.
As to equipment, co-operation in the development and production of weapons systems offers a great deal of scope for nations to work together to spread costs and improve the degree of standardisation of our forces. There are already many examples of collaboration involving the United Kingdom, the United States and European partners which have produced equipment in service. Collaborative projects are not easy to set up and run; but the incentive to get them right is increasing as technology becomes ever more expensive. All allies have a duty to protect sensitive technology, and we are playing our part in doing so. But at the same time, we must not put up barriers to co-operation within the Alliance or our own defence capability might suffer. It is the exploitation of our technological strengths that, in combination with new tactics, can help to enhance conventional deterrence.
The policy of flexible response will continue to call for a range of conventional, theatre nuclear and strategic nuclear responses. This gives the Alliance the ability to respond in an appropriate way to any level of
136
aggression, or threat of aggression, without a potential aggressor being able to predict with certainty just what that response would be. With the massive Soviet strength in conventional, chemical and nuclear forces, reliance on conventional forces alone could not offer a credible deterrent.
We must nevertheless do all in our power to reach agreement with the Soviet Union to limit and reduce armaments and to build confidence. There have been successes in arms control, such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the ABM agreements, but they have been hard won. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said last week, the need is for balanced, militarily significant and binding measures which can be verified. There can be no short cuts. Some have said that a simple freeze would be a quick and easy solution. But the Soviet Union has already undertaken a massive programme of expansion and modernisation. NATO is about to begin its modernisation, so a freeze now would confirm one side in perpetual superiority and condemn the other to perpetual inferiority. That is no formula for peace.
One of the major NATO modernisation programmes is of course the deployment of Cruise and Pershing 2 missiles in Europe. The NATO twin track decision of 1979 was based on the need to modernise ageing Alliance theatre nuclear weapons and on concern at the deployment of new and more powerful Soviet SS.20 missiles, each with three warheads. The twin track decision warned the Soviet Union that NATO would begin to deploy its own deterrent systems, Pershing 2 and Cruise, by the end of 1983, although plans could be modified if there had been agreement at Geneva. At the time of the NATO decision, about 120 SS.20s had been deployed. There are now 351 (that is, 1053 warheads), two-thirds of which are targeted on Western Europe. Comparable NATO missiles have stayed at the same number over that period—none. We are clear that we cannot allow that massive imbalance to continue. If necessary, we will deploy our own missiles to fill the gap, but we would much prefer to achieve the same result through arms control.
The Government still hope it may be possible to reach some agreement limiting INF deployment if the Soviet Union shows a commitment to negotiate flexibly and seriously. But they have not done so yet. They have tried to divert attention to the British and French strategic systems, which they wish to count in the INF totals. There is no mystery about this: they wish to prevent the deployment of Cruise and Pershing 2s while retaining their own SS.20s. But they will not succeed. There can be no question of including our present Polaris force and future Trident force in discussion of INF: these are strategic and not theatre or intermediate systems and cannot be counted as such. In addition to our commitment to NATO, our ballistic missile submarines are our ultimate guarantee of national security. The force is and will remain at the minimum necessary to provide an effective deterrent.
Unless the current arms control negotiations render it unnecessary, we intend to take up to 160 Cruise missiles here, to be based at RAF Greenham Common and RAF Molesworth. Noble Lords will all be aware that, as was shown by the demonstration in London on Saturday, we still face criticism from groups opposed

137
to this policy. But our resolve is not shaken. I do not believe these groups are widely representative of the British people as a whole. We remain firmly committed to the NATO twin track approach and if an agreement which gets rid of the need for them cannot be reached at Geneva, then missiles will be deployed here as planned. The first ones will be operational by the end of the year. At the same time, there is no reason why talks should cease on deployment. That is not our wish or intention.
I have spoken about the crucial role of NATO; but the West also has vital interests and commitments outside the North Atlantic Treaty area. While acknowledging the primacy of NATO commitments, it is right that we should look after Western interests in other parts of the world. We contribute to the maintenance of peace and stability in some key parts of the world: for example, by providing loan service personnel and training to help national armed forces. We also recognise the value of a military presence—for example, naval deployments from time to time—as a demonstration of interest.
The Falklands campaign provided a vivid example of the need to maintain this capability. Our forces were able to respond magnificently at very short notice, and to acquit themselves admirably in a very remote part of the world. While the flexibility and mobility of our forces were adequate in that instance, the lessons of the campaign showed us that improvements could be made in a number of ways. These are now being carried out so as to improve our capabilities for operations both within the NATO area, and elsewhere, should the need arise.
In the Falklands we continue to maintain a strong garrison to deter further military adventures by Argentina. This is necessary because Argentina has still not declared a cessation of hostilities. She continues to re-arm her forces while her leaders make bellicose statements. Not only must she renounce the use of force as a means to settle the dispute, but she must be seen genuinely to have done so. She also still refuses to acknowledge that transfer of sovereignty cannot be a precondition to negotiations and she refuses to acknowledge the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination. Without progress on these issues there is no prospect of negotiations.
Work is beginning on building the new strategic airfield at Mount Pleasant which, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, pointed out in his 1982 Falklands Economic Study, is so important to the islands' economy. An extensive programme of construction work by the Royal Engineers is continuing. The morale of our forces remains excellent despite the difficult conditions in which they work, and I should like to pay tribute to all those members of the forces who have served in the garrison and continue to do so.
It would not be right for me to talk about the activities of our armed forces today without paying a tribute to those who support the police on internal security duties in Northern Ireland. Great strides have of course been made since my own time as Northern Ireland Secretary in 1972–73. The expansion of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and their success in combating terrorist crime, together with the stalwart assistance of the Ulster Defence Regiment, has enabled Regular Army support to be scaled down
138
dramatically since those early days. I count it as no small measure of success that we now deploy only two battalions on emergency tours to strengthen our resident garrison of six, whereas at the height of the troubles in 1972, when I was there, there were no fewer than 26 major units in the Province.
We should not forget however that our forces, both regular and UDR, continue patiently and resolutely to get on with what is often a dangerous and unglamorous job while the world's attention may be focused elsewhere, and I should like to take this opportunity today to express my gratitude to them.
I have outlined today the very wide range of defence commitments which this country has. I hope I have made it clear that this Government are determined to maintain these strong defences. Our determination is amply demonstrated by the resources which we have provided for our armed forces over the past four or five years. Despite economic pressures and the need to control public expenditure as a whole, we have increased defence spending in real terms each year since coming to office. This year we will be spending some £15.7 billion on defence, a real increase of 17 per cent. over 1978–79.
As to the future, noble Lords will be aware that public expenditure in the years up to 1986–87 is currently under consideration in the normal autumn review. Our past record should inspire confidence that we shall continue to give substance to the high priority which we accord to the defence of the nation. I stressed earlier that the NATO Alliance is an association of free nations in which all members have an important part to play. The United Kingdom will not shirk its responsibility to its own people nor indeed to the free world. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1983 (Cmnd. 8951). —(Viscount Whitelaw.)
3.22 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for setting the scene for this debate on the Defence White Paper. As the chairman of the important new Cabinet Committee on Public Expenditure he has a crucial responsibility in relation to the matters that we are debating today. One of my small criticisms of his speech is that he did not take the House into his confidence as to the measures he is proposing should be taken over the next few weeks. Like him I shall look forward—and I am sure the House will—to hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, and the speeches of those others who are so expert in the field of defence.
The White Paper raises issues of the most profound importance for this country and the world, and I shall seek to pose a number of questions to the Government upon their general policy and upon its financial implications. There are some matters upon which almost everyone in the House is agreed: namely, that our defences should be adequate and efficient: that, especially given the size of the bill, we should ensure that we are getting value for money; that defence policy should relate to a clearly defined foreign policy; and that we continue as members of NATO and play

139
our full and fair part in that alliance as described by the noble Viscount.
What does the White Paper say? First, it estimates that the Goverment will spend nearly £16 billion in the present financial year, including £624 million on maintaining the Falklands' Garrison and repairing the losses of the South Atlantic war. It makes clear that the Government's defence budget has risen by 20 per cent. after allowing for inflation during the first four years of Mrs. Thatcher's first administration. Are we getting value for money? That is the question which the House must ask. Are we getting value for money? Are our defences 20 per cent. better than they were in 1979?
I noted what the noble Viscount said about the new warships and their cost. I am not expert about these warships but I have read what the experts have said over the weekend, and they say that the projected cost is likely to be much in excess of what the Government have quoted at the present time. These are the facts we want to hear about, for at this rate of expenditure we in this country are spending more than any of our major European allies, whether our military expenditure is considered in absolute terms as a proportion of national income or per head of the population. That is more than West Germany; more than France; twice as much as Italy. As I understand it, the Government's commitment is to spend £17,300 million in 1984–85 and £18,300 million in 1985–86. There is considerable concern not only about the relative size of the British bill compared with that of its allies in Europe, but also about our capacity and our determination to meet that bill. The House will wish to know more about this at the end of this debate.
This Conservative Government have been in power for over four years, and they are likely to be in office for another four years or more. It is their policies which concern the nation at this time, and they have certainly not been a model of clarity, especially when it comes to giving an explanation about the way in which everything is to be paid for. The country is entitled to know whether the defence budget still stands, and whether the projections for the next two years are still valid.
It is said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is showing concern about defence expenditure and turning his attention to it. What the Cabinet have done is to turn the noble Viscount's attention to it. Both he and the Chancellor will be looking at it together. The annual escalation in the cost of defence equipment, for example, estimated at an annual average of 6 per cent. to 8 per cent. on capital production costs is an acute problem for the Defence Ministry and is, so we are informed, much in the mind of Treasury officials. These are the matters which the noble Viscount will be studying over the next few weeks.
I am not an expert, but no-one who read the proceedings of the Select Committee on Defence in another place last year can be in any doubt that the system of procurement is gravely deficient in this country. The noble Viscount and his colleagues will have read with interest, as I did, the important series of articles on defence published in the Financial Times on 10th October. These articles dealt with all aspects
140
of defence in great detail and asked a number of important questions.
They made the point that second only to social security defence comes highest in the league table of British Government spending, and they say:
"It is hardly surprising that defence is a prime candidate for cuts as the Treasury attempts to keep overall Government spending within tight limits".
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to wind up the debate will deal with the following questions. First, will the Ministry of Defence be required to cut more than its fair share of expenditure in the next financial year, 1984–85? Is it not the case that the Estimates for that year are already about £300 million above planned targets? It must not be forgotten that when the new Chancellor excitedly cut expenditure by £500 million immediately after the election nearly half of that figure was defence expenditure. We have heard nothing about that in the speech of the noble Viscount.
There is a second and even more important question than that, and that is whether the Ministry of Defence will be able to fulfil its commitment to increase defence spending by 3 per cent.—that is 3 per cent. per annum in real terms—beyond 1985–86. In his new position again as chairman of that important committee the noble Viscount will have a special responsibility.
In view of the pledges made by the Conservative Party in the election we are entitled to clear answers on these questions. The rising cost of defence equipment is a matter which the Government have not properly faced up to, although it has been and remains a central problem. I am glad that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is to speak in the debate for he has always recognised this problem.
An article in the Sunday Times on 11th September quoted the noble Lord as saying:
"We stay on the certain road to absurdity or we get better at the risk-taking business".
He was dealing with cutting costs. It has been alleged that Britain's defence cost record has been 30 per cent. worse than that of most NATO countries. There is ample authority for saying that. Sir Frank Cooper, for example, the former Permanent Secretary at the Ministry of Defence, said in a speech to the International Institute of Strategic Studies:
"The only safe statement is that sticking to one's last is the way to disaster. Change is difficult but change is necessary and possible".
Sir Frank Cooper then called for reviews by groups which would—and I quote—
"take a more dispassionate look than those immersed on a day-to-day basis in defence management".
This whole area is so fraught with difficulties that, in our view, consideration must be given to a full-scale inquiry, perhaps even a Royal Commission, into the Ministry of Defence. The present uncertainty which surrounds its operations is one of the least satisfactory aspects of Government administration. I am quite sure that the appointment of the noble Viscount to the chairmanship of the committee is attributable to the worry which exists in the Cabinet about the department.

141
It is the fact that our military resources are extended across the world. Against the background of Britain's NATO commitment we must ask whether they are overstretched. The noble Viscount referred to "Fortress Falklands", and at some stage—sooner rather than later, we hope—we must look carefully at this again.
Perhaps later we can be told more about the position in Belize. The Foreign Office has said that the British garrison will remain there for what is called "an appropriate period", but it was unable to say what "appropriate" meant. The Prime Minister is said to have discussed the Belize situation with President Reagan when she was in Washington. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the results of those talks. Are British troops to remain in Belize, or are United States troops to replace them there?
We all noted Sir John Nott's recent remarks with great interest, especially his concern about the Falklands garrison. Dr. Paul Rogers, in the Guardian on 3rd October, estimated that the true cost of running the Falklands' defences at present is close to £1,000 million a year, excluding the cost of building the new airfield, replacing lost ships and capital equipment. That is a truly massive expenditure which we must take into account when we consider these Estimates.
I now turn to another matter referred to by the noble Viscount, and that is Trident. The House will be aware that we on this side are opposed to Trident. The reasons for this are well known, and I shall not go into great detail. We do not think we can afford Trident. Its costs will create an imbalance in our defence structure, and it will make the whole task of disarmament far more complex and difficult than it is at present. Of course, there are those on the Conservative side who share these doubts with us. Page 7 of the Statement says:
"There has been no change in the estimated cost of the Trident D5 system since last year other than for…general inflation and exchange rate changes. At average 1982–83 prices, the estimate is approximately £7½billion."
This is a huge figure, but what is the latest figure? That is what the House will wish to know. Is it not the case that by now the cost is in excess off £10 billion? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will tell us at the end of the debate. This volume of expenditure on Trident is bound to throw the defence policy out of kilter. It is so large a proportion of the overall defence bill that expenditure in other fields will be severely reduced. To this extent it will begin to dictate defence policy rather than be a part of it.
If Britain is to continue to meet the Falklands expenditure and continue to play a global naval role in defence of other scattered points across the world—indeed, if we are to have a significant Navy and to build the new ships to which the noble Viscount has referred—and if we are to maintain an effective presence in Germany, how can we afford Trident as well? That is one of the central questions in the whole debate: whether we can buy Trident and at the same time maintain a reasonable conventional capability without increasing defence costs by several billion pounds. It is my duty from the Box on this side of the House to put this question seriously to the Government. If the Government persist with Trident, where is
142
the axe to fall on conventional arms? One cannot have both.
Does not the acquisition of Trident mean that our conventional contribution to NATO must suffer? The noble Viscount stressed the importance of our NATO membership, and I agree with him. What does Trident mean to the Western Alliance in real terms? Is it important to the Western Alliance? I am open to correction by the noble Lord when he winds up, but I understand that Trident will represent only 2 per cent. of the total nuclear capacity of the West. The USA's nuclear arsenal provides the remaining 98 per cent. Which is the more effective contribution to NATO? Is it the 2 per cent. on Trident or a progressively modernised conventional contribution?
It is also a fiction to imagine that the acquisition of this system will make war less likely. Both sides have enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other several times over, as the House is well aware. This is what makes the case for cruise missiles so dubious. To seek to match missile for missile when the nuclear capacity on both sides is so vast is a futile exercise. This was the point made by Professor Michael Howard in his article in The Times some months ago. He wrote then:
"The SS.20s remain a very small proportion of the enormous nuclear forces that the Soviet Union is capable of launching against Western Europe. The belief of some strategic analysts that the Russians can be deterred only by the installation of precisely matching systems—that ground-based missiles must he matched by ground-based missiles—is naive to the point of absurdity".
Professor Michael Howard is not an enthusiastic supporter of my party; in fact. I understand he is a warm supporter of the party opposite, and I hope that they will listen to the words of an acknowledged expert who is sympathetic to them. We should also remember that the decision to deploy cruise missiles was taken long before the planners knew about SS.20s.
The constant escalation, therefore, from one system to the next is one of the more frightening aspects of the situation. No sooner is one sophisticated weapon off the drawing board than the designers are working on some new horror. This is something that quite properly causes deep concern to the man in the street.
The noble Viscount referred to the so-called NATO "twin track" decision in December 1979 about cruise missiles. There is grave doubt whether that decision was right or tenable. Some experts doubt whether there is a good military case for cruise, and the political reactions to cruise in Europe are known to all of us. Saturday's demonstations reflected the feelings in Europe. We now read—this takes place during the Geneva talks, and I wish the noble Viscount and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, to pay particular attention to this point—that the first cruise missiles will become operational in Britain on 15th December. The plan is to instal them at Greenham Common, capable of being fired, ten days before Christmas. The Observer newspaper reported on Sunday that one flight of 16 missiles would become functional on this date. They have chosen a most inappropriate date. We are entitled to be told in this debate precisely what is happening about cruise missiles in this country. Is the Observer report accurate? And it was reported in the Sunday Times as well. If so, why is this step being taken while the Geneva talks are still in progress?

143
I find the position both confusing and depressing, and I feel sure that this view will be shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House. I read with great interest the letter which the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, wrote to The Times yesterday. No doubt he will enlarge on it when he comes to speak. He made the point—with which I agree—that there is no insurmountable harrier in the negotiations at the present time. With a little determination by both sides, with a little support from us and from the French and the other allies, there could be a solution to this problem. Would not a settlement in Geneva be a great triumph? Would it not, if it were achieved, make these deployments unnecessary?
People everywhere are concerned about the success of the disarmament talks, and the hopes and fears of countless millions are concentrated upon that table in Geneva. I myself believe that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House is anxious to achieve effective disarmament. I am bound to say to him, however, that there is a widespread feeling that the Government in their actions have given the impression that they are less than enthusiastic about disarmament.
I do not wish to repeat what I said in our last debate on foreign affairs, but it would be intolerable if the Geneva talks failed without this country being given an opportunity to sit at the table. And this applies to the French as well. You cannot argue on the one hand that this country's nuclear capacity is important as a bargaining counter, if you are not given the chance to bargain with it. It is difficult to envisage multilateral disarmament based on bilateral talks. We should, I believe, move to participate more actively in the negotiations.
Furthermore, our stance in the United Nations on some issues has been less than satisfying. For example, the General Assembly which met on 13th December had a resolution before it sponsored jointly by Sweden and Mexico, which called for a nuclear freeze—not on one side but on the manufacture, deployment and testing of nuclear weapons by both super powers. It was adopted by 119 votes to 17. I am sorry to say that Britain was one of the 17. The reason given on page 8 of the White Paper is that the freeze would perpetuate and legitimise Soviet superiority.
Here, again, we are up against the kind of escalation mentality which was deplored by Professor Michael Howard. I am under no illusions about the Soviet Union. I am certainly not one who criticises the Americans while giving credence to the belief that somehow the Russians are more conciliatory. We have it on Mr. Andropov's own word that he and his colleagues are not naive. Personally, I never thought that they were. I was glad to hear the noble Lord speak of the need to reach agreement with the USSR. But one of the least edifying spectacles of modern politics is that of the leaders of great nations bombarding each other with menaces and insults across the continents and at the same time continuing to produce nuclear arms which can destroy mankind. It is regrettable that Mrs. Thatcher feels it necessary to join in this and to do so herself with measured aggression.
We know what the USSR stands for and what it believes in. And it knows that we believe in something
144
substantially different. Nuclear weapons are not going to change that state of affairs quickly. They can obliterate them both but they cannot change them. I repeat that the hope and the common sense must come from the table in Geneva and that in such a critical stage of world history it would not be unreasonable now for President Reagan and Mr. Andropov, instead of shouting at each other across 5,000 miles, to arrange to meet at an early date in the interests of the millions they represent—and the rest of us as well. At the same time, when communications are easier than they have ever been, there seems to be a reluctance to meet at the highest level when the truth is that frequent conferences between senior representatives of the super powers are indispensable in their influence for peace and real understanding.
It is clear that, as in the tragic case of the destruction of the Korean airliner, critical events can occur without the immediate knowledge or possible intervention of national leaders. We must ask whether the lessons of this tragedy have been learned. I am sure that noble Lords read in The Times yesterday Mr. James Callaghan's powerful article about this and about the need for a meeting of leaders.
There is a feeling—and I am bound to put it to noble Lords opposite—that this Government are too prone to gallop in the wake of every American initiative, whatever that may be. We should be a little more independent, as the Americans were when Britain was the super power! I do not recollect in my reading of history that the Americans galloped after us as we seem to be following them. The Prime Minister's Washington speech was not one of her better efforts. The people of this country would be happier if she were seen to be more active in seeking agreement at Geneva and also in bringing United States and Soviet leaders together for practical talks in concert with President Mitterand and Chancellor Kohl.
My Lords, we are all agreed, I think, that we are passing through a most critical time in world history. I have the uncomfortable sense, which I am sure is shared by many noble Lords, that we have become a country with no room for manoeuvre. We are not negotiating; although we are most closely affected. There are armaments on our soil over which we do not have practical control; there is no dual control. Matters are being discussed which affect our destiny and we are not there to share in the discussions; we have surrendered our proxy to somebody else. So has a great nation come to a sorry pass. We are bobbing in the wake of a powerful ally, helplessly but hoping for the best.
I value the friendship of the United States, but this Government have become too subservient to that country's present Administration. The Prime Minister, herself, has gone too far. Let us play a more independent and constructive role in the United Nations, in NATO and in the EEC. That is what our people expect of the Government in these most unpredictable times.

Grenada
3.47 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement being made in

145
another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"I reported to the House yesterday about the disturbing developments in Grenada and outlined the steps which Her Majesty's Government were taking to protect our own citizens, and to keep in close touch with our Commonwealth partners in the region and others concerned. Since then, events have moved rapidly and I owe the House a further report.
"Yesterday evening the United States told us that they were giving serious consideration to a formal request from the Organisation of East Caribbean States requesting United States participation in a military intervention in Grenada. We put to them a number of factors which we thought should be carefully weighed before a decision was taken to intervene. Early this morning they informed us of their conclusion that, for the United States and for those Caribbean states who had proposed it, intervention was the right course to pursue. They assured us of their concern that the lives of British citizens should be safeguarded.
"The American community in Grenada is five times larger than the British community, and more exposed. President Reagan has explained that he had received reports that a large number of them were seeking to escape the island.
"We understand that troops from the United States, Antigua, Barbados, Dominica, Jamaica, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent landed on the island early this morning. No British troops are involved and HMS 'Antrim', which is standing off Grenada, has been ordered to stay clear of the area of operations. It is too soon to know how the operation has fared or what the long-term consequences will be. The House will follow these events with great concern. We must all hope that the outcome will be to establish peace and democratic government for the people of Grenada, with the least possible loss of life".
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. This is obviously a serious and critical development in Grenada. In view of the lack of full and detailed information at this time, I shall merely ask some brief questions. First, can the noble Baroness say what factors Her Majesty's Government put to the United States in respect of joint United Kingdom-United States interests in Grenada? Has she any up-to-date news about the United Kingdom citizens in Grenada? Can she say what the purpose of HMS "Antrim" is off the coast of Grenada? Is it envisaged that in some circumstances the "Antrim" might take British citizens off the island?
What is the position so far as the United Kingdom military role is concerned? Can the noble Baroness be more specific about that? Also, how do the Government see the possible situation following the United States' intervention? Is it, as she understands it, an intervention merely to safeguard the lives of United
146
States and British citizens, or has it some further purpose?
Finally, could the noble Baroness say whether there is any news about the Queen's representative, the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon? Is he known to be safe at the present time? May I also ask the noble Baroness if she will give an assurance, as I am sure she will, that a further Statement will be made as soon as possible if necessary?
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, no doubt the noble Baroness, whom I thank for repeating this Statement, will realise that we have had very little time to reflect on this train of events and, so far as I am concerned, to consult with anybody about the attitude we might take up. May I, however, ask just one or two questions. We must assume that at least some of the non-Grenadan and presumably mostly United States citizens are in considerable danger as a result of recent events, and certainly the gang who shot the last Government do not inspire any particular confidence. Therefore we must assume that some United States citizens at least are in considerable danger. But if so, presumably—and I should like the noble Baroness to confirm this—the United States and Caribbean forces will be withdrawn when the United States and other non-Grenadan citizens are evacuated or their condition is considered to be tolerable.
If, on the other hand, the intention is, as I suppose it might be, to set up some kind of authority in the island based on the power of forces now engaged in safeguarding the position of United States and other citizens, then clearly a completely different situation will arise. I imagine that the Government, before taking any action, would consult Parliament as to what actions they might then take. Finally, could the noble Baroness say whether she has any information as to whether at this point any other state, in view of the latest events in Grenada, has raised this matter in the Security Council of the United Nations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I thank both the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for their responses to this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked a number of questions. Regarding the concerns that Her Majesty's Government expressed to the United States, we stressed the vital importance of not endangering the lives of British nationals and not hazarding the life of the Governor-General. I can confirm that HMS "Antrim" was ordered to sail for Grenada over the weekend as a prudent precaution in case it might become necessary to evacuate British citizens by sea. I would confirm that no British troops are involved in the undertaking. As for the future, I think it is too early to speculate on what might happen. So far as the Governor-General is concerned, we have no reports of any harm having come to him.
I might perhaps confirm again to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that our concern has of course all the time been the safety of our own British nationals in Grenada. The United States Government were very concerned about the risks to their large and clearly identifiable community, and it was for them to decide what action to take to protect their citizens. The airport was closed and the situation was extremely volatile.

147
So far as I am aware, the matter has not been raised in the Security Council as yet. Should that be incorrect, I will of course let the noble Lord know; but the legal justification which might lie behind the question put by the noble Lord is that it is primarily a matter for the United States and the Caribbean Governments as to their intervention, but it is the right of any state to take appropriate action to secure the safety of its nationals.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recall that I asked her some questions yesterday. Is she aware that Grenada is a sovereign state owing allegiance to Her Majesty and a member of the Commonwealth, and has now been invaded by a foreign power? Despite the fact that all of us would condemn the violent coup that has taken place, violent coups are not unknown in that part of the world and it appears a little strange that this one has been singled out by the Reagan Administration for invasion. There was no invasion of Chile when the coup overthrew the Allende Administration in 1973.
Yesterday the noble Baroness refused to express the Government's hope that there would be no external intervention in this unhappy situation. Did she at that time know that there was to be an American intervention? How does it come about that the American Administration can disregard the wishes of the British Government, a fellow member of the Commonwealth, whose Queen is head of the Commonwealth and also head of the Administration in Grenada? How does it come about that a foreign state can invade—
Noble Lords: Speech!
A noble Lord: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby:—a British allied territory within the Commonwealth, and what do the Government intend to do in the face of this intervention? What was the action of the Governor-General, representing the Queen, when the invasion took place?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, is able to condemn the violent coup that has taken place: we can agree on that point, if not on the other points he has made. As I indicated in answering the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the reason for the intervention of the United States Government was the concern for their many residents and their community in Grenada. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the noble Lord, LordHatch, that at the time I made the Statement yesterday afternoon I had no knowledge at all of the subsequent events or preparations, and the Statement was of course made in good faith. Had that not been the case I would have come to the House and made a Statement about it. Finally, may I say that on the question of consultation we received a message yesterday a few hours after the Statement was made in another place. We expressed our concerns to the United States; but in fact the Eastern Caribbean states were the ones who were taking the lead in this matter.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, would my noble friend agree with me that, particularly in view of the fact that Cuba has for many years been an enemy of the Western Alliance, what has been going on in Grenada for a long time has been a source of anxiety? Would she further agree that when Grenada or any other of the West Indian islands look like turning into a territory that might be at enmity with the West, there develops a serious threat to our naval strategy, to which the West must have immediate regard?
Baroness Young: My Lords, since Mr. Bishop became Prime Minister of Grenada, we and many of the other Caribbean states have expressed our concern at some of the policies of that Government. We regard it as completely deplorable that there should have been this coup and the murder of Mr. Bishop and some of his Cabinet colleagues and others, and we view the whole situation as one which is very serious.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would the noble Baroness agree that the most extraordinary thing about this incident is that it should have taken place without any reference whatever to the Security Council of the United Nations?
Baroness Young: My Lords, as I indicated on an earlier supplementary question, it is the right of any state to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of its own nationals and that has been the prime concern of the United States.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the Statement says that the American action was taken in response to an invitation from the Organisation of East Caribbean States. Are the Government in a position to give us the terms of that invitation or, at least, to say whether that invitation made reference to what is now said to be the United States' prime concern; namely, the safety of United States citizens?
Baroness Young: My Lords, so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, no formal written request from the Organisation of East Caribbean States was received in London until yesterday evening. As the noble Lord will appreciate, discussions with individual Caribbean leaders are confidential.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the proposition which she has just enunciated, that any state has the right to protect its own nationals, is an extremely dangerous one? Is she not aware that this would license anarchy all over the world? Is she not aware that this country has in the past exercised enormous restraint when our own nationals have been mistreated in various parts of the world? We have never adopted the proposition that we have a right to intervene immediately when any of our own nationals are in difficulty. This proposition, to which the noble Baroness apparently gives her blessing, is anew and dangerous one and it is a proposition which, if it were exercised by any country other than the United States, I am pretty sure she would condemn outright.
Baroness Young: My Lords, the proposition is as I have stated it and I have no reason for thinking that that is not correct.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness's last supplementary answer was not quite clear. Did she say that no written communication had been received from the Organisation of East Caribbean States before yesterday evening, and, if so, does that mean that a written communication has now been received? Has any communication, or any copy of any communication from that organisation as such, come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government? If so, can the Government please tell us what was in it, since that is apparently the prime mover of the United States landing?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not in a position to answer the detailed questions that have been put by the noble Lord. The situation remains as I described it in an earlier answer. I did not, in fact, answer the final point of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, but of course the House will be kept informed of developments.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, further to that point, is the Minister not aware, as the House should be, that certain Caribbean states, including Trinidad, have refused to participate in this venture? Does she not also recall that just yesterday afternoon she told the House that there was no obstacle to British citizens leaving Grenada? If there is no obstacle to British citizens, how is it that there is an obstacle to American citizens, or a supposed obstacle? Finally, when the noble Baroness answered my first supplementary question she said that she had no knowledge of any plans for an invasion. Is she not aware that there was general knowledge as long ago as Sunday that the United States was planning to invade this island and had been asked to do so by certain Caribbean states?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the answer to the first part of that supplementary question is: Yes, I am aware that it was the OECS countries that asked the United States to intervene and those states do not include all the members of Caricom. There has been a difference between the two groups. It is true that when I made the statement yesterday that we believed that British citizens could in fact be evacuated from Grenada, the British High Commission in Barbados were making every effort to arrange a charter flight yesterday to evacuate British tourists stranded on the island. Because of the confused situation in Grenada they were unsuccessful, but they were making renewed efforts in this regard. As I said, there are far more American nationals and tourists on the island. They were readily identifiable and therefore were at risk. I am not going to add anything to what I have said on my Statement yesterday, except to confirm again that it was made in good faith at the time.

The Defence Estimates
4.6 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, the House may wish to resume the debate at this point, and I should like to begin on behalf of my noble friends by thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for his clear and comprehensive survey of British defence policy.
150
Perhaps I may add that I have a special personal interest in looking forward to the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, with whom I recall sharing some traumatic experiences in the Navy Department in the '60s, when the Cabinet instructed the Navy to scrap its aircraft carriers and to maintain all our commitments East of Suez without any seaborne air power. I expect that it is etched on his memory as deeply as it is on mine.
Having thanked the noble Viscount for his clarity and comprehension, I wish that I could go on to thank him for his reassurance, but I am sorry to say that on many of the points that worry my noble friends and myself he had no reassurance at all to offer. On the contrary, he himself in one part of his speech drew attention to the weakness of NATO in conventional terms and yet he had nothing to offer us as to how to handle this gap in the conventional balance. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, we had to look forward—if that is the right term—to further cuts in defence as a result of the review of public expenditure that is being made.
We had no reassurance from the noble Viscount that we shall be able to maintain the pledged 3 per cent. real increase in our expenditure on our NATO commitment. Indeed—again, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out—we are actually diverting our conventional effort in the direction of the expensive Trident project and also in the direction of the "Fortress Falklands" policy, which is, in our opinion, of very doubtful viability.
Nor did the noble Viscount give us much reassurance on the most important and worrying part of the whole defence field, which is the worsening of East-West relations—quite a marked worsening even since the last debate on defence that we had in this House—largely as a result of the Korean airliner outrage. This is made more serious by the divisions on the Western side on the assessment of the Soviet threat and on the best course to take to react to it.
President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher have declared that Soviet policy is aggressive and expansionist and that we should react with policies of strength rather than conciliation. But other Western leaders have given much more stress to the Soviet obsession with their own security and there is a school of thought which is arguing quite actively that there is no threat at all of Soviet expansion. This school includes a strange collection—the Greek Government, Monsignor Bruce Kent and Mr. Enoch Powell. I think that it was sensible of the North Atlantic Assembly at its recent conference to recommend the establishment of a NATO commission to survey the field of East-West relations as it is now, and the Soviet threat as it is now. I hope very much that Her Majesty's Government will give their support to this recommendation, if necessary taking the initiative to get it carried out.
One question, for example, that the commission might very usefully try to review is this: what changes have there been in Soviet policy and Soviet practice over the years? There have been major changes. The Soviet Union is still willing to contemplate aggression outside its borders, as Afghanistan shows, but not on the postwar scale. It is still willing to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries through its links with

151
overseas communist parties; but this intervention is nothing like what it used to be, partly because the communist parties are weaker, more divided and less obedient than they were, but partly also because, quite plainly, in recent years the Soviet Union has given higher priority to its security objectives as against its ideological objectives. Its political warfare has changed in its message. It is still subversive, but it no longer calls on the workers of the world to unite and overthrow their capitalist régimes. It no longer even calls on the Western peoples to throw away their nuclear weapons. Its message today is that the peoples of the West should compel their Governments to negotiate disarmament on the basis of equality.
Finally, there have been changes in the field of human rights in the Soviet Union. The picture is still black, but it is not so horrific as it was. It fell to my lot as a junior Minister very many years ago to make the first speech at the United Nations attacking Stalin's slave labour camps. Owing to gaps in Western intelligence, I now see that I actually understated the scale and horror of the camps. But one could not make that speech today—not because the Soviet Union is not a police state but because the degree of tyranny is less than it was then.
I believe that these changes are important and that while the NATO countries remain vigilant they should take them into account in policy formulation. When President Reagan describes Andropov's Russia as "evil", when Mrs. Thatcher refers to the present Soviet leaders as "our sworn enemies" and when Mrs. Kirkpatrick delcares that the West should take its gloves off and attack human rights in the Soviet Union, one has the feeling that these views lack historical perspective and are a little over-simple.
It is surely important to know, for policy forming, whether we are dealing with a state which is evolving or whether we are dealing with a state which is set fast in its bad habits. One reason why we on these Benches support, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, suggested, top level decisions is so that President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher may have a better chance of answering some of the questions of this kind. Then, when a new crisis comes, such as Afghanistan, Poland or the Korean airline disaster, the West can reach a more unified and a more objective view of the best reaction.
This is made more necessary by the likelihood of the breakdown of the INF negotiations to which the noble Viscount referred. It is true that there is still some way to the actual deployment of the missiles—17th December was mentioned—and it is true that the negotiations are still planned to continue until 7th November, but there is no sign of either side making the concessions necessary to reach agreement. Ministers who were assuring us that it was only when the time came to deploy the missiles that the Soviet Union would start negotiating seriously are now telling us that it is only when the missiles have been deployed that the Soviet Union will start negotiating seriously. Neither of these statements was very persuasive.
Yet if we look at the talks and get them into perspective, surely the gap is not so wide as to be unbridgeable. The ideal solution, according to President Reagan and according to Mrs. Thatcher, is the zero option: no
152
cruise, no Pershings, no SS.20s. That is to say, no cruise, no Pershings, no new step on the ladder of escalation in order to couple Western Europe with America. The ideal solution excludes that. On the other hand, we know that the Russians would settle for no cruise, no Pershings and 162 SS.20s. In terms of warheads, the gap is less than 3 per cent. of the total stockpile of the two powers. However, the United States, backed by the United Kingdom, declines to make any compromise offer whatever. It declares that deployment must go ahead. It declares that—again British Ministers support this—on the basis that the United States has been flexible in the negotiations and the Soviet Union has not.
Since this will undoubtedly be disputed for a long time to come, I think that it is worth looking briefly at this view that the Soviet Union has not been flexible and the United States has, because the record does not make this self-evident at all. Since the negotiations began, the Soviet Union has agreed (and it was a move towards the West) to reduce the number of SS.20s deployed in Europe to the number of French and British deterrent missiles—162—and to dismantle the surplus; whereas, leaving the frills aside, since the negotiations began the Americans have merely re-jigged the zero option. They have said that if the Russians do not like equality on the basis of zero, what about equality on the basis of 50 cruise and Pershing missiles and 50 SS.20s, or 100 of each? That is to say, the Russians should accept the deployment of the two new weapons systems, cut down their deployment and allow the Americans to increase theirs.
It can be argued that the Russians were wrong to reject the zero option. It can be argued that they were wrong to reject this re-jigged option. What cannot be claimed is that this re-jigging is in any sense a concession, because it is quite plainly less advantageous to the Soviet Union than the zero option itself. And what else has the United States offered in the course of these negotiations? It has simply adamantly opposed the figure of 162. It has adamantly and rigidly refused to allow any counting whatever of the missiles in the French and British deterrents.
It is easy to argue, and I agree with it, that the Soviet claim that the French and British deterrents should be counted informally and completely—warhead for warhead—is unreasonable, because they are conventionally regarded as strategic, as the noble Viscount said, and because they are independent. But that does not mean that the Russian case is pure nonsense. Although we call them strategic, in fact these missiles are of marginally shorter range than the SS.20s, which we call intermediate. And although the British Polaris fleet can certainly be recalled at any time to independent command, it has for years been deployed by NATO. It is under NATO command, is targeted by NATO and forms part therefore of the Western overall nuclear deterrent. Therefore it is unreasonable both to say that the French and British deterrents count completely and to say that they should not count at all, no matter how informally.
What should be done, surely, is that the United States and the Russians should look at what has been done in the Vienna negotiations to reach a conventional balance in Europe, because here the French troops are independent of NATO. Therefore it

153
is agreed that they should not formally be counted in. But for the purpose of reaching an agreement the figure of 50,000 troops has been added to the NATO side of the equation. What common sense. Why can we not accept the precedent of Vienna in Geneva? It could still be done. When the United States refuses to contemplate making any other offer—say of zero-zero-80, or zero-zero-100—thus reducing the gap to what is really negligible (to 1 per cent. or 1per cent. of the warhead stockpile of the powers) that to me is very disappointing. One is indeed tempted to ask why this should happen. It is true of the Russians, and true of the Americans, I think, that they suffer from the failing which has led to so many disarmament negotiations failing in the past—because the negotiators on both sides, advised closely by military experts easily blinded by military science, fail to balance the military issues at stake with the political issues at stake.
The military issues at Geneva have been vastly exaggerated but the political issues are enormous. If we could get an agreement, it might be a whole breakthrough in East/West relations. It would certainly give a flying start to other multilateral negotiations—especially the START talks. It would end the rather dangerous divisions in NATO. And a successful multilateral agreement would put paid to unilateralism, to the peace campaign, to the neutralists and the anti-Americans in Europe. The political issues at stake at Geneva are enormous.
I feel bound to ask how deeply committed are the United States to reaching an agreement at Geneva. We cannot help recalling that it took two years after the twin track decision before the Americans, under allied pressure, agreed to negotiate at all. We remember that the timetable they insisted upon was absurdly leisurely. Again, it was only tightened up later as a result of allied pressure. I have met or listened to almost all the top Americans handling these negotiations. With one exception, I am bound to say that they give me the impression of not being seriously committed to reaching an agreement. The exception is Mr. Nitze. Like his colleagues, he strongly opposed ratification of SALT 2 and was successful. Nevertheless, he did produce in the "walk in the woods" proposal the one and only instance of American flexibility during the negotiations. When this proposal was reported to Washington, it promptly had its throat slit.
I ask, then: what have the British Government contributed during these negotiations? There is absolutely nothing in our membership of NATO or in the twin track decision that obliges us to accept the United States' present negotiating position—nothing whatever. At the same time, the British attitude is absolutely decisive to the outcome of the negotiations. If we deploy, the Germans and the Italians will deploy. If we do not deploy, the Germans and the Italians will not deploy. The British position is absolutely crucial, and this means that any reasonable condition we attach to the deployment of cruise missiles in Britain will almost certainly be accepted by the Americans.
There is no evidence that the Government have laid down any conditions at all, at any stage. Ministers have been content to adopt a kind of public relations role—packaging President Reagan's rigid line and selling it to the British as a "superflexibility". They
154
have not laid down conditions. They have not shown independence. As has been said, the negotiations are still going on and deployment will not take place until 17th December. If the Government had the will, they could insist even now on a last-minute attempt to reach an agreement at Geneva—a compromise offer which would reduce the gap to negligible proportions. And, at the worst, if it failed, it would put the blame for the deployment of cruise and Pershing squarely on the Soviet Union, for the whole of world opinion and European opinion to see. Ministers still have an opportunity for leadership in this vital matter; I trust they will not throw it away.
4.25 p.m.
Lord Lewin: My Lords, it is just a year since my name appeared among many others in the list of honours and awards for the campaign in the South Atlantic. I am humbly conscious that I owe my seat in this House to the men of all three services and the Merchant Navy who fought and won that victory. I am grateful. too, for your Lordships' welcome to this House.
I should like to take this first occasion to thank your Lordships and indeed all the people of this country for the support and encouragement which the services were given during that campaign. It was a great inspiration to us all.
As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has indicated, I have with great regret to leave rather early this evening, before I expect this debate will be ended. I have a long-standing commitment to speak to a group of senior officers, both serving and retired. Sadly, I let them down at short notice earlier this year when I fell off a ladder and sprained my ankle and I cannot let them down again. I hope to be much more controversial with them this evening than convention will allow me to be this afternoon.
I should like to discuss three issues of vital importance to any current debate on defence; money, nuclear weapons, and our service people. First of all, money. Defence is a long-term business. Ships, aircraft and weapons systems take a very long time in development and production. It takes a long time to train our skilled people and to build up adequate stocks of munitions and war materials. It is all the more important, then, to be able to plan sensibly the defence programme ahead and to know within reasonable limitations the amount of money that is likely to be available.
Even short-term, small fluctuations, if compounded over the whole of the defence programme, can have a sizeable repercussion, causing us to review our defence policy, wasteful cancellation of projects already in development, a cutback in production runs, and shortfalls in the build-up of our stocks and reserves. I was very glad, therefore, to see that the Government had reaffirmed the commitment given during the life of the last Parliament to meet the NATO target of a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence expenditure until 1985–86. When given in the last Parliament, of course, that was the maximum life-span of that Administration.
I would remind your Lordships that, at the NATO defence ministers' meeting in the spring of this year,

155
NATO defence ministers endorsed that NATO countries should endeavour to extend that rate of increase in defence expenditure until 1990. Therefore, I hope very much, now the Government have been re-elected, that they will continue to give the same priority to defence and will extend that commitment to increase defence expenditure at 3 per cent. beyond 1985–86 and into the future.
I hope that the basis of that decision will be the needs of NATO's security and not the performance of our allies, which is not always a good yardstick. Indeed, if NATO as a whole does not increase defence expenditure by 3 per cent. at least in real terms in the decade ahead, then we shall remain in our present unhappy position when, should the Russians attack, we would have the difficult choice between defeat and early recourse to nuclear weapons.
That leads me to nuclear weapons. I have no intention of discussing nuclear strategy because without doubt that would be controversial. I should like to set out some facts about Polaris and Trident and perhaps just an opinion or two based on my experience as a one-time operational commander of the Polaris force and as Chief of the Defence Staff at the time when the decision to replace Polaris with Trident was made.
I have a very great respect for the innate common sense of the British people, and it does not surprise me at all that a majority support the need for this country to have its nuclear weapons, its strategic deterrent and Polaris. But it does distress me that the same majority does not support Trident and it seems the Government have so far failed to explain that if we wish to retain our independent strategic deterrent into an uncertain future then we have no alternative but to embark on the Trident programme.
Polaris is a weapons system based on the technology of the 1950s. It is now uniquely in British service. As time passes it becomes more costly and more difficult to maintain. With its Chevaline improvements it will remain credible only until the mid- 1990s; but all the best professional advice shows that it is inconceivable that it could run beyond that time except at completely disproportionate cost and with very high risk of breakdown.
It is unfortunate for open government that the information required to make the choice of a successor to Polaris is hedged about with very high secrecy and much of it could not be published without prejudice to our own and our allies' security. But there can be no doubt that Trident is the most cost-effective replacement for Polaris if we wish to continue with our strategic deterrent into the future. Indeed, there is now no opportunity to switch to another credible alternative in the timescale. It is too late, even if we wished to do so, and even if we were prepared to spend the greater amount of money that a credible alternative would require.
There are those who would cancel Trident and keep Polaris against an uncertain future, perhaps for use as a bargaining chip in arms negotiations. This is in fact an option for unilateral disarmament. In the hands of such a Government that would cancel Trident but maintain Polaris, Polaris as a bargaining chip would
156
be useless. The Russians would only have to wait and it would go—time expired—and in my view the sands of time would run out very quickly. With Trident cancelled it would make no sense to give Polaris the super-priority that it now requires, and has always required, to keep it operational. Nor I believe would it be possible to maintain motivation in the crews and all those who support the Polaris force. I also suggest that in those circumstances Polaris would lack credibility in our own eyes, let alone the eyes of a potential enemy. With Trident cancelled I would give Polaris two years at maximum before it withered away.
Neither would it make any sense for us to maintain the expensive research, development and production resources solely to produce nuclear weapons for the battlefield and theatre level. It is unimaginable that a Prime Minister would authorise the use of British nuclear weapons at theatre or battlefield level without the ultimate sanction of a strategic deterrent to back them up. Such British weapons would have no deterrent value; and nuclear weapons are possessed solely for their deterrent value. If we cancel Trident we will be out of the nuclear business and it seems to me that that is not what the British people want.
Let me turn now to people. I quote briefly from the Statement on the Defence Estimates now before us.
"The Falklands campaign…demonstrated the outstanding quality and commitment of our servicemen."
Amen to that. Of course, it is the training that we give our young men that contributes to this quality; but it cannot be just the training. The raw material has to be there. There it is; there is nothing wrong with the young people of this country. I am against conscription but I very much hope that the training facilities of the services will be made available to volunteers among those unhappy young people who are unemployed because I am sure that they, and the country, will benefit greatly from their experience.
Seven years ago the chiefs of staff were in very distressing circumstances with manpower. I do not think I can recall a time when I have been more worried about the future defence of this country. Successive Governments had more often rejected than implemented the recommendations of the independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body. The pay of our servicemen had fallen some 30 per cent. behind their civilian counterparts. Recruiting was extremely difficult but, much more important, we were losing quite large numbers of highly skilled men in whom we had invested great quantities of money; men who were happy in service life and had no wish to leave but felt that they owed a responsibility to their wives and children to earn the rewards which they so obviously deserved.
In 1979 the incoming Government changed that. They implemented the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Since that time they have accepted and implemented those recommendations year on year. Pay is no longer an issue and it leaves the services free to get on with the job. That is as it should be. I earnestly recommend that this state of affairs should continue in the future.
Finally, may I again quote from the Statement:
"The Falklands campaign underlined the importance of the flexibility, mobility and readiness of our forces".

157
In fact, in the years before the Falklands campaign we had ignored the priority that flexibility and mobility require. Our flexibility and our mobility were not as they should have been. It was only thanks to brilliant improvisation and initiative, not just on the part of the services but of all those that support them, including the defence industries of this country, that we were able to succeed. If a few more years had passed we would certainly not have been able to undertake that campaign. I very much hope that that lesson has now been learned. In fact, the noble Viscount, the Leader of the House said in his speech that it had and that we were now providing the flexibility and mobility that we need.
That must also apply, I suggest, to the Merchant Navy, which must be kept strong and diverse if we are to meet the future. All history shows that it will be the unexpected that will test us again.
4.39 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, it is my priviledge to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and to be the first to congratulate him on his outstanding maiden speech. He speaks with a very great experience which covers the whole range of defence. The forthright and non-controversial manner in which he has spoken today leads us all to hope that we shall hear him on many more occasions. I can assure him that he will always be listened to with very great interest and very great respect.
In debating this Motion on defence today there are two particular aspects of the 1983 Defence Statement which I should like to acknowledge with emphasis. The first is the remarkably clear and forthright way in which chapters one and two of Part 1 of the Statement highlight the difficulties of arms control negotiations and the need for sound agreements with the Soviet Union on disarmament, both nuclear and conventional, which if achieved would be of enormous benefit to the whole world.
The 1983 Defence Statement states the Government's policy on these matters and includes essays on NATO strategy and nuclear disarmament which not only discuss alternative approaches to these problems but state very clearly the arguments against a unilateralist policy—arguments which the CND choose to ignore. These first two chapters and their accompanying essays on the arms control negotiation and nuclear forces are well worth careful study. I hope that in this debate this afternoon any noble Lord who argues for unilateralism will respond to the words of the Motion which we are debating by paying full regard to what is said in these two chapters.
The second aspect of this latest Defence Statement with which I am particularly pleased is the continued reference to the lessons learned in the Falklands campaign. We are often criticised for not learning the lessons of history—even fairly recent history—but the Falklands campaign clearly demonstrated to the nation, and indeed to the world, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, said, that we can have nothing but pride in the courage and professional skill of our armed forces. The operational and administrative planning of that operation by both staff and civilians was of the highest order.
158
But we did learn valuable lessons about our equipment and ships, and these lessons have been splendidly documented in the White Paper on lessons learned in the Falklands, issued shortly after that campaign was so successfully concluded. The White Paper was fully debated in your Lordships' House. However, these lessons on improving and modifying our equipment will take some considerable time to be put fully into effect. The point that I wish to make is that I hope that future Statements on defence will continue to refer us back to these lessons until they have all been satisfactorily resolved.
The particular Statement we are discussing today has suffered from two drawbacks. First, its publication was delayed because of the General Election, and, then, when it was published soon after the new Government took office the Treasury immediately cast doubts on the total defence bill which it presented, and these doubts and discussions still continue. Inevitably, coming so soon after an election, it has been accused of offering up the same medicine as before, but that is exactly what one wants from a Defence Statement. We do not want a new broom at the Ministry of Defence radically altering our defence policy each year. However, it must be said that the calibre and content of these annual Statements have improved very greatly in recent years, and the one we are debating today gives very full and detailed information indeed.
The point that I wish now to try to make is that I do not believe that we in your Lordships' House do adequate justice to these excellent annual Statements and the very many aspects of defence with which they deal. Defence expenditure currently stands at nearly £16 billion a year, and it is rising. I believe that this makes it the third largest demand on our national budget. Partly because of these high costs, but above all because national defence and security are so important, proper attention must be paid in debating the matter fully. In another place they invariably allot two days for debating Defence Estimates. In addition, they have separate debates on each of the individual services.
Finally, when approving the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Act continuation orders, which must be renewed by Parliament each year, the other place invariably take the opportunity to debate pay, conditions of service, promotion prospects and other matters concerning the welfare of the men in our armed forces: whereas in your Lordships' House we allocate only one day to debating a Motion such as my noble friend the Lord President has moved today, to take note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates. Today's debate has attracted 23 speakers, but there have been in the past—and in the recent past—as many as 32 speakers taking part in our defence debates. I think that probably it is rather lower on this occasion because it is only the second day after we have returned from our holiday.
This House now includes five most senior officers of our armed forces who have had very distinguished careers and recent service in the highest echelons of command, both in our national armed forces and in NATO. Besides them, many of your Lordships have ministerial, diplomatic and industrial experience in

159
defence matters, and others have served in the regular or reserve forces or have particular interests in various aspects of defence. I think there can be no parliamentary chamber in the world better qualified to review the details of our defence structure than this one, and yet confined to one single debate each year I do not believe we do justice to the wide scope of data and other information provided by these annual Statements.
I believe that in trying to cover all the defence matters in one single debate noble Lords naturally speak to those elements of defence in which they have personal experience or personal interests, with the result that the debate is not cohesive but tends to be a series of disjointed and unconnected opinions, often unrelated to what has been said by previous speakers. Furthermore, with the intense political interest which the deployment or upgrading of the nuclear deterrent now quite rightly stirs up, this important subject often monopolises much of the debate, to the exclusion of the many other aspects of conventional defence which need our attention.
Finally, I think that a single day's debate to take note of as wide a subject as defence is unsatisfactory. The task which it sets the Minister who winds up at the end of perhaps an eight-hour debate, with 30 speakers, averaging 15 minutes each, is unsatisfactory both for the Minister and, if I may say so, his audience. I am not suggesting that we should have a two-day debate on the single Motion to take note of the Defence Statement, because I believe it is the experience that the second day tends to be an anti-climax. What I believe we should consider doing is to debate the Annual Defence Review on two separate days, each day responding to a different Motion which defines a part of the Defence Statement to be debated. Obviously there will be areas of overlap between the two Motions, but if they are properly drafted I think that much of this overlap could be kept to the minimum.
In considering how these Motions might be phrased I quickly discarded the idea of one nuclear and one conventional debate. However, as a possible suggestion—and there must be many others which will come to your Lordships' minds—I believe that it would be practical to have one day's debate when the Motion would be to consider the United Kingdom defence contribution to NATO, including the nuclear deterrent, both national and United Kingdom based. In this Motion it would be quite in order to discuss our contribution to NATO on land, sea and air, and also that part of the Territorial Army designated immediately to NATO.
The second Motion is not quite so tidy, I have to confess. It is rather more all-embracing, but it might refer to taking note of and considering the defence and security of the United Kingdom base. In this Motion it would be proper to discuss air defence of the United Kingdom. the maritime arrangements around our coast, the defence of the Western approaches, the strength and training of reserves, and so on.
Since the annual continuation order (to which I have referred), by which each year Parliament renews the discipline regulations to be enforced in the armed
160
forces, imposes on them conditions over and above the law of the land, it is absolutely right that that occasion should provide an opportunity to discuss the conditions of service, pay, accommodation, and those matters concerning service well-being. The other place invariably uses the occasion to do so, but in your Lordships' House we very rarely do so. We have done so, but only on very rare occasions. It is a very convenient way of spreading the total subject of defence over more than one day. It gives one another chance to discuss personnel matters on a separate occasion.
Thus, if we spread our debate over two days, with two separate Motions, and when necessary make use of the continuation order, I think that there will be very few topics not covered in the Defence Statement. I have in fact thought of two which would not be very well covered. One is defence activity beyond the boundaries of NATO, and the other is research and development, but I think that both of these subjects are probably best covered by either taking a chance and balloting for a short debate, or by means of Starred or Unstarred Questions.
There is one other factor which I think is worth mentioning in regard to the problem—if indeed your Lordships agree that it is one—which makes it difficult for proper time to be allowed for defence debates. In a normal year the Statement on Defence is issued in March, and we usually debate it in May or June. Of course, in a normal year by May or June our own programme and timetable is growing very overcrowded, and it becomes very difficult to fit in satisfactory defence debates at that time of year. I merely state that as a problem which we must consider.
I do not think that today we need to worry too much about the actual wording of the two Motions which I have suggested, because I think that your Lordships may well have much better ideas. Nor will I expect my noble friend the Minister who will be winding up today's debate to respond to my suggestion. But if there are sufficient of your Lordships who agree that there is some scope for discussing how best we can debate defence matters in the future, then I would ask the all-party Defence Committee if it would arrange a discussion on this matter upstairs in committee, among its members, and if the committee is able to develop a suitable recommendation, it should submit it to the Chief Whip for discussion through the usual channels.
My Lords, I must apologise if my speech has been rather irrelevant to the Motion on the Order Paper, but I thought that it was right that I should raise this matter during a debate which is attended by so many Peers who are interested in defence. I am extremely grateful to your Lordships for listening to me despite that irrelevance, and I very much hope that you will consider my suggestions.

Radioactive Waste
4.54 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place by my

161
right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Statement reads as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the procedures for dealing with radioactive wastes.
"The White Paper of July 1982 stressed the great importance which the Government attach to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. These wastes, which vary greatly in type and source, are a necessary product of modern society. Their effective disposal, in ways which have been shown to be safe, is well within the scope of modern technology.
"It has been decided already that the high-level, heat-generating wastes from nuclear fuel should be solidified and stored for at least 50 years. This will allow the radioactivity to decline and the necessary information to be collected for an eventual choice of the best means of disposal. However, there is no scientific reason for deferring the disposal of other categories of waste—and that is what the rest of this Statement is about.
"For many years, low-level waste has been regularly disposed of, both on land and at sea. The Government firmly believe that sea disposal is a safe method for certain kinds of lower-level wastes from laboratories, medical uses and other sources. It has been authorised by successive Governments, and is permitted under the London Convention. It is overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence, but the Government regret that they have not so far succeeded in persuading certain unions of this. If there were authoritative evidence of a real risk to human health, or significant and permanent damage to the marine environment, then of course it would cease to form part of the national waste management strategy. A sea disposal operation will not take place this year, and the waste for which sea disposal is planned will be stored on land for the time being.
"There is, in any event, a need to bring into operation by the end of the decade land disposal facilities for intermediate level wastes. The responsibility for providing those facilities falls to the nuclear industry and the generating boards acting through NIREX, the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive. A copy of its first report has been placed in the Library of the House. The technology for constructing and monitoring such facilities is well developed. NIREX will be able to draw on extensive research and operational experience in other countries.
"Two new facilities are likely to be needed, one consisting of a concrete-lined trench and the other of a deep underground cavity. NIREX is today announcing two sites which it considers sufficiently promising to justify further investigation. The possible site for a deep facility is at Billingham, in Cleveland, and the possible site for a shallow facility at Elstow, in Bedfordshire. Copies of the NIREX statement are available in the Library.
"The decision by NIREX whether to proceed with proposals for these sites will depend on the outcome of survey, drilling and other investigatory works. It is possible that, depending on what is
162
involved, such works may require planning permission. If so, I shall call in the relevant applications for determination after public inquiries. I emphasise that these inquiries would give an opportunity for expressing views on the investigatory works themselves, having regard to their planning implications. They should not he seen as a forum for considering the merits of disposing of wastes at the sites.
"If NIREX wishes in due course to propose that a disposal facility should be established at one of these sites or at any other site, planning permission will be necessary. It is my intention to call in any such application and arrange for a public inquiry to be held under an independent inspector, at which the merits of disposal at the proposed site will be considered in the light of the views of all concerned.
"In addition to planning permission, any arrangements for disposing of radioactive waste in England will also have to be authorised by me, acting jointly with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, under the Radioactive Substances Act 1960. I have today published, and placed in the Library of the House, a consultation document embodying the principles which it is proposed that the authorising departments should apply in assessing schemes. All concerned are invited to comment on the draft principles. I intend to seek the advice of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee and to strengthen the committee by appointment of additional members. The final statement of principles will be published as a framework for consideration of the individual schemes.
"The sites will also be subject to licensing by the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate of the Health and Safety Executive, and appropriate regulations will be brought forward in due course. Approval of the schemes will depend on satisfying a comprehensive range of exacting requirements designed to safeguard the public and the workforce.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government are committed to the safe and effective management of radioactive wastes. Additional land facilities are needed for the disposal of intermediate level waste. It is essential that decisions should be taken on the basis of informed scientific advice and after rigorous study of the views of all concerned, and that the installations and operation should be subject to stringent scrutiny and monitoring. The Government believe that the proposals I have announced represent an effective procedure for achieving these ends".
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for repeating a Statement made by the Secretary of State in another place. The Statement is of the greatest importance to everyone in the country, not only to those people living close to the sites to which the Minister has referred, who naturally feel more strongly about the matter. The Select Committee on Science and Technology in its report published in July 1981 stated clearly:
"Public hostility to hazardous waste disposal facilities is common and is too important to be ignored".

163
I should therefore like to ask the Minister what steps the Government intend to take to try to reassure the many people who feel, and who always have felt, very nervous and worried about this whole subject.
The last sentence in paragraph 2 of the Statement states:
"Their effective disposal, in ways which have been shown to be safe, is well within the scope of modern technology".
The penultimate sentence in the fifth paragraph of the Statement states:
"The technology for constructing and monitoring such facilities is well developed".
This seems to assume a safety of modern technology that has not yet been completely proved within the timescale that the Government have taken. In the eleventh paragraph, there is reference to "informed scientific advice". One problem, as the Minister, I am sure, will be well aware, is that scientific opinion is very divided. There is by no means one view, or a unanimous view, about it.
I should like to ask the Minister what consultation has taken place between NIREX or the Government and the two local authorities now selected. I know that there is severe local criticism that the Government failed to carry out the usual pre-selection consultation with local elected representatives from the county and district councils and also the local Member of Parliament. This has caused great shock and distress in those areas. Furthermore, the reference in the Sunday Times last Sunday to water seeping in Billingham was extremely disturbing. As the official National Radiological Protection Board has pointed out, the biggest potential hazard of any underground dump is the possibility that water might seep into the waste, leak into ground water and then into the food chain. I do not know whether the Minister can help in respect of that matter.
The Statement refers in the seventh paragraph to the new procedure for planning inquiries. This is a totally new set-up in which the public inquiry comes before the planning inquiry. I should like to know under what rules this will operate. How, for example, can it rule out questions of the merit of a site, as it does in paragraph 7, and divorce itself from the economic and social factors which the White Paper of July 1982 stressed, in its annexe, as one of the objectives of radioactive waste management? It states specifically that the economic and social factors must be taken into account. The following paragraph of the Statement does not cover the point, because by then the cart will have been put before the horse.
What is the means of transporting this waste? What are the safety procedures that will be put into operation to make the transport of this material safe? It seems to us essential that the consultative document and the appropriate regulations referred to in paragraphs 9 and 10 should be debated in both Houses of Parliament.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the noble Baroness has asked so many questions that I am not sure whether the Minister would not like to answer them first. I wish to put only a couple more. In their anxiety to lay the
164
blame for these unwelcome developments, or some of them, on the unions concerned, it seems that the Government have done two things. In saying that the sea disposal of low-level waste will not take place this year, and laying this at the door of the unions, they have omitted to make any allusion to the opinions of other Governments about British practice over low-level waste disposal at sea. It would be interesting to know whether they share some of the objections of the unions concerned.
Secondly, it appears from the juxtaposition of paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Statement almost as if the Government are also making the land storage of medium-level waste the result of the objections of the unions to taking low-level waste to sea. I am sure that this is not the case, but it would perhaps be a good idea if the Government can clarify the issue.
My final point concerns the inquiries. The House will be glad to see that the relevant paragraphs, 37 and 68, of the White Paper about public inquiries reappear in this Statement and what is pledged there is to be adhered to. The Government say that the public inquiry that is promised into planning permission for the development itself—that is not the one about preliminary investigatory work but the one about actual disposal if it happens—is to go into the merits of disposal at the proposed site. Can the Government say that they would agree that one cannot look into the merits of the proposals at the proposed site without also going into the merits of disposal at other sites? Will they say, in other words, that the inquiry under paragraph 8 of the Statement will be free to consider arguments that this disposal would have been better done somewhere else in accordance with the provision in the 1968 Town and Country Planning Act, which provides precisely for that but which has never been used?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, it is always difficult when answering questions on Statements to write down everything that everyone says. I shall do my best to cover those points. I hope that if I miss anything your Lordships will bear with me. I shall, of course, be in touch.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked what steps the Government are taking to reassure people, who may be very concerned, in the areas that may be affected. I consider that a very fair point to make. I hope that they will carefully read the Statement which stresses so much the fact that what is being talked about here is an intention to deal with this particular problem with, at all stages, the opportunity of public inquiries for any concerns to be expressed and for objections to be made. Those concerns and objections would have to be taken very carefully into acount when independent inspectors submit the results of the inquiry and the Secretary of State or those concerned come to conclusions as to whether or not a particular site would be appropriate for use.
That is a proper point to make. It is right. The Government share that concern and will do everything they can to see that the fullest opportunity is given to everyone who may be concerned—and I do say "may be"—to express their views in every way.

165
The noble Baroness asked what consultation had taken place between NIREX and the local Member of Parliament. I do not know myself, but I am aware that he has expressed concern. The answer must surely be the same a the one that I have just given—namely, that he together with everyone else will have every opportunity to make his concerns and views known at the appropriate moment.
The Statement does not say that a decision has been taken to put these sites here; it does not say that at all. The Statement says that the intention is to look into all aspects of this being done. There would have to be two separate inquiries: the first for permission to do the looking, the surveying and any drilling that may be necessary, and the second to consider whether, despite all that, this is something that ought to be done here. So there truly will be much opportunity.
The noble Baroness raised the point about the Sunday Times article and the concern expressed about water seepage which I, too, have read. All I would say is that that is precisely the type of issue which would be scrutinised at a public inquiry. The opinion that has been given to me is that there would not be the problem that is mentioned in that article. But, I say again, that is just a view. It is the type of matter that would come out at a public inquiry. Indeed, that is the whole purpose of having such an inquiry. Therefore, no opportunity would be lost.
The noble Baroness also asked me about transport. She was concerned about what means of transport there would be for this waste. At this stage I must say that the method of transport has certainly not been decided. Again, the effects of the transport movements would also be an issue which would be considered at a public inquiry into a proposed disposal facility. However, as a point of interest, it is worth noting that both the sites referred to are beside existing railway lines and are not far from motorways. I think that I have covered the points that the noble Baroness made. If I have not done so I shall read carefully what she has said and come back to her.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, referred to the Government's anxiety to blame the unions. That is a less than fair observation. There is no attempt to blame anyone for anything. We have here a situation which has to be tackled—I do not think that the noble Lord would quarrel with that. The trade unions themselves have said that they are in favour of land sites of this kind and, therefore, this Statement is all about the procedures for looking into the possibility of two of them. It does not affect in any way or make any attempt to blame anyone at all.
The noble Lord said that I omitted to comment on the opinions of other Governments. I can only say as regards that matter that other Governments are doing very similar things themselves. The United States, France, Germany and Canada have significant nuclear programmes and they either have or are developing disposal facilities along similar lines. The French have been operating a site for shallow burial of waste for some time and the Germans have successfully carried out disposal of intermediate level waste in a disused salt mine. The noble Lord raised a point, I think, about whether there was concern about the sea. I understand—and I will certainly verify it when I write
166
to the noble Lord—that there is not concern about what we are proposing in that respect. But again I would have to confirm that to him. I think that that was the thrust of what he was saying, but I do not mind the opportunity to make reference to what others are doing in this field because it may be of interest to your Lordships.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked whether one would go into the merits of the matter. Clearly that is also precisely what a public inquiry would do—that is the whole point of it. In this instance I am talking about certainly two public inquiries if the matter should go further.

NHS: Management Inquiry
5.14 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on the publication of the advice given to me by the National Health Service Management Inquiry. As the House will recall I set up an inquiry into the management of the health service under the chairmanship of Mr. Roy Griffiths, the Deputy Chairman and Managing Director of Sainsbury's, in February of this year. I asked him to review current initiatives to improve the efficiency of the health service in England and to advise on the management action needed to secure the best value for money and the best possible service to patients. I have today placed in the Vote Office copies of the report which I have now received from the inquiry team.
"The inquiry team endorses the main initiatives that the Government have already taken to make health authorities accountable for the performance of the services they provide. However, they say an enormous programme of management action is still needed. The inquiry team found that at all levels in the National Health Service there is a lack of a clearly defined general management function. Responsibility is too rarely placed on one person. Although they would like to harness the best of the consensus management approach, they found that at present consensus management can lead to lowest common denominator decisions, and long delays in the management process. Another effect is that the process of devolution of responsibility is ineffective.
"Accordingly the inquiry team propose a series of changes aimed at making the existing organisation work better in practice rather than aiming at yet another restructuring of the service.
"Inside the Department of Health the team propose that I should set up and chair a new Health Services Supervisory Board. The board would have some external members and directly accountable to it would be a management board which would bring together the present management functions of my department relating to the hospital and community

167
services, the family practitioner services and special health authorities. A new chairman of the management board would be appointed, probably from outside the service. The report also proposes that a personnel director should be recruited.
"At the regional and district level the report recommends the identification of a general manager for each authority. Such a manager would be drawn from any discipline—that is, from any of the professions engaged in the management of the National Health Service—and his job would be to secure effective management of the authority's services.
"The report also recommends that hospitals and other units of management should as far as possible take all the day to day management decisions. Doctors should be closely involved in local management through the development of management budgets for which they would be accountable. The team also recommends the identification of a general manager for every major hospital and other unit of management.
"In short, the key recommendation is that a clear management responsibility should be identified for carrying out all National Health Service management functions and that this responsibility should be devolved as near to the patient as is practicable. The report is also in no doubt that major cost improvement programmes can and should be initiated in the National Health Service aimed at much higher efficiency to be sustained over much longer periods than at present.
"There are three additional points to make on this report. First, the report does not propose any further structural reorganisation. All its recommendations are designed to take place within the existing statutory structure and without affecting the constitutional position of Parliament, Ministers and the health authorities.
"Second, the recommendations will not add to existing costs or staff numbers. Indeed, inside the Department of Health they should lead to a reduction of activities and staff.
"Third, the report emphasises that the National Health Service is about delivering services to people. It is not about organising systems for their own sake. The team say that the driving force behind their advice is their concern to secure the best deal for patients and the community within available resources; the best value for the taxpayer; and the best motivation for staff.
"Mr. Speaker, the Government very much welcome the general thrust of this advice and are very grateful to Mr. Griffiths and his colleagues. I shall be setting up within my department the Health Services Supervisory Board as recommended. Among its first tasks will be to establish the management board and to initiate action in respect of health authorities and professional and other health authorities and professional and other interests involved, but subject to the outcome of these consultations I would hope that authorities would be able to start implementing the general management function from April 1984.
168
"The National Health Service is one of the largest undertakings in Western Europe. The service needs and deserves the very best management we can give it. One of the best contributions we can make to patient care is the improvement in National Health Service management along the lines recommended by the Griffiths Report".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for the Statement that he has made. Of course, we shall need time to study this report because, owing to the arcane traditions of this House, it came into our hands only this afternoon. I hope that there will be opportunities for further debate.
However, today I must ask certain questions. The Minister said that all the recommendations were designed to take place within the existing structure. But in his Statement the Minister is adding two, if not three, more tiers to the structure. We are to have a health services supervisory board, a management board and district managers for each authority—I make that 192 district managers, and I think that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. How many more quangos are to be introduced into the National Health Service?
There is to be:
"a general manager for every major hospital and other unit of management",
whatever that is. Despite all the criticisms that have been heard for a long time about the National Health Service, I thought that there was party agreement that above all we must tackle the administrative and bureaucratic element in the National Health Service. Now the Minister comes to the House today and tells us that the result of this report is that we are to have more and more administrators. The only difference is that now they are to be called "managers". I must ask the Minister who is to appoint the health services supervisory board and the management board, what are their powers to be? Will they be able to ride roughshod over local decisions, local committees and community wishes? Who will appoint the general managers of the 192 authorities and what will be the general managers' powers in relation to committee decisions? How many more staff will be needed to implement the recommendations that: "every major hospital and other unit of management"—whatever that is—should also have a general manager? For instance, how many family doctors make up a unit of management? I should not like to be the manager who managed a nest of general practitioners.
Have the Government considered the effect on personnel in the National Health Service, where teamwork and sensitive co-operation at every level is essential before bringing in this new "boss" structure? The Minister said that the responsibility should be as near the patient as possible, but how does the insertion of managers help to bring services closer to the patient? I should have thought that it was one more obstruction in the tier of responsibility.
Can the Minister say whether the committee consulted the trade unions at all? What is to happen about

169
the Whitley machinery? What is to happen about the people who are actually working now in the service who, according to this Statement, are to be invaded by an army of new people called managers? What is to happen to the present administrators? Are they to be upgraded to something called "manager" and to be paid more because their title has changed?
The Minister said that there is to be a personnel director. What are his powers to be? Is he to go from hospital to hospital and from general practice to general practice saying, "You have a nurse too many" or "You have a kidney machine operator too few"? What are his powers to be?
The Statement said that these plans will not add to the costs or to staff numbers. But how can all these new managers, right down to unit level, be appointed without adding to staff numbers unless other staff are sacked? If other staff are sacked, they must receive redundancy money, so that will add to the cost. It makes no sense at all. What sort of salary range can these managers expect? I believe that it is usual in business—even in successful supermarkets and chain stores—for managers to be paid more than those they manage. Therefore, are these managers to be paid more than the consultants or are they to be put on the works manager salary scale? How can the Minister say that this will not cost any more when he is adding to staff who must be paid at a high level? You cannot introduce into a situation someone who is called a manager who is paid less than the people he is managing.
I know that it is late and that many people want to speak in the main debate today; but I must say to the Government that the approach of the Statement seems to indicate to us a total failure to appreciate all the complexities—especially the human complexities—in a service already working under severe pressures and financial anxieties. It appears to bring commodity economics and the attitudes of the marketplace, the high street shops and the chain stores, however efficient those chain stores might be, to the totally different problems of a national service which was set up to promote good health and to care for those suffering from ill health.
Therefore, at this stage we do not welcome the Statement. We do not think that these proposals will alleviate the problems of the National Health Service; we do not think that they will shorten the outpatient lists or that they will bring one more kidney machine into use. We see the Statement as proposing a new structure of something called management which can only add to what most of us would consider to be top heavy bureaucracy and administration in the National Health Service. But I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the Government will find time for a debate so that we can go into these matters in more detail.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for repeating this important Statement. We welcome those parts of the Statement which suggest some devolution of powers from the centre to the grass roots in the National Health Service, a move which would be applauded on these Benches, as would in certain localities the
170
appointment of individuals with management functions. That too is something which we have been recommending for years.
Having said that, does the noble Lord agree that no amount of administrative manoeuvring within the present constraints of the National Health Service resources could possibly make those resources adequate to cope with the present increasing workload? Further, will the noble Lord note that on these Benches we agreed with Sir John Hoskyns in some of his criticisms of the machinery of Government and, indeed, of those who operate the machines. We agreed that the deployment of resources—once those resources had been fixed—is indeed a matter for business methods. That, of course, is a matter to which Mr. Griffiths' committee has rightly and properly addressed its attention.
However, we do not agree that the fixing of resources as between one Government function and another is a business matter at all. That is a matter of choice, a choice to be made by those who provide the resources: the electorate. In that connection, is the noble Lord aware that polls now show clearly that the majority of the electorate would choose to spend more on the National Health Service even if that means spending less on defence or perhaps some other Government function?
Finally, will the noble Lord resist the temptation to pick on overworked and efficient administrators at the grass roots of the National Health Service as whipping boys for the inadequacies of the service? If the Minister wants to find superfluous bureaucrats, he need look no further than the Elephant and Castle. Nevertheless, we welcome much of what is stated in the Statement and we look forward to the implementation of some of these proposals.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, and the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for their remarks, even if they are not altogether pleased with what they think the Statement contains. First, may I say to the noble Baroness opposite that many of the questions she asks will become much clearer when she has time to study the report more fully. I appreciate the administrative arrangements which lead to the report reaching her hands rather late in the day. Nevertheless, I think it will become much clearer to her when she does read it.
So far as adding another two or three tiers to the existing structure is concerned, this simply is not the case at all. There are plenty of managers within the National Health Service but there is not coming from them sufficient management. That is exactly the point that the Griffiths Report is trying to get across. Nor is this a question of another quango being set up. The people concerned will be firmly within the DHSS and the existing statutory framework, so no question of a quango arises.
The noble Baroness asked whether the trade unions have been involved. The trade unions were consulted when the inquiry was setting about its business, and so far as I understand it they did not produce any adverse views on those which were expressed and discussed at the time this consideration was going on. The noble Baroness referred to what she called the "boss"

171
structure. It really takes me back to what I said earlier. The fact remains that there are many managers but they are not actually getting on with the job of management. Management by consensus is all very well, but in many walks of life it is clear that at the end of the day somebody has to be responsible and accountable. This is the whole point of the recommendations that my right honourable friend has accepted.
May I quote from Page 12, paragraph 6, of the report. It says:
"Absence of this general management support means that there is no driving force seeking and accepting direct and personal responsibility for developing management plans, securing their implementation and monitoring actual achievement".
It goes further than that, and no doubt the noble Baroness will read it.
The noble Baroness also asked about the appointment of the general managers and others. She also referred to the question of who will be on the supervisory board. The members of the board will be as recommended by Roy Griffiths' letter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will chair it. The other members initially will be my honourable friend Mr. Kenneth Clarke, the Minister of State; Sir Kenneth Stowe, the first Permanent Secretary; Sir Henry Yellowlees, the Chief Medical Officer, who will be accompanied by his successor, Dr. Acheson; and my right honourable friend is considering non-executive appointments to the Supervisory Board. It is far too early to name the chairman of the NHS Management Board, who will also be a member of the Supervisory Board, but Ministers thought it important to let all know that they are anxious to make an early start following through the inquiry's advice. This they are arranging rather than wait for every appointment to be made.
So far as appointments at district, region and unit level are concerned, what I can say is that one of those involved in the actual administrative functions as it stands at the moment would be selected, or appointed, to do the job. It might be a nurse, it might be an administrator, it could be a doctor or whomever, but it would be for a fixed-term period and that person would be accountable and would not necessarily be reappointed. The noble Baroness asked various questions. I hope that I have been able to answer most of them, but the rest will become clearer to her when she studies the report more fully.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, raised a couple of questions. The first was to do with the question of the report on administration. He was referring to Sir John Hoskyns's report. That goes rather wide of the report that I am concerned with and the Statement that I am repeating today. So far as polls are concerned and spending more on the National Health Service, I think that that really is a little bit of a red herring on this occasion. The important thing is to get efficiency out of what we have got, and at the moment it is clear that the National Health Service is not as efficient as it ought to be. This seems to be a widely held view, and the whole purpose of the Griffiths' report is to achieve management which works to make the whole system more efficient.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, this seems to be a much more comprehensive report than we had anticipated. We have an amazing number of recommendations such as, for example, the suggestion that the RHAs should be strengthened considerably as they are responsible for running the health service in their regions, and they are almost nearest to the patient. May I ask the Minister not to reply to me now but to consider with the Government, and put it to the Government, that this is a matter that we ought to debate for a few hours in this Chamber?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that that request, which I note, is really a matter for the usual channels. I am sure they will take note of it.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, there is one brief question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur. It is probably not sufficiently recognised in this country that the administrative costs of the National Health Service, which run between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent., are among the lowest in the world. Of course, in any administrative system there are bound to be some inefficiencies and some room for improvement. It is possible, as a result of Mr. Griffiths' report, which we have not had time to read, that some improvement will be made. If any efficiency savings are made through this new management scheme, will they be ploughed back into the National Health Service at the coal face, where the money is required, and not simply spent on other things?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, that is the whole point of the system. The idea of filling the National Health Service with administrators who do not directly affect patient care but indirectly affect patient care has been discussed widely over the last few months, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, knows. If we can achieve efficiency here in the way that the Griffiths' Report recommends, then the results of that would go directly towards the patient.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, clearly since few of us have had a chance of seeing this report it would be inopportune to ask too many questions at this stage. However, I wonder whether my noble friend can say, in view of the last observation he made about the composition of this board whether the General Nursing Council will be represented? It would seem that there is at least one Minister going to be represented on the board, but this whole Statement seems to lack any direct involvement of nurses and those who are undertaking the therapeutic side of medicine itself. While not expecting my noble friend to give a detailed answer at this time of day, could he ascertain whether the General Nursing Council will be represented, because it seems to be most important that they, of all people, should have an important point of consideration here?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, these are all matters to be taken into account when the composition of the board is further discussed. As I think I made clear, the Secretary of State is considering non-executive appointments, and whether or not the General

173
Nursing Council is one of those concerned is a matter for my right honourable friend himself, but no doubt he will take note of my noble friend's views.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the new managers' salaries are to come out of the present regional health authority budgets? In the old days the nurses used to be accountable to the matron; and would not an appointed matron wearing a uniform have been a cheaper way of getting accountability of nurses than yet just another manager, who will probably be wearing a suit and will not be recognisable? He will just be yet another manager.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the noble Baroness asked the question which was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, about the payment of general managers and whether they will be paid more and how they will be paid. The answer is that we have got to look at what general managers in the district do when appointed, and consider then in fact whether they should be paid more—because they will be coming anyway from an existing function. It is a point that has not yet been firmly sorted out, but it will be. So far as matrons are concerned, the suggestion made is something I would rather like myself, though I am speaking entirely personally. I do not think that that point has been covered by the report. The professional functional responsibility of functional managers such as nurses is not decreased. A unit director of nursing services, for example, would continue to manage the nursing staff within the budget and would be responsible for their professional competence. The general management function will tighten up the environment within which the professional managers' work, clarify where professions may be at cross purposes, and ensure that sensible decisions are taken. However, I think that the appointment of a matron is rather a different story.

The Defence Estimates
5.41 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, we now revert to the debate on the Defence Estimates. My first word must be to recognise the importance of the maiden speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Lewin. It was with an authority and a detailed knowledge which must be considered by the Government and by all who accept his attitude towards defence. He will expect me to say that I differ from that attitude, but I appreciate the importance of the expression of that view in the House when we are discussing defence.
On 1st November, All Saints' Day, the first cruise missiles will be installed in this country. I think all the saints will turn in their graves. Incidentally, it happens to be my 95th birthday. I do not regard it as a very nice present. On Christmas Day those cruise missiles will have been put into operation: a devil's present to the season of peace and goodwill.
I challenge the Government in their claim that they have a mandate to instal either the Trident or the
174
cruise missile. At the Labour Party Conference I stated that more of the electorate had voted in favour of parties opposed to the Trident and to the cruise missile than had voted for the Government. The figures bear out that statement. The total vote for the Government at the General Election was 13,012,612. The total vote for the four parties opposed to Trident and to the cruise missile was 13,123,967. That gave a majority at the General Election of 111,355 against the Trident and against the cruise.
If we add to that majority the votes for the Social Democratic Party, which was also against Trident, the majority against the Government at the General Election was 3,682,349. I do not want to exaggerate the significance of the comparatively small majority which was against both the Trident and the cruise missiles, but probably there were some who voted Conservative who were opposed to Trident and cruise. At the demonstration last Saturday we had a number of Tories against the cruise missile. I acknowledge that it may well be that many who voted for Labour, for the Liberal Party or for the Welsh and Scottish Nationalist Parties did not oppose cruise; votes at elections are given on broader grounds. But I submit to the Government that that analysis of the vote at the last election shows that the electorate of this country is almost equally divided on the question of the Trident and cruise missiles.
If one accepts that fact, the implications are very serious indeed. The installation of Trident and cruise missiles is an issue bound up with the whole issue of peace and war. If one is to have a policy which is so important, on that issue one must have national unity. We do not have that national unity, and the Government are behaving in an irresponsible way if they proceed with policies to which half the nation has shown that it is opposed.
I do not think we have yet realised the effect of this decision to deploy the cruise and Trident. Inevitably there will be an escalation in the arms strength of the Soviet Union. Today it has been announced that it will site missiles in East Germany and in Czechoslovakia. To any escalation by the Soviet Union the United States will respond, and thus we are entering on an arms race which will mount on either side and will mount to a very dangerous position, a point of possible no return, and end in nuclear war.
I am hopeful that that will not occur. There is a suggestion that the Soviet Union delegation will walk out of the Geneva talks. I think it unlikely to do so as more than a gesture, perhaps, for three days. I think the probability is that the discussions will go on at Geneva to seek some compromise on this issue. I urge Her Majesty's Government to exert the fullest pressure upon their Western allies at those discussions, just as I would urge those who are sympathetic to the Soviet Union to urge both, to seek in proposals which are made those which are acceptable, and not to pinpoint those which they feel they must denounce.
My Lords, it is not often that I agree with Mr. Heseltine but I agree with one of the recent statements which he made, and that is that the British Government should not allow this decision on the armed strength of the world to he decided by just the United States of America and the Soviet Union. There will

175
very soon be an opportunity for the British Government to contribute their proposals for arms reduction in the world. That occasion will be the European Conference on Disarmament to be held at Stockholm in January. Today, the preliminary discussions for that conference are taking place at Helsinki. I urge Her Majesty's Government to do their utmost at the European Conference on Disarmament to make proposals which will really contribute to a solution of this problem.
When we last discussed this issue the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for whom I have a great respect, argued that the peace movement in this country includes all parties and includes the Government. I would say this. If the Government are going to prove that, as they so frequently say, they are in favour of multilateral disarmament, they must reverse both their theory and their practice. Their theory is that the nuclear deterrent of the last 40 years has brought peace and that we must rely on it—a deterrent of fear and of terror. How can that be a security of peace?
What has happened during those 40 years? First, nuclear weapons have become far more deadly. The weapon which fell on Hiroshima killed, eventually, 200,000 people. The expert committee of the United Nations says that a nuclear weapon has now been made 4,000 times as destructive as the weapon which fell on Hiroshima. That means that one bomb could kill 9 million people, could kill the whole population of Greater London. But not only have weapons become more deadly: the likelihood of a nuclear war has become greater. Even the idea of limited targets—military headquarters, political headquarters—would now mean the death of millions. But no one who has any knowledge of warfare can believe that a limited nuclear war would remain so. Inevitably, as the security of both sides came to be endangered, full nuclear weapons would be used.
In conclusion, I want to say that the Government must also reverse their practice. They have continually opposed, at Geneva and at the United Nations, proposals for a comprehensive peace programme. That peace programme would involve the abolition of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in two periods of five years followed by an indefinite period to proceed to general and complete disarmament. That proposal is still alive. I heard only two days ago from Mr. Olaf Palme that the committee at Geneva proposes to introduce that programme once again at the General Assembly of the United Nations. I ask Her Majesty's Government, if they are sincere in their demand for multilateral disarmament, that they will support that proposal when it is made.
Last weekend showed that there is an overwhelming desire in the whole world for peace. When Mr. Nixon was President he had the reasonableness to say this. He had proposed using nuclear arms in the Vietnam war. There was a vast demonstration outside the White House in Washington, and Mr. Nixon had the common sense to say, "I bow to the opinion of the people". I beg this Government—I beg all Governments—to bow to the opinion of the people of the world, which as never before is demanding disarmament and peace.
Lord Darwen: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I add something to what he has just said? He said that the Conservative Party had a contingent in the march on Saturday. He did not mention that the Liberal Party had a very much larger contingent.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I welcome that fact very sincerely. I did not think it necessary to mention it, because the Liberal Party had already declared at the General Election that it was opposed to Trident and the cruise missiles.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, my first and very pleasurable duty is to add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords on the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. I was privileged as an itinerant Minister—of which he saw many in his long career—not just to know him and to see him at work over two years but to see part of his great contribution in the Falklands.
While it was a privilege to be with the armed forces as a whole—who took over and ran the show very efficiently showing they could do it without politicians—in particular I must take this opportunity of saying that the noble and gallant Lord's personal qualities in a time of stress were of the highest order that I have seen in a long life, through family background and otherwise, of meeting many great men. He had enormous courage and great calmness at moments when not all around him had the same. We are fortunate to have him with us and I hope that we shall soon see him in his true colours, with the non-contentious maiden speech behind him, joining the galaxy of five-star officers uninhibited perhaps by their past—whether their uniforms have been purple or dark blue or light blue or like me with some genetic light blue coming through and brown of a junior order, which is where I actually served! Let us welcome him to our counsels and hope that he will guide us with his great wisdom and his great qualities.
Even before three Statements have been repeated and debated, I think my noble friend Lord Cathcart had already made a very worthwhile point in relation to defence debates in this House. As a Minister in the past who has suffered, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will suffer this evening, from trying to do justice to some 30 speakers, I echo that the task is impossible. I hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House, Viscount Whitelaw, will ponder seriously the recommendations that have been made.
I want, in the briefest time I can keep myself down to, to talk mainly about a subject which my business background and my Ministry sojourn entitle me to speak about, which is the cost of defence. That is the subject specifically before my noble friend Lord Whitelaw at the present time. But before doing so I must just comment very quickly on a few of the main issues, since I follow the noble Lord. Lord Brockway. I have to say to him that general elections are about a number of things. I have to say to him that in the last General Election a vast majority voted against unilateral disarmament. I also have to say to the noble Lord that a recent poll by Marplan—I have always watched the Marplan polls with care, but they are in line with all other polls—showed that only 16 per cent. of the population in this country believe in unilateral

177
disarmament. All opinion polls have shown over and over again that the population believe in keeping our armaments up and keeping a British independent deterrent.
It is not surprising that the population, or part of it, may be a bit muddled as to how to do that; and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, say that he must take account of the speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and of his opinions on this subject. He expressed those opinions so much better than I have ever done in this House, and he drew the lesson that the important thing is that the public are not in favour of unilateral disarmament. He spelt out so clearly that if you do not keep in step with technological necessity in this awesome business and in your planning for 20 years ahead (which is what we are doing in the case of Trident) you are out of the nuclear deterrent business as an independent country much earlier than you realise. I agree with every word he said and I personally believe that the Polaris deterrent, under such a policy, would not last even the two years that was mentioned.
Of course there is always a political incentive to find a new and attractive way to limit costs in these things, and I have to say that there is too much wishful thinking on ways in which we could maintain our independent deterrent which are not in fact practical if you know even half the facts which Ministers were allowed to know, as opposed to all the facts which the noble and gallant Lord Lewin actually knew.
A word before I get into the cost of defence equipment on arms control and on the negotiations: we covered this very fully on 16th February and so I do not mean to repeat it. But I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, say that he did not believe the Russians would walk out of the negotiations. I do not believe it either; but I would go further and say that I would not mind too much if they did, because I believe they would come back. I should like just to put before the House, as a life-long industrialist, the impossibility of winning a tough negotiation with a tough opponent on a difficult subject when all the members of your own board—or indeed perhaps all the members of your own company—are for ever publicly disagreeing about what you should do in the negotiations, leaning over backwards to half-take the other company's point of view and slandering their allies. That example of a company in disarray can be matched on the other side of the negotiating table by a chairman controlling every peice of information, not informing his own public or the members of his company of any of the main facts of the situation and controlling every release of information.
My plea, incoherently put, is that we realise the difficulties, the shortcomings and the disadvantages of a democracy and still more of a set of democracies, in negotiating with a single-minded dictatorial Communist country. I do not believe that we are good at judging the position of our opponents. We are inclined to think of their position as being the same as ourselves, whereas they are not in such a position. We must not let democracy be a disadvantage in very tough negotiations.
In my opinion there has been too much speculation in the past year on the situation that might arise if
178
nuclear deterrence were to fail. I have been prepared to join in that if for no other reason than to try to point out that deterrence is credible and because I believe that everybody with knowledge of the facts should indeed try to strengthen the credibility of defence rather than weaken it. But we are not talking in terms of deterrence failing: we are talking in terms of making deterrence work. We are not talking in terms of fighting wars with these awesome weapons: we are talking in terms of making sure a war never happens. I think that there is a failure in this conjecture, as well as the danger of taking the conjecture too far, to think in terms not only of the difference in viewpoint of the potential aggressor against the point of view of the democratic defender, but the actual position of the two possible sides. The democractic defenders want nothing: the aggressor is the man who wants something, and unless one starts from that point of view one finds oneself following a path and saying that if you ever use any weapon the enemy would reply—let alone a nuclear one.
This is not common sense. As regards the awesomeness of modern weapons being used to advantage, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that there is much in what Professor Howard said to support the view that the awesomeness and even the quantity of modern weapons are not in themselves likely to be a cause of war. I was privileged, among other Members of this House I think, to listen to a long discourse which he gave to an institute earlier this year.
In my view, it comes down finally, in this age of very awesome weapons in the hands—if they are in the hands—of democratic defenders, preferably widely spread, to the fact that a potential aggressor today can never believe that he will get away with aggression. To a high degree in the past, the belief that he would get away with it was the main, and is now possibly the only, cause of war.
Let me turn quickly to the costs of defence. Let us address our minds more to the 98 per cent. of defence expenditure, which it is at the present time, rather than to the 2 per cent. spent, as the White Paper reveals, on strategic nuclear weapons. Let us also turn our minds more to the cost over the next 15 years, or 17 years as it may turn out to be, of the main part of our defence, rather than to the 3 per cent. that Trident may cost. Admittedly, it will peak, but it will peak far below the level at which Tornado peaked. At 3 per cent. over that period of time it is an extremely good value piece of deterrence. I believe that the French are spending over 20 per cent. on their strategic deterrent.
So let us look at the 98 per cent. and let us realise, first, that in real terms it is a bigger budget than we had in the 'fifties, yet we have one-fifth of the number of ships and one-third of the number of aircraft that we had then. That was my observation at the Ministry of Defence of the main reason for what is sometimes rudely called by the media "Strife between services", although I regarded differences of opinion as being highly healthy and very responsibly expressed. But the main reason why, in my time at least, each service felt that it had too little was the enormous escalation in the cost of a single ship—although a much more powerful ship—a single aircraft or a single tank.
Chapter 4 of the 1982 White Paper spelled out the reasons in some detail and the possible means to

179
contain this problem. I regret to say to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that the Sunday Times, in repeating only part of the answers that I gave to certain questions, left out all the area which was printed in the 1982 White Paper of the methods which I believe the Government still see—because they endorse that chapter in Chapter 5 of this year's White Paper—as the means to contain and reduce the cost escalation, which in the words of the 1982 White Paper has been running for most main equipments at between 6 and 10 per cent. per annum.
This resulted, and perhaps it made me just partly famous for a short moment in the Ministry of Defence, in a phrase of mine which is still used—the road to absurdity. It was not that everybody in the Ministry of Defence did not understand what had been going on before I ever got there, when they had the thankless task of educating yet another Minister. But in getting a businessman, they got one who wanted to quantify it. I did get it quantified and that is why it appeared in Chapter 4 of the 1982 White Paper. I think that Sir Frank Cooper, who was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, would be the first to say that when the discussions started on this matter he did not believe that it was anything like as high as that. I still believe that it was slightly higher than that. Anyway, that was the agreed figure and that is why we have one-fifth of the number of ships and one-third of the number of aircraft—albeit much more powerful ones.
Before returning to the main steps which need to be taken to contain that figure, let me very quickly say that I regard it as a red herring to suggest that a very significant increase in conventional strength in NATO in Europe can be made at low or moderate cost or addition to the defence budget, which can thus sufficiently raise the nuclear threshold. I am well aware of the number of learned documents that have been written on this subject in the past two years, but in my view they make two main errors. First, they appear to take the view that we can afford not to raise conventional defence in terms of numbers of tanks, aircraft and other things to parity with the Russians and yet we shall as defenders be relatively safe. Many of your Lordships are greater students of history in the military field than I am, but the aggressor with no sea between him and the rest of Europe. picking his spot for attack, has enormous advantages and I do not believe that anything far short of parity is likely to lift significantly the so-called nuclear threshold.
This does not mean for one moment that I am not in favour of strengthening our armaments, particularly by this method, which is the second possible mistake in the reasoning. It is suggested that if we use more clever conventional weapons we can increase significantly the conventional holding power. We should not under-estimate Russian technology, but we still have leads in certain areas. However, the main point that I want to make is that the idea that developing clever conventional weapons can be done cheaply is a complete non-starter. I speak as one who tried and tried again, in my two years at the Ministry of Defence, to do just that and at every point I found that it would cost enormously more, not less, than current nuclear weapons.
180
In view of the number of speakers to come, I must cut my remarks short. I want at this stage to say to my noble friend Lord Whitelaw that, as he well knows, he is sitting in the chair of nothing like the first committee to do the essential job of keeping down Government expenditure, and I am sure that those who have given evidence to his committee will have wearied him already with some of what I am going to say. But having been through the exercise prior to the Falklands, and prior to the 1981 White Paper, I have to say that it is seldom realised how long-term is the question of defence expenditure.
I believe—it must be so at the present time—that probably 95 per cent. of next year's budget is committed. The only items on which one can save in the short-term—and it is always a political need and a Treasury need to work on the short-term—are training hours, which in the past had a bad effect on morale and on efficiency, and we did too much of it until just before the Falklands; as well as fuel, ammunition for training, flying hours and so on. Then there are the new projects, the research and development, the seed corn not only of future ideas for defence and for the security of the country, but of future ideas for a large chunk of British industry—indeed, I go so far as to say that, unlike the majority of British industry, because, historically, research and development has been high in the defence industry over the last two decades we are competitive with the rest of the world, and additionally get a lot of fall-out into civilian spheres like the information technology world.
I do not believe that our companies would be internationally where they are if it were not for past research and development—all too low across the broad front of British industry and miles below our competitors, but with the one exception of the technical engineering and defence industries where we have been ahead. It would indeed be a tragedy if we again, as we did prior to the Falklands, cut research and development, the uncommitted new project expenditure, and in so doing hindered the recovery of British industry which is now taking place and which can take place, with a leading part being played by our engineering industry in that recovery.
I wish that more of the establishment of the City of London realised the degree of opportunity that lies before British industry today, but that is another subject. With our standard of living well below our industrial competitors', but with our productivity coming right by leaps and bounds and with our technology lead in this area, it would be a tragedy if we nipped our recovery in the bud, however important is a particular total Government expenditure target at a particular time. And it will fall on the comparatively small, uncommitted part of the budget.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, there is a great deal of interesting and, indeed, encouraging material in the paper we are discussing which calls for comment, but the debate has been interrupted by three Statements and a large number of your Lordships wish to speak. I shall therefore restrict my remarks to two subjects only. The first is the possibility of improving the capability of NATO's conventional forces by exploiting new technology and its relationship to the

181
Government's nuclear weapon policy, the subject which the noble Viscount who has just spoken referred to as a red herring. That is in fact relating paragraph 412 on page 23 and the whole of page 24 of the paper to Chapter 2 of the paper. The second subject with which I wish briefly to deal is the vital need to provide a consistent financial basis on which to plan future programmes. It is really the principal first point which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, made in his excellent and wonderfully clear maiden speech. It has also been referred to by the noble Viscount who has just spoken.
I would take as my text a sentence in the first paragraph of the paper, paragraph 101, which says:
"We cannot afford policies based on emotion rather than logic".
I wholeheartedly support that. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has more than once accused me of being too addicted to logic in these matters. I am glad to have the support of the Government's Defence White Paper and make no apology for continuing to prefer logic to emotion or tradition.
Over the last two years I have taken part in an extensive Anglo-American-German study of how to improve NATO's conventional capability in the central region—that is, the area between the Baltic and the Alps. The British membership of the steering group of that study included the doyen of British war studies, Professor Michael Howard, and the current holder of the chair at King's College which he founded, Professor Lawrence Freedman. It also included Air Chief Marshal Sir Alasdair Steedman, whose last active appointment had been as British Permanent Representative to NATO's Military Committee. The Germans included a former chairman of that committee, General Steinhoff, and a former C-in-C of the Central Region, General Schulze, as well as Ambassador Pauls who had been his country's ambasssador both to NATO and to the United States. The large and distinguished American membership included General Goodpaster, a highly respected and experienced former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, and a galaxy of academics experienced in the defence field.
The study's report was published in May and many of your Lordships received copies of it. In reviewing it the Economist said this:
"Defence thinkers are second only to economists in squabbling among themselves. It is therefore startling when two dozen of them can agree on anything; it is doubly startling when the group includes such powerful intellects as Professor Michael Howard, General Sir Hugh Beach, Professor Lawrence Freedman, Mr. William Perry and General Andrew Goodpaster; and downright astonishing when the agreement had to do with nuclear weapons. Yet it has happened".
That unanimous report by a body of 26 very experienced military and academic people from three different countries said this:
"Our present reliance on possible early use of nuclear weapons threatens to undermine the two main purposes of the Alliance—the need for credible deterrence of adversaries and effective reassurance of our own peoples. We find ourselves in strong and unanimous agreement that the Alliance should now move energetically to reduce its dependence on such early use".
The study went on to conclude that by applying modern technology to non-nuclear weapon systems it would be possible to inflict a degree of damage and
182
destruction on the Warsaw Pact's land and air forces, both front line and follow-up, almost equivalent to that for which NATO now relies on nuclear weapons. A more recent study by the American Brookings Institute, in association with the International Institute for Strategic Studies in this country, came to almost identical conclusions.
The Defence White Paper, in its references to this sort of approach, gives the impression, as the noble Viscount who spoke last did, that the possibility of producing weapons of this nature lies far ahead and would cost a great deal: that it is a nice idea beyond the timescale of current equipment programmes. But that is not the conclusion to which our study came. Our so-called workshops included technical experts who went into these practical matters in great detail.
Our report concluded that these advanced conventional technologies have been designed, many have been tested, and others are being tested. A few are already in production in Germany, France, this country and in the United States. We calculated that the new technologies to provide a capability to suppress Warsaw Pact air bases and to interdict Warsaw Pact choke-points could be acquired and deployed by 1986 and that those to provide a capability to disrupt Warsaw Pact follow-on forces could be made effectively available by 1988. These dates of course depend upon NATO Governments taking a decision now to put their money on this sort of approach instead of adopting the cautious, noncommittal, discouraging line of the White Paper—the same sort of line that the noble Viscount took.
The total cost worked out in detail in the experts' paper came to 10 billion dollars—that is to say, £67 billion at the current rate of exchange, which is less than the Government's own estimate of what the Trident programme is going to cost the British Government alone. But the steering group, fully aware of the hazards of estimating in this field, doubled that figure and qualified its accuracy. Even then, at £13 billion, it represents one and a half times the cost of Trident; but the expenditure would of course be shared among all the NATO nations in the central region. the lion's share undoubtedly falling on the United States.
This is the point at which it reflects the policy of NATO and the Government on nuclear weapons. The study fought shy of facing the issue of what nuclear weapons systems could be dispensed with if NATO developed those conventional systems which can do equally well, in physical terms, the job for which NATO currently plans to use nuclear weapons. But it is obvious that it could mean dispensing with the great bulk of what are called theatre systems. The snag is that the savings that it would produce would be almost entirely within the United States' budget—that of both the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy.
But it would confer on NATO Governments and commanders a tremendous military advantage. At present, even the most hawkish enthusiasts for nuclear weapons accept that the decision to be the first to use them is not one to be taken lightly; and that it will not be taken, if it is taken at all, until NATO's conventional forces are on the point of being unable to cope with the situation. Using them would be very much a last resort—a phrase we heard used a good deal

183
in relation to this subject during the election campaign.
Both the British submarine ballistic missile and the planned United States cruise missiles in this country were then described as being weapons of last resort, giving the impression that they were intended only as retaliatory weapons. But that was the very opposite of the argument put forward for Trident in the Government's paper of July 1980 entitled, The Future UK Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force. I will remind your Lordships that that argument was that an independent British strategic nuclear strike force was needed to convince the Russians that, in a situation in which NATO's conventional forces were facing possible defeat and they might think that the Americans would hesitate to use nuclear weapons for fear of escalation to attack on their cities, they would have no doubt that we would certainly use ours regardless of the consequences. That is a first use and hardly to be regarded as a policy of last resort. It merely illustrates the muddled thinking that there has always been, under all Governments, over the real purpose of our so-called deterrent force.
If there are, rightly, inhibitions about initiating nuclear war, there should be no inhibitions about using the sort of weapons which the study proposed and which are referred to in the White Paper under the heading, "New Technology". They could and should be used on targets such as airfields, bridges and choke-points as soon as the first hostile acts had been committed by the enemy. They would be weapons of first, not last, resort: surely much more effective as a deterrent, because more certain of being used, and better value for money, than the whole arsenal of theatre nuclear weapons and our so-called independent strategic deterrent.
I therefore suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply to this debate that he draws the attention of his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the report of the study, of which there are several copies in his ministry, and persuades him to think again about Trident and our whole nuclear weapon policy, so that he can divert the money due to be spent on Trident to new technology non-nuclear weapon systems.
I shall be told, of course, that I am being unrealistic; that the unfortunate Defence Secretary, like so many of his predecessors, is now locked in mortal combat with the Treasury and that he will be lucky if he can save existing programmes from the axe, let alone start new programmes for which no provision has been made. I recognise that we are once more in one of those go-stop situations in defence finance with which I and the other ex-Chiefs of Defence Staff in this House (all of whom, I am glad to say, are speaking in this debate and are present in the House at this time) are unfortunately only much too familiar. But the adoption by NATO of the sort of weapon systems proposed would not involve this country in a heavy research and development or production effort, unless we wished to duplicate what has already been done or is being done in America. It consists largely of converting delivery systems, now associated with nuclear weapons, to the delivery of new types of conventional warhead.
184
NATO would undoubtedly be faced with a difficult argument about how they were to be paid for and manned, and whether or not European members of the alliance should share in their development and production. If they did wish to share, the latter would probably put up the cost and extend the gestation period; but our share of the financial burden involved should be significantly less than the cost of the Trident programme.
What is certainly needed in this field of defence finance is consistency in setting financial targets. I have a nasty feeling that the Treasury is up to its old game of pushing down the base from which it calculates the 3 per cent. annual increase in real terms to which the Government are committed until 1986, although the wording of paragraph 503 of the paper, which reasserts that commitment, contains a loophole through which there might be some weaseling out of the commitment, I fear. It states, not that the Government are committed to implementing it but to planning to implement it.
That wording was also used in the previous Defence Secretary's paper, entitled The United Kingdom Defence Programme: The Way Forward, published in June 1981. Paragraph 2 of that paper stated:
"the defence budget for the next two years (1982/83 and 1983/84) will reflect further annual growth at 3 per cent., in full implementation of the NATO aim. The Government has now firmly decided to plan to implement the aim in full for a further two years—1984/85 and 1985/86—and the programme will be shaped accordingly … the intention will be provision for 1985/86 21 per cent. higher, in real terms, than actual expenditure in 1978/79. In a setting of economic difficulty, and given the Government's determination to hold down total public expenditure, there could be no clearer or more concrete demonstration of resolve to maintain our vital priorities and our Alliance contribution".
I would ask the noble Lord who is to wind up this debate to give the House an assurance that that commitment will be implemented; that is, that the provision for 1985–86 will be 21 per cent. higher in real terms than the actual expenditure in 1978–79. Any fiddling with that commitment by readjusting the base from which the 3 per cent. annual increase for the next two years is calculated could mean savage cuts in those years.
As has already been pointed out by both the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, anyone who has experience in this field knows that short-term cuts of this nature not only produce chaos in the equipment, building and other programmes—perhaps forcing even further reductions in the front line strength of ships, aircraft and army units—but almost always provide the wrong answer. That is because so much of the defence budget is tied to things which either cannot be cut at short notice or result in compensating payments which negate the economies they are intended to produce. I would ask the noble Lord to give that assurance, and also to assure us that the Government intend to plan to implement the 3 per cent. increase beyond 1986.
6.38 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I wish to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Lewin, who, of course, has the great distinction of having presided as Chief of the Defence Staff over the first victory won by this country using all three Armed Services since 1945.

185
It is also a pleasure to follow the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, whose careful account of his recent studies and activities will be read, I am sure, with great attention by many others other than myself. He was quite right to point out to us that a declaration made by an alliance which has nuclear weapons not to use such weapons first would have much greater credibility if the conventional forces available to that alliance were much greater than they are now to us. Yet that argument still does not cope satisfactorily with the point put very forcibly in the White Paper on page 8:
"Experience teaches us to be wary of Soviet undertakings of this nature".
The Soviet Union has in fact broken many statements of that nature, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, suggests it is desirable for us all to make, over its period of international activity since 1917.
Like my noble and gallant friend Lord Cathcart I found this White Paper readable and realistic—two "Rs" which are not always found in White Papers emanating from Governments. Like him, I also thought that we should represent to those responsible for debates on these matters that a one-day debate on defence in the year is an inadequate amount of time to be made available considering the consequences of the White Paper and the the points actually raised and also bearing in mind the large number of noble and gallant Lords who are able to make such distinguished and experienced contributions to our debate.
I particularly liked paragraph 410 in the White Paper relating to the unremitting growth of Soviet strength during the 1970s at a time when the West was practising the kind of self-denying restraint, even almost one-sided disarmament, during the era of detente. I also liked the passage in paragraph 104 where the Government point out that one purpose of these armaments is the aim of the Soviet Government
"to bring pressure on Western Governments and public opinion so as to gain one-sided advantages for themselves."
Of course, the Soviet leaders have made clear over many years that one purpose of the build up of their armaments is to exert that sort of pressure, remembering the famous statement of Clausewitz that the best sort of victory over a country or a city is one which is won without having a shot fired.
As an admirer of Spain I was also particularly pleased to note in paragraph 111 of the White Paper the reference to Spanish membership of NATO. That is a great achievement for our diplomacy and one to which more attention should have been paid, and no doubt would have been had the actual act of adhesion not occurred in the middle of the Falklands war. I cannot believe that I am alone in thinking that, in the long run, Spanish membership of NATO will enable us to create the ground for a permanent and satisfactory settlement of the Gibraltar question.
I also liked the passages dealing with nuclear disarmament which point out that in the 1970s not only did we exercise restraint whereas the Russians did not, but also reminds us of the fact that the introduction of cruise and Pershing missiles derive from a specific request by Chancellor Schmidt to try and introduce weapons to counterbalance the Soviet introduction of the SS.20 and the Backfire bomber.
186
Any suggestion now that it is we who have ignited the new series of armament impositions in Western Europe is of course mistaken.
There are two points I wanted to make in partial criticism of the White Paper and to suggest that in fact there are basically two chapters missing. The first chapter has been referred to in passing by a number of noble Lords. That would cover such questions as cost in the future and possible future collaboration in consequence. In paragraph 113 the four main roles of the British contribution to NATO are well, if conventionally, spelled out. Paragraph 114 reminds us that we must also expect to have out-of-area commitments as a result of our Alliance responsibilities.
There are however three other roles, which would make eight roles for the Armed Services of this country. We have commitments arising from remaining imperial commitments such as, in the first place, the Falklands, and there are quite a number of others. There is the police style operation such as we now see in the Lebanon, and it cannot be expected that this is the last time we shall collaborate on such actions as an international police force designed to protect civil order in a friendly country, either through the United Nations or ad hoc as in this instance. A third role is our own domestic policing in Ulster. Therefore, we have eight roles.
It seems obvious that by the end of the 1980s the combination of these undertakings will become increasingly expensive and this is evident in relation to other allied Governments. I suggest that this is the time, bearing in mind that weapon systems, as the noble Lord, Viscount Trenchard, pointed out, take 10 years to get under way, to begin to see whether we could not arrange some new form of defence collaboration with, in the first instance, our European partners or, if that turns out to be impossible, directly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. I should prefer the first and even a new examination of the possibilities of a European defence community—under the umbrella, of course, of NATO.
The possibilities of tactical collaboration should also not he discounted. After all, in the Caribbean, which is an area in most of our minds today, we, the French and the Dutch all have difficult, odd surviving imperial commitments and it is entirely appropriate that we should seek such collaboration.
The second missing chapter in this White Paper would seem to be one which might have been devoted to the question of what is the nature of the Soviet Union, whose threat is naturally the main subject behind the whole of the document. Anyone reading the White Paper, or listening to this debate for that matter, would suppose that we are dealing, in dealing with the Soviet Union, with an old-fashioned military empire; no doubt of great force, but not one which has the very specific characteristics which we have come to recognise that the Soviet Union has, and has had for the last 60 years since 1917.
There is of course a purely military element in the Soviet threat, but there is also—and there is room for doubt and discussion on how far this is important—an ideological element. It is desirable for a paper e of this nature to recall that the leaders of the Politburo are not

187
only the leaders of a large country—the largest in the world, with many internal problems, some national problems and economic problems—but they are also conditioned to looking upon themselves as the high priests of an international cult; a cult which gives their system a legitimacy. The cult is, of course, Marxism-Leninism and underpins the totalitarian imperialism which they have driven forwards with particular energy in the last 10 years.
A historian of Rome wrote recently of Byzantium:
"Every religious act was meant to strengthen the state against its temporal enemies, internal as well as external. And every political act was meant to sustain the true faith in a world filled with unbelievers and heretics".
This seems to me to be a good summary not only of what happened in Byzantium in the sixth century but of how the Soviet leaders align their ideological responsibilities as high priests and their military designs as leaders of the Soviet empire. Perhaps Her Majesty's Government believe that the military is more important; perhaps they believe that the priests play a lesser part than I have implied, but at all events I think some comment might have been helpful in a paper of this importance.
I think that other sections in this unwritten chapter might have dealt with such questions as whether Her Majesty's Government think that the economic problems within the Soviet Union are likely to be in the future a stimulus to international adventure. That may be likely in many countries, although not perhaps in Russia. Are these economic problems which are evident in both agriculture and industry likely to make the Soviet Union more anxious to accept the real disarmament which so many noble Lords have thought desirable, and indeed possible, even though such disarmament arrangements as have hitherto been made are, as the White Paper notices, of a pretty modest ambition and character? It is difficult after all to feel that the ABM treaty, the partial test ban treaty and SALT 1 make very substantial contributions towards the reduction of armaments or indeed towards world peace. During the course of the SALT 1 negotiations and also during the SALT 2 negotiations, this very new era of what I refer to as totalitarian imperialism got under way.
I should like to know what Her Majesty's Government think the role of defence is in the Soviet economy. Is it a real embarrassment or is it a motor of great technological change and of terrific importance, so that we perhaps overestimate the economic difficulties which we might suppose it causes that Government? I should also like to know how her Majesty's Government view the fact that the Soviet Union, which has always since 1917 been able to count for assistance on foreign Communist parties, front organisations, excellent propaganda and spies, has in the last year or two also begun to be able to count on the valuable services of a number of surrogate states and indeed recently, so it seems, a number of surrogate international terrorist organisations. Cuba is of course far the most important of the surrogate states with something like 70,000 armed men in different parts of the world at the present time. That is of great importance as far as our interests in the third world are concerned, which go
188
beyond merely Commonwealth interests to long-term commercial ones and security ones also.
As for terrorism, no doubt most of the better known terrorist organisations of the world such as ETA, the I RA, the red brigades in Italy and the PLO have indigenous roots, but there is mounting evidence—as was seen in the last year in the Pecci trials in Italy in respect of one of the red brigade men who turned Queen's evidence—that the Soviet Union should be looked for at the back of more than one—if perhaps not all—of these organisations. It certainly does not seem as if there is very much that is indigenous in the recent activities of the Basque terrorist group, ETA, in Costa Rica.
These are some of the questions that I should like to have seen raised in an extra chapter of this White Paper. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate to ask the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to write such a document rather than the Ministry of Defence. But as noble Lords will be aware, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have the responsibility of placing an annual White Paper before your Lordships to consider, a fact which I have often thought is a pity since it would be persuaded, therefore, to conceptualise its ideas. Although I have no doubt that my successor in addressing your Lordships, the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, will be able to conceptualise his ideas, as will all those distinguished ex-heads of the Foreign Office and other diplomats present, it is always of assistance if a Government department is called upon in a statutory way to make a conceptual approach. If nothing else, it enables it to think through at leisure what its priorities are.
6.56 p.m.
Lord Caccia: My Lords, even though encouraged by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I must say straight away that I shall not attempt to answer the questions which he suggests should be the subject of a White Paper by the Foreign Office. Indeed, it is somewhat audacious for someone not immediately involved in defence to intervene in this debate on Defence Estimates. At the same time, I think that the noble Lord. Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, is right to say that we should from time to time in this debate do as the White Paper itself does, and as the noble Viscount. Lord Whitelaw, who introduced the debate did, and look at the purposes for which defence is undertaken. On that I may perhaps be allowed also to poach on Clausewitz. Your Lordships will remember his well known saying:
"War is nothing but the continuation of politics by the admixture of other means.".
Perhaps one might say of defence so far as the United Kingdom is concerned that it is nothing but the attempt to achieve political aims without war. On that basis, what are the threats to those aims and how can they be most briefly stated?
In shorthand these aims are, I suppose, peace and freedom; not "Better Red than dead"; not peace with dishonour, but peace with a degree of honour for those two purposes. Where are they challenged? As the White Paper cogently points out, mainly by the Soviet Union. In the few remarks that I shall make before sitting down, I can promise only two things; first, that

189
they will be short, and, secondly, with due deferrence to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, I shall not ask any questions.
Looking at the Russians first as the main reasons for defence expenditure, I ask what have they themselves laid down as the main purposes of their policies? They have said for a long time—indeed from the beginning—and repeated it consistently since, that the true and proper object in determining policy is to take account of the balance of force. I think that we should be very imprudent not to accept what they themselves have said is their view of the proper basis of their foreign and external policies.
Having said that, let us look at one particular issue at present debated. That, of course, is the stationing of cruise missiles, which has been mentioned by nearly every speaker. Looking at the way the Russians have conducted themselves during this period and up to the point when the decision is to be taken for their deployment, I am hound to say that I cannot imagine anybody who has been involved in foreign affairs being unable to write the script for the way that they have conducted themselves. It seems to me as plain as anything could possibly be that, if they wished to try to prevent the installation of these missiles, they would have done and would be saying all the things that they have in fact said and done.
Should we then in any sense go towards meeting them? The most persuasive argument for doing so was presented this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, saying in effect that they have made some concessions, that if we try to narrow the gap only a little by further concessions on our part, perhaps an agreement could be reached. Surely that is exactly what the Russians are aiming at. Even if they were to break off the negotiations temporarily now, I do not think that would make the slightest difference to the possibilities of reaching a firm agreement with them later, and an agreement much more consonant with our own purposes and interests. Among other things such firmness would show them that we cannot in fact he pushed around by the kind of attempts which they have been making in the last months, on which I think we are bound to congratulate them on having got as far as they have. I do not want to congratulate them by going any further.
The second aspect of defence which was raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, was that defence is there to protect ourselves against the unexpected. To a certain degree even the Falkland's campaign was unexpected, and therefore I greatly welcome what the Government have said about the expenditure which they intend to incur to give ourselves flexibility to deal with any such incidents which may occur in the future. I said to begin with that I would not question the Government on these or other issues tonight. So I shall sit down, merely urging them to stick to the purposes which they have proclaimed in the White Paper.
7.3 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. Having been to the Falklands, I know how much he was respected on all sides—civilian, Army, Navy and
190
Air Force. I agreed with most of what he said, including the question of the Trident, and I shall give some figures a little later to try to prove my point. I am glad that the noble and gallant Lord mentioned the Merchant Navy, and I should like to say that I have just recently received a reply to my Question for a Written Answer:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are yet able to make a Statement on whether ships and units which took part in the Falklands campaign will be able to include the campaign in their battle honours".
There is a very satisfactory answer: they will be able to do so. That includes the Merchant Navy, and I am sure that it will give great pleasure to all—the men themselves, as well as their relations.
I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Cathcart, that I agree entirely with what he said. In the other House we used to have debates on two days running for defence—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will remember—and foreign affairs. Then we had three separate days for debate on the various services. It gave us time to have a considered opinion and to go into far more detail than we are able to do here.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—who I always admire because he is so consistent; and I always listen to what he says—that people are very fickle. It was not so very long ago that probably the same people were cheering Hitler. If one has seen the recent films on this matter, one will realise that thousands and thousands of civilians fell to the Hitler regime and the atrocities that it carried out upon the Jews.
What disappoints me is that this happens to be One World Week, and we do not seem in the United Nations to be getting at all nearer to one world. I realise that the United Nations was formed with the idea that there should be peace on earth, and it is so sad, in particular at the present time, that there are so many various small battles going on, it seems to me, in most parts of the world. I have worked for the United Nations and for the United Nations Association in this country. I think that all the people who have worked so hard—most of them are still doing something—are disappointed that we have got only a little way towards securing the peace of the world.
I welcome the fact that the Royal Navy will be increasing its ships. There are to be four more new T.23s. The fact that we live on an island makes us very vulnerable to submarines. Should there be an attack—and we know that the Russians have a vast number of submarines—we could be made to surrender through starvation, because our merchant ships would probably not be able to get through at all.
It is stated in the NATO estimates for 1982 that the United Kingdom spent 5·1 per cent. of its GDP on defence, and that is more than any other European NATO country. But I should like to see more being spent on the Navy. Personally, I am not very happy about having all the Army on the Rhine. I think of the Maginot Line in the last war. As we know, the Russians have a far larger number of conventional weapons than we have, and there might easily be great difficulty in holding back the Russians. Therefore, I should like this point to be considered.

191
I agreed with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, when he wrote that the British people as a whole do not understand their maritime dependence and that lack of understanding breeds indifference. Therefore, I should like again to mention the Merchant Navy, which has done a marvellous job. But one name has been left out—the "Rangatira"; I do not know whether the noble Lord can look at this point and see whether the men of this ship can be included in future plans. Recently the ship came back to Devonport. It had been a floating hotel for thousands of British troops. The Royal Navy locally gave the crew a special welcome, and then, unfortunately, they were told that they were probably going to lose their jobs. I should like to know what is to be the future position of the people who carried out this gallant service—and not just those on this ship. Are they going to be out of a job in the future? When they were complaining about difficulties that they were finding, they remarked that there were 13 foreign ships working in the area in question. The threat facing them is a very bad reward for their hard work.
I should like to turn to the question of the Royal Naval dockyards. The discontinuation of mid-life modernisation of ships and the extension of normal refit intervals—which means that there is going to be more time between the refits—following reduction in the capacity of the dockyards cannot but contribute to the unreliability and non-availability of the reduced destroyer and frigate fleet. This work is now becoming a highly technical job and that fact exacerbates the effects of any cuts. Many very highly skilled teams are being axed. If they are cut below a certain level, they will not be able to function as a team.
The task of CED is a daunting one, since it appears that during the last couple of years the dockyard system has been steadily going downhill. I should like the Secretary of State for Defence to look into this problem, and I hope that he will do so as a matter of urgency. As some noble Lords may know, I have previously mentioned this question of dockyards, both in the other House and in this House. The Secretary of State must consider reorganisation in the future. Are we to have the existing civil dockyards? Or will there be the possibility of a uniformed fleet base? I would prefer, personally, to see the reorganisation of the dockyards on a civilian basis. But action should be taken swiftly. Uncertainty about the future is unsettling for employees, industrial and nonindustrial, and also for the enrolment of apprentices.
I wish to refer to the recent demonstrations against the deterrent. Recently, there have been interesting films on television—Flashback, The Winds of War, and The Battle of the River Plate. These have opened our eyes to the awful fighting in the trenches and the ghastly nature of warfare in both World Wars, particularly the first. In the First World War, over 8 million servicemen, 908,000 of them British, were killed. There were 21 million wounded, over 2 million of them British. More than 6 million civilians were killed, 30,633 of them British.
In the Second World War, 15 million servicemen were killed. Of that total, 379,762 were British. I was able only to obtain the figures of British wounded. The
192
number amounted to over 400,000. The nearest figure I could obtain for civilians killed in the war was between 26 million and 34 million, 65,000 of them British. Between 1939 and 1945, the Russians lost 75 million servicemen and between 10 million and 15 million civilians.
The number of prisoners of war in the Far East amounted to 162,000 together with 75,000 civilians. I was in India in 1945 trying to prepare hospitals for civilians and for those wounded who might not be able to return home straight away. We were working in Bangalore and waiting for the war to end. When the bombs were dropped, 190,000 Japanese—my figure is not the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway—were killed. The Japanese surrendered at once. So not only were prisoners of war saved, but the lives of hundreds of thousands of servicemen were also saved. Those servicemen were ready to enter Malaysia, or Malaya, as it was in those days, the Philippines and Indonesia and eventually would have gone into Japan if they were to finish the war with ordinary weapons. It was very difficult to think about dropping the bombs but, at the same time, literally millions of lives were saved.
There were 50 Japanese working for me in my Red Cross stores in Indonesia. The manner in which they have built up their country is not to mitigate the awful time that they experienced. It was not the end of the world for them. But it will possibly be the end of the world for us if we cannot achieve agreement on the deterrent. At the moment, the deterrent is holding the peace.
I regret that there have been a great many religious and racial wars. I tried to get the figures for the number killed in the Crusades but they do not appear to be available. In the Hundred Years War, casualties were divided between gentry and footmen, which I thought an interesting distinction. The consequences are horrifying. Every effort should be made to ensure that the United Nations makes people aware of the effect of these small wars all over the world.
I wonder whether your Lordships listen to Alistair Cooke's radio broadcast, "Letter from America". The programme is always telling. He described how a number of Russian and American children were asked what they knew about past wars. They knew about the bombs dropped on Japan and were opposed to war. One of the Soviet children remarked that all of them belonged to the same human race. That perhaps gives some hope for the future.
On the side of a white Ministry of Education van in Belize there appears in bold red letters:
"A nation's might is not how well its army can fight but how well its people can read".
If all the people of the world could read, there would perhaps be better understanding. I hope that there will be support for the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, who is the most recent person in command to go to war for this country. It is knowledge that we badly need in guiding us in the future.
7.16 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, every debate on defence by your Lordships is dominated by the consideration of nuclear weapons. Wherever we start the

193
argument, we come back to it. This cannot really be avoided. During the General Election there was talk, as there has been since, of providing this country with what is called a non-nuclear defence policy. I should like to look for a moment at what that means. If it means that either this country by itself or the alliance to which it belongs as a whole should forswear nuclear weapons altogether and be armed solely with conventional weapons, then, faced by the Warsaw Pact armed with both kinds of weapon, it is simply a recipe for helplessness and for defeat. There is no way of avoiding that conclusion.
Alternatively, it might mean something very different and more difficult to argue; namely, the doctrine that is sometimes expressed in the phrase "no first strike". We decide presumably, that we shall have nuclear weapons but that we shall not be the first to use them and that we shall, in the manner so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Carver, build up the efficiency of our conventional weapons to the point where we could safely say that we did not need to rely on nuclear weapons for first strike. But we have no guarantee, if we do that, and if we are able to hold back an attack by the effectiveness of our conventional weapons, that the enemy will not resort to the nuclear weapon. The only thing that would prevent him doing that is the knowledge that we were in a position to retaliate.
It is therefore not a way (the advocates of first strike do not suggest, I think, that it is) of providing yourself with conventional weapons instead of nuclear weapons. You have still to have both kinds if you wish to feel that you have any security against ultimate defeat. I have felt, although I should like to study more carefully the points of the noble Lord, Lord Carver, that to get yourself into the position of no first strike and to persuade your allies to do it would require considerable time, would prove expensive and would raise questions of manpower that might even call in question whether this country could continue to manage without national service in time of peace. So there is not an easy way out there.
Can we try to solve this fearful overhanging threat of nuclear weapons by bargaining about them, by seeing whether at Geneva, and ultimately in other fora, we can by agreement reduce the amount of nuclear weapons on either side? Let us remember how the present situation in Geneva arose. A few years ago the position in the worldwide balance of the Atlantic Alliance and the Warsaw Pact was that the Warsaw Pact had a very considerable preponderance in conventional weapons. In worldwide nuclear weapons, indeed in nuclear weapons as a whole, there appeared to be, as far as one could judge, a rough balance. It was at this point that the soviet Union decided to try to achieve for itself an immense preponderance in nuclear weapons in Europe. That was the significance of the introduction of the SS.20. It was a very serious invasion of the balance. It was not surprising, therefore, that the decision was made that either we could reach agreement with the Russians for them to go back on this policy or that we should ourselves provide Western Europe with weapons comparable to the SS.20s. That is the position which we are in now.
194
I hope that the Government will take heed of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who put forward ideas that I think the Government ought to consider as to how they might be able to reach agreement even now on this matter, although I would not myself be too hopeful. However, one criticism of the Government throughout has been valid and that is that they have never told us enough about their views of this bargaining process. We and the nation as a whole have felt cut out of a bargaining process about something that is of very great importance to us. But one thing at least is certain: you will not get anywhere in that bargaining process if the Soviet Union and its allies imagine that you are going to give up the struggle anyhow.
I was disconcerted to hear the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of my own party, express the view that we could keep the independent deterrent but simply to use as a bargaining weapon, then going on to say that if he headed a Government he would in any case, by the end of the lifetime of one Parliament, decide to get rid of that independent deterrent. It seems to me that we can say on the one hand that we are keeping this to use as a bargaining counter, or on the other hand that we are, as a matter of principle, going to give it away at a certain time, but I do not see how we can say both. If the other side know that we are going to get rid of it anyhow, it has no value as a bargaining counter. That principle runs through the whole argument. It cannot be too often stressed that unilateral disarmament means, by its nature, unconditional disarmament—that you disarm yourself irrespective of what the other side does. That makes pretty well impossible any real bargaining process between you and the other side, because you have nothing to bargain with and the other side know that if they wait long enough they will get what they want without making any concessions.
Therefore, there is no escape as the world now stands from the fact that we have to live with the existence of nuclear weapons and we have to proceed by a process of multilateral bargaining and diplomacy to try to reduce the immense financial burden that these weapons are on all of us, and the terror and danger that they hang over the head of all mankind. Shall we be successful in that? I do not know, but I do not think that it is impossible. The financial burden and the burden of fear must be very great on the rulers of the Soviet Union as well.
It is true that the people of the Soviet Union have not the information, nor the means nor the power to express their views about the matter in the way in which people in this country can, if they wish, express their views. I do not think that there is any doubt that the Soviet Government must be deeply worried about the fearful expense and the fearful danger that they run by the continuance of the nuclear balance at its present level. If, therefore, we continue to be sufficiently resolute and sufficiently unprovocative, we may in time be able to get results—and that is what we must work for. In the meantime, it will be expensive.
As the debate has brought out, we have other things in the defence field on which to spend money. One view that has been expressed is that the policy known as "Fortress Falklands" is invalid as a long-term solution. I think that that is probably so. The only

195
trouble is that it is the only possible one at present as a short-term solution. The only alternative again is surrender. Such a policy is going to cost something and therefore, may I respectfully suggest to leaders of the Conservative Party that they do not go to their party conference holding out a reduction in taxation as if it were one of the "goodies" that is just around the corner for the British people. Because if they mean what they say about defence, that is unlikely to be so—unless, of course, they are going to say, "Any extra expense we are put to over defence has got to come out of the health service, out of pensions, out of the social services", and so on; that is to say, it has got to be paid for mainly by the poorer people of this country. That is not the way in which to rally a nation for defence.
I have said it before and I make no apology for saying it again: we are up against the very serious fact that defence is expensive, and it may very well be more expensive. It is the Government's job to drive that lesson home to all classes in the community and particularly to those who are rather better off and can help to bear a greater share of the burden. However, I hope that they will think that over carefully before talking too readily about the possibilities of reductions in taxation.
There is one other point that I should like to make. I do not believe that armaments races are themselves a cause of war. They are an alarming symptom of a disquieting international situation. A sudden and spectacular fall in the barometric pressure is followed by a storm, but it does not cause the storm. Both the storm and the behaviour of the barometer are caused by disquieting atmospheric conditions. Similarly, the growth of armaments and the danger of war result from an unsatisfactory international situation—does my noble friend wish to participate? I thought that he was going to do so, but I see that he is doing the opposite.
We have to consider side by side with the actual means of defence—the weapons. nuclear, conventional and so on—the kind of diplomacy that is likely to prevent the alarming fall in the barometer or, if one prefers, the alarming rise in the temperature which moves one to actual conflict. The things that we can do in that field are limited and humdrum, but they are worth doing and we must go on doing them for a long time.
It is fashionable nowadays to speak of détente as if it were an experiment that was tried, had failed and was a loss. I do not believe that to be so. We were able for a time to get a period of rather better understanding between the Russians and ourselves than we have at present. That did not result in our having to make any disastrous and unrequited concessions. Somehow or other that period has changed. We are now in a period of very harsh language and hostility.
We must remember what can be salvaged from detente. First, I believe that it is a good thing wherever possible to have contacts between citizens of the East European countries and citizens of the West, as regards learning, education, the arts and so on, because I believe that every contact between the citizens of a tyranny and the citizens of a free country will in the end work to the advantage of the free
196
country. I think that repeatedly experience has shown that.
We must remember that the processes started at the Helsinki Conference were meant to be continuous. Recently they have been continued at Madrid, although not in very cheerful or encouraging circumstances. But we must go on with that sort of thing. Particularly we must go on making use of the opportunity that that gives us to put before the Soviet Union and the other countries of Europe the idea of human rights as we understand it; and I think—and this involves such a matter as the British Overseas Service on the wireless—we must always be prepared to put our case as effectively as we can to the world as a whole and make it clear what we believe in and why it is that there are differences between us and the Soviet Union. This can be done reasonably, patiently and without abuse. At the present time nothing is more useless than to engage in purely abusive words with the Russians. It gets us nowhere; it does not improve the general atmosphere.
I myself am not pessimistic about the prospects for peace in the world, but I think that there are two situations which might lead to an outbreak of war between East and West. One would be if the Soviet Union and her allies were to get the idea that we had neither the power nor the will to resist, beginning by a throwing away of nuclear power which would indicate that we were not in a position to resist any longer That could lead to war. The other, which is less likely but not impossible, is if the Russians themselves should believe that they were to be the victims of an imperialistic attack. We may feel that it is absurd for them to entertain such an idea, but I believe that there are a number of people in important positions in Russia who still believe, or elect to believe, that that is a possibility.
If one looks hard enough it is not too difficult to find plausible evidence to support it. We must avoid doing things that give any support to that conception. That is why I say that we should avoid expressions of pure abuse. To advocate from time to time our belief in human rights is one thing; to be merely abusive is another. This will be a long process; but I think we must recognise that the whole job of getting the world out of its present snarl of nuclear weapons into a peaceable position will be a long process. It can be compared in history to the way in which, after the Crusades—which the noble Baroness mentioned—and one or two adventures of that kind, in the end Christianity and Islam found that they could and must live side by side. Later on in history the two great divisions of the Christian Church—Protestant and Catholic—after attempts to overthrow each other's ideologies by force, came to the conclusion that they could and ought to live side by side. In the end, I think that East and West will find that that is so, though I must confess that I am not at all sure I shall be here to see it.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords, it would be strange if I did not add my congratulations to those which have already been expressed on the impressive, clear and forceful maiden speech made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin; and I do so with pleasure. I had not

197
felt that I needed reinforcements in your Lordships' House, but I am delighted to have him on board.
As your Lordships might expect, I have some observations to make on the maritime aspects of the White Paper before us today. However, I wish that there were time to deal in detail with the closely related subject of the alarming decline in our whole shipping industry and the serious industrial and economic effects of it. I hope that we may have a chance to debate this separately on a future occasion.
Today I wish to devote much of my time to the seriously neglected subject of the defence of the United Kingdom base, correctly identified in Command 8951 as the second of the four pillars of the Government's defence policy, although quite astoundingly it is not mentioned at all in the context of land forces in the passage beginning at paragraph 313 covering this vital area.
I deal first and briefly with what I regard as some crucial maritime points. I note in paragraph 113 of the White Paper that the four main roles for which our armed forces are deployed and provided as a deterrent to war—and all war, not just nuclear war—remain unchanged since they were formulated in The Way Forward a couple of years ago. I am sure that they are right. I am glad to see that the White Paper acknowledges that threats to Western security interests outside the NATO area still remain matters of concern, but I am bound to observe that neither NATO nor this Government have done much to remove that concern.
I must at once again question the ability of the United Kingdom armed forces to meet our responsibilities to the "Fourth Pillar", as the White Paper describes it, of the total deterrent—that is to say, to maintain a major maritime capability in the Eastern Approaches and the Channel—and to take effective military action against further threats in distant waters. I wish that I could share the optimism which the Lord President the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, expressed in his opening speech in this regard. I believe that the points I am about to make lend substance to my serious misgivings, and I believe that your Lordships may well agree.
First, the United Kingdom is already about 40 per cent. under-subscribed to our NATO naval force levels. Both SACLANT—the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic—and the Commander-in-Chief Eastern Atlantic (a British officer whose last appointment was Vice-Chief of the Naval Staff) asked for 60 more escorts only last April. Moreover, the statistics given in paragraph 330 are open to misinterpretation, though I am bound to hope not deliberately. The statement concerning the front line force of destroyers and frigates reads:
"Numbers are expected to decline to about 50 later in the decade".
It would be much more accurate were it to say:
"Numbers in 1990 will be about 40, mostly obsolete and unreliable".
Your Lordships may agree that to describe what is actually said as misleading somewhat understates the case.
I should very strongly like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said about the dockyards and to add something to it. A dockyard support system
198
must above all be flexible. In normal peacetime circumstances it must be able to respond to the unpredictable at no notice. For example, it must be able to deal with collisions, accidents of one sort or another, fires, damage caused either by accident or by the sea. This sort of capability obviously becomes more probable, or its need becomes more probable, as the force ages, and both will have a "knock-on" effect on the normal peacetime orderly refitting programme of the Fleet; If you superimpose an operational burden on that pattern, the system is likely to crack just when you need it most. It is my belief—a belief which is share by all professionals—that the dockyards are being, and have already been, run down below a level which would enable us to compete with even a relatively minor operation such as that of the Falklands campaign.
I am also astonished to see that the role of ships taken up from trade to support future naval operations, as they so magnificently supported those operations in the Falklands, is scarcely mentioned in the White Paper. Their availability is simply not discussed. The availability of reliable British crews to man them is not mentioned. This would be understandable if the Defence Estimates were to be considered in isolation, but surely it is absurdly unrealistic to omit them from the total defence equation.
Who will ensure that merchant ships of the type required for defence purposes are available and suitably equipped to meet all our emergency and contingency plans? Who will fund what is needed? Who is responsible for the availability of the crews? The trend in the rapid decline of the British merchant marine is already alarming economically. Your Lordships may well agree with me that it is just as alarming politically and militarily.
Now, if I may, I shall return to the physical defence of our homeland, without the security of which not only would the whole of the rest of our defence policy be as nothing, but the heart would be torn out of the whole of NATO's deterrent posture in Europe, and consequently our ability to fight should deterrence unhappily fail. The relevant passage in the White Paper implies that there is no threat to the United Kingdom on the ground, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is on record only a fortnight ago in saying that such threat as there is does not require any large-scale land forces under arms. I profoundly disagree.
There is, without any shadow of doubt, a grave threat from the Soviet special raiding squads, previously called diversionary brigades, and known by them as SPETNAZ. These exist in considerable numbers; they are specially trained; they are thoroughly briefed on their target areas; they speak fluent English; and they have been taught about our habits and customs. Many of them are known to be targeted on our home base. These alarming facts were confirmed this month by the defecting General Suvarov in a statement published in the International Defence Review.
Their purpose, my Lords, is straightforward. It is to disrupt the whole domestic machine of our country, including power systems, the communications networks, airfields, air defence and naval installations, command and control systems, oil and gas installa-

199
tions, and other essential services such as sewage and water. There can be no doubt whatever that they are trained and equipped to do it, just as our SAS and SBS are trained and equipped to do it—and actually did it in the Falklands—and as the Argentine similar forces are trained and equipped to do it, and would have done it in Gibralter had it not been for an alert Spanish Government.
It is my contention that the land forces left available in this country for mobilisation, after earmarked and committed billets have been filled up in Rhine Army and RAF Germany and in the Fleet, are entirely inadequate to deter such attempts by these special raiding squads, or to defeat them if they are made. Ministers have given highly misleading answers to those who share my views and have asserted that there will be as many as 100,000 troops left in the United Kingdom for its direct defence.
I assure your Lordships that this is not true. Even were the numbers so large, which I doubt, over half of them are highly-skilled technicians fully engaged in supporting the teeth arms of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the Army from their home bases. Of the remainder there will almost certainly be no more than 10,000 or 15,000 bayonets at the very most available for any manoeuvre force to cover a front 800 miles long and 200 miles deep. You do not have to be a field marshal to realise that that is not enough. Taking that with the need to guard a relatively small number of absolutely key points, for which the new home service force has been raised—and I applaud the Government's action in doing so, and congratulate them on the success with which it is going—what is left is not enough.
I have publicly recommended and am vigorously promoting with a few friends the idea that defence begins at home. We need to blanket the country, of which more than half the surface area is almost entirely empty. I am sure those of your Lordships who have flown over the country in a helicopter or a light aircraft will agree with me, but the public are not aware of it. There are very large open spaces even in the home counties. What is needed is a third line force, armed perhaps with personal weapons, based on their home village, to perform the historic role which has been going on in this country since Saxon times of watch and ward. Such a home defence force could fill the rung which is now missing at the bottom of the ladder of deterrence. It would enormously reassure our NATO allies, who are astounded that we have no such force when every other European partner has.
Nor could such a force possibly be called provocative or militaristic or escalatory, as nearly everything which improves our defence is called by constant critics who frequently masquerade under any label as long as it contains the word "peace". Your Lordships may not all be aware, perhaps that the two most successfully neutral nations in Europe each has such a force, and has had for centuries. In both Sweden and Switzerland this force amounts to no less than one-tenth of the adult population. To save Ministers' private secretaries trouble, you can find these figures in The Military Balance.
I believe that we need perhaps half a million volunteers, or one-hundredth of the population, to re-
200
create the home guard to do this job, spread the length and breadth of the land. I also believe that there would be absolutely no trouble at all in obtaining such a number, and I have some reason to believe this, too. Its cost would be trifling in the context of a defence budget of £15.7 billion. I can confidently assert that it would cost about £120 million spread over five years to do the job. To put that in perspective we spend £12 milllion a day on cigarettes in this country.
Let us take the subject of home defence seriously. It is our homeland: it is our home base. We rely on it, and so does our alliance. NATO could not function without this unsinkable aircraft carrier. It is plain that at the moment, on the evidence of the White Paper and ministerial statements, the Government do not share my view. I hope to persuade them. There will, of course, be no more important new money. There will, of course, be no more men or women for the regular forces. Therefore, the only way that we can deter this very real threat, it seems to me, is by creating a third tier of volunteers such as I have briefly described. They would be entirely in support of the regular and territorial forces. They would equally entirely be at the disposal of Parliament, to be called out in a time of crisis or rising tension. But the time to do it is now. It will be no use starting to fill sandbags when the clock strikes half-past eleven in any future conflict.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, because of the late hour and in the interest of brevity I am afraid that I shall have to leave some of the courtesies which are normally expected and very much enjoyed in this House of complimenting noble Lords on their speeches, particularly the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down. However, it would be most wrong not to congratulate my noble and gallant friend Lord Lewin on his outstanding maiden speech.
I had hoped to set a little time aside to deal with some aspects in reply to the accusation that we only have to press on with disarmament—this arises out of the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham—and that we must trust the Russians and their Soviet system. If we set an example, it is argued that they will follow. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said that detente had worked. I wonder whether it was not during a period of detente that we set an example and abolished Porton Down and both chemical and biological warfare. That set an example. The Soviets doubled and redoubled their output in both those fields of warfare.
One hoped that Helsinki would stick. Most of the points made by Helsinki, including the interchange of visits between Western Europe and the East have been stopped, or sabotaged by the Soviets.
The anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972, whereby new systems would not be introduced either by America or the Soviets, has been also disregarded. SALT I: although it was not ratified, the Americans agreed that they should abide by it if the Soviets did the same, and the Soviets did not. SALT II: very much the same applied and in every case the objections of the Soviets to making progress in nuclear disarmament occurred because we wanted on-site inspection. They have categorically refused this on every occasion.

201
There was a time when the Americans thought that by electronic surveillance and the use of satellites they could overcome that problem and probably check what the Soviets were doing. That has not proved possible.
They have started encryptographing their telemetric signals. I have no time to develop that argument, but I ask those who are wishful thinkers in this field—several Peers have referred to this—to look at page 53 of the 1st October edition of the Economist, which set out some of the examples where the Soviets have been wriggling round agreements made in the past, or, in the case of strategic missiles, deliberately disobeying everything they had signed and agreed with the USA. Let us press on by all means. The USA has been strangely reluctant to publicise these actions by the Soviets.
I want to concentrate on the economics because as more and more sophisticated equipment costs more and more, there is increasing pressure on defence funds. This happens under every Government. Equally the regular service with its military salary contains a very large proportion of married people of a young age, therefore, there is the responsibility for wives, married quarters and the schools that follow on. All this makes a trained regular a very expensive person indeed. I endorse much of what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, said. It is brought out by economics as well as other factors that one gets eight trained territorials for the price of one regular. Of course, one would wish to have as many regulars as conceivably possible, but eight territorials, particularly in the home defence force, might allow one regular to be redeployed in the teeth services. That seems wholly desirable.
My noble friend who is to wind up feels as I do, that the need for reserves in this country, which every other Western European country has in greater depth, is of paramount importance. I hope that when he winds up he will give us hope that the speed at which we are building up our reserves, and perhaps starting new reserves, can he hastened.
It is nearly four and a half years since the Tory Government came to power in May, 1979. There have been continued pressures on defence funds despite stringent economies. There has been an increasing Soviet threat which has needed further expansion. We have been very well served by our Defence Ministers in this House. The Library prepared statistics for me. It is a sad fact that in this period of four and a half years we have had three different Secretaries of State for Defence; five different Ministers of State. We have had seven Under-Secretaries. This is a very large Department with both civilian and uniformed personnel. There are 650,000 people in the employment of the Ministry of Defence. It is an expensive department, the second or third in the total Government budget. It is not as big as the Health Service, which has 828,000; that is the largest, well out ahead of anything else. The department employs 650,000 civilians and uniformed manpower. Therefore, it is difficult for a Minister to pick up the threads and complexities, both of equipment and manpower, in a few months.
The longest serving Minister—and without impugning any others, I would say perhaps the most
202
successful—Mr. Geoffrey Pattie who has been there for 53 months, the whole period. He is the only one who has been in office for that length of time. He knows his stuff. He knows his way about. He is deeply respected not only in the Ministries but overseas as the Minister in charge of defence procurement. Experience does count, especially in the case of Ministers in service departments. I earnestly hope that they may have longer service.
I should like to pay a compliment to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who was the second longest serving Minister in this period of four and half years. He did just over two years—25 months. My noble friend who is to reply has done four months; the same as six others who have also served four months. That is hardly time to find one's way around a Ministry and to visit outside departments. I hope he will stay there for a long time and be successful in his job.
If the Prime Minister ever has time to read our debates I implore her to leave good Ministers in our armed forces in position for a time so that, with the help of the staff and the uniformed people serving in Ministries, they can try to control expenditure and squeeze, probe and press for every economy. There must still be room in a force of that size for some economies.
Now a word on the Falklands: £624 million, as the noble Lord. Lord Stewart of Fulham, said, spent in 1983–84 on the Falklands is a lot of money. Three thousand regular personnel is a lot of people. We must hope that with the new elections in the Argentine on Sunday, at the end of this week, a new democratically inclined government will come to power. I hope this Government will, through their diplomatic channels, press our allies and our friends to move towards some sort of settlement. Surely there must be friends of ours and neutrals in north and South America who can help to bring about a settlement and a formal cessation of hostilities.
I should have thought that by our building of this huge new airfield in the Falklands, which is very necessary for our forces there, America may be encouraged to take a greater interest. She is rightly countering the current subversion in Central America created by Soviet arms and manpower and furthered by Cuban training and Cuban infiltration. One hopes that they will help win this difficult subversive battle in that part of the world. If they do not, troubles may spread northwards towards Mexico, and that is why the USA is taking such an interest.
But these troubles may also travel south into Panama. The Panama Canal is a very vulnerable waterway linking the US Pacific and Atlantic fleets. If the canal is denied to our main allies they would have to travel 12,000 miles round Cape Horn to reinforce either their Atlantic or Pacific fleets. It is a long way round Cape Horn and in that context the Falklands may be a useful place in which they could take an interest.
I have been urging the Government to comb and recomb—I had a helpful letter from my noble friend recently concerning the 3,000 regulars thought to be necessary in the defence force of the Falklands. I was glad to learn from that recent letter that out of the 1,800 inhabitants 100 people have applied to join and

203
are being incorporated into the local defence force. That is a small proportion, six in every 100. I hope the inhabitants will feel grateful for the tremendous contribution that this country is making to their defence and to the stability of the area, and that a higher percentage will volunteer to come forward for defence. I am sure there are a lot of tasks which can be done and which would release some of the regulars.
I would ask my noble friend within the Ministry of Defence—and I do not have time to expand on it too much—to consider whether we should put volunteers under contract for two or three years' service in the Falklands. There are lots of jobs which could be done. There is the Rapier, manned 24 hours a day; there are those squadrons; there is the radar and the radio network. There are lots of other jobs which could well be done there. There must be many unemployed and, perhaps, people of medium age living in our cities and in our suburbs who have a desire for the outback. One has only to see the number of young people who want to go and have a look at Australia, and to work there for a bit to realise that in our noisome society there are people who like loneliness. I wonder whether we could not make use of that feeling and recruit perhaps a thousand people to help reinforce the regulars, and release some of them.
I now come to another theme—the agile combat aircraft. Here is a big project, an imaginative project, which can be done only on a European basis. This is an aircraft to succeed, or to reinforce in some ways, the Tornado, and this agile aircraft, the ACA should be available in the 1990s. It has to be international, it has to be produced on an international basis. So far, Germany and Italy have agreed to join in developing one or two experimental aircraft and flying them to see whether they meet the needs. France is hesitating. The Minister of Defence was out there on 21st September asking them to come in and join us. I would not wait too long for France. They behaved in the same way with the joint Anglo-French Jaguar. Whenever they could sell the F2000, or even the F4000, they preferred to sell a wholly-French aircraft rather than a half-British aircraft. Do not wait too long. Let us get on with the job with our other Western allies.
The cost of this aircraft has been greatly exaggerated. It depends greatly on how many are sold and on spreading development over a large number—and on spreading the tooling costs as well. It is estimated that the world market, for a very advanced aircraft of this sort would be for about 2,500 aircraft in the 1990s. It is assessed that this aircraft ought to get 15 per cent. of the world market and that means another 350 export. There would be 500 wanted between ourselves, Germany and Italy. If France joined in she might want a further 200. But as a result of a joint international venture of this sort and our exports, this aircraft would be cheaper than the F15 and the Mirage, and comparable in price to the F16.
We need something, my Lords. We cannot rely in the 1990s on Lightnings, which are already very long in the tooth, or the Phantoms, already over 20 years old, or the limited number of the air defence version of the Tornado. Without such a project the United Kingdom would slip right out of the market for military aircraft. We would be lost. The free world
204
would have to rely on the USA or on France if she could afford to go it alone—and I do not believe that she could do so for long. And I doubt whether Germany or Italy could replace us. The repercussions on our aerospace industry and on jobs, mainly in sophisticated engineering, would be considerable, and, incidentally, on our balance of payments at a time when our oil may not be quite as productive as it is now.
Ten years ago Saudi Arabia bought £100 million worth of Lightnings. This sale achieved £1,500 million—15 times the original investment—in fees for technical and flying training, in spares and back-up. Some 700 United Kingdom firms were concerned in supplying services or providing goods on this one contract. The repercussions of keeping in this game are very considerable on jobs, and certainly are very considerable for our technological base. I do not have time to expand much further on this. I would just say that the main firms concerned in the aerospace industry have such confidence in this project that they have already put £35 million of their own money into it, straight off the bottom line; and the Government have with imagination backed it pound for pound. These firms are prepared to put in another £65 million to get this experimental aircraft flying, and the Government, I hope, will match it. I would ask the Government to give this every encouragement and to support it to the maximum extent. If we do not do this, we are going to drop out.
Incidentally, as the noble Lord said earlier from the Cross-Benches, one of the lessons of the Falklands was how our armaments industry was able to react quickly and produce the spares and adapt the aircraft, the ships and the like to meet the needs which arose. If we do not have military aircraft manufacturing ability we shall never again be able to mount that sort of operation. I urge my noble friend to continue with his encouragement and support.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, since we last discussed defence there has been an incident which undoubtedly increased East-West tension and even seemed to bring rather nearer the grim prospect of war. Hence a general sense of unease which has encouraged the "Peace Movement" with its unthinking and dangerous calls for unilateral nuclear disarmament. More particularly in America the shooting down by the Soviet air force of a Korean airliner seemed to be proof positive of inherent Soviet aggressive tendencies. Certainly the official Soviet excuse for this dreadful act, namely, that an airliner with 260 passengers on board and a United States Congressman was on a spying mission deliberately organised by the CIA, is obvious nonsense. On the other hand, it is conceivable, and I only say conceivable, that the airliner was shot down by mistake at a moment of panic.
Whatever the truth, the incident demonstrates the fragility of detente and the consequent apparent necessity of reaching agreement on arms limitation generally which might restrain the seeming rush towards a dangerous confrontation. Nor is there much reason to suppose that the airliner incident was further proof of Soviet aggression. However regrettable, it

205
cannot legitimately be held to be in any way the equivalent of, for instance, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. What, then, is now the prospect of an arms limitation?
At the moment, there is a strong tendency in the West to assume that the INF talks in Geneva must fail because the Soviet Government will not accept the so-called "Zero Option", it being then necessary to install the full complement of cruise missiles and Pershing IIs in various centres of Europe in the hope, if not the belief, that the Russians will then change their minds. Like my noble friend Lord Mayhew, I find this an unreasonable attitude. In the first place, it is surely only right that the British and French nuclear warheads should be included in the calculations governing, as I see it, both INF and START. For they are both intermediate and strategic, either actually pledged to NATO or possessed by a member of the North Atlantic Alliance.
Nobody is suggesting that these weapons should be in any way reduced but only that they should be counted. In the second place, the Soviet Government can hardly agree to destroy all its SS.22s. The security of the West would not be seriously imperilled if the Soviet Union retained a number of these modernised weapons, any more than Soviet security would be imperilled by the installation of at least a certain number of cruise squadrons, if not of Pershing IIs. It is a bargain that we should be seeking, not a complete climb-down by the Soviet Union.
What, then, should the governing criterion be at the back of people's minds in all these talks? Surely to insist on "equality" is nonsense, certainly so far as nuclear weapons are concerned. There really is no point—indeed it is the height of absurdity—for one side to possess more, and even very many more, warheads than are required for totally obliterating the adversary. In other words, always supposing that neither side has the ability to wipe out all the adversary's corresponding weapons on a first strike (which for various reasons seems impossible) it follows that the only sane criterion, pending general and verified disarmament, is the possession by each side of an assured capability of inflicting entirely unacceptable damage on the opponent on a second strike: that is to say, after the enemy or adversary has been so foolish as to initiate nuclear action. How large that capability should be is really therefore for each side to determine, but presumably the submarine-based missiles on both sides, which could for the most part, of course, survive a first strike, are even now fully capable of providing a pretty capable deterrent to any first use of nuclear weapons by the adversary.
If we pursue this argument a little further, we must surely conclude that it really does not matter very much if the Russians have rather more nuclear warheads than the Western allies, and notably the Americans. I repeat: all we want, for our part, is the recognised ability to inflict unacceptable damage on the Russian homeland if they should by chance be so foolish as to destroy targets in Western Europe by nuclear means. It looks as though, therefore, we should have some cruise squadrons for this purpose in Western Europe, always assuming that if Western European targets were indeed the subject of attack, the British and French nuclear forces would inevitably be
206
deployed also against targets in the Soviet Union. Since the SS.22s are mobile, the cruise missiles, which are equally mobile, can hardly be regarded as "counter-force" and hence potentially "first strike" weapons. If so, we must, when they are installed, calculate what sort of damage they would be able to inflict on a second strike against non-military targets. If the Russians adopted a similar criterion it is, at any rate to my mind, obvious that, for instance, 120 or even 100 SS.22s would be more than enough. If they are reasonable, that should be their calculation.
Pershing IIs seem to me, as I believe they seem to my friend Dr. David Owen, to constitute a rather different problem. There is no doubt that the Russians fear them much more than cruise, if only because—if some reports are true, and they seem to be quite credible reports—these weapons could with extreme accuracy in a few minutes destroy, even with conventional warheads, some of the Soviet vital communications centres on which their famous C3I systems—which is an ugly military shorthand for command, control, communication and the dissemination of military intelligence—largely depend. Some may say: "All the better: go ahead with their installation as soon as possible". I should have thought, however, that it would be wiser to treat Pershing IIs as negotiating bargaining counters. I repeat that actual "equality" really does not matter. What is wanted is an arrangement whereby both sides feel fairly comfortable and in no way at the mercy of the other.
This brings me on to another aspect of East-West relations. If it is true that in the event of war each side will depend, and increasingly depend as time goes by, on immensely complicated C3I systems, what will happen if these systems are straight away damaged, if not put out of action altogether? For if they are, then there is reason to suppose that the whole system of command could become inoperable, to say nothing of the means of accurately guiding nuclear missiles, with the result that the two super powers could become the equivalent, as it were, of blinded Titans, indulging in a sort of wild slogging match, if only with so-called conventional weapons.
That this is not an absurd or unlikely speculation derives chiefly from the fact that, apart from the possible destruction of vital communication centres in Europe by conventional means—and notably, unless I am misinformed, on our side the PTT offices in Stuttgart and Verona—the very possibility of conducting any organised military operations would disappear and chaos would follow, if either side were in a position to shoot down the low orbit satellites on which C3I systems now very largely depend, as I understand it.
Unfortunately, the process leading to such a conflict has already started. The Russians are said actually to have begun a project for destroying such United States satellites while the Americans, using another method, are fast catching up. On the face of it, therefore, it now seems essential for negotiations to start for some agreement whereby such action on either side is effectively prohibited; otherwise both sides may be able to achieve a fatal facility at much the same time, thus heralding the advent of indiscriminate war. If I might, I would ask the Minister who is going to reply whether or not the Government agree with what I have

207
just said. Perhaps he would be good enough to include that in his reply?
I would also venture to inquire of him whether the Government have by any chance read an extremely interesting article, published by the International Institute for Strategic Studies as Ade1phi Paper, No. 185, by Mr. Desmond Ball entitled Targeting for Strategic Deterrence. If so, would they also agree with Mr. Ball's conclusion, which I venture to quote:
"In the end, a better understanding of the realities of force employment policy might lead to the conclusion that the limited nuclear war-fighting option is a chimaera and that policies which depend on the ability to maintain escalation control of a nuclear exchange are ultimately incredible"?
To sum up, the more one reads about the possibility or the likelihood of nuclear war, the more it seems to be a sort of nightmare from which we shall all eventually wake up. That does not mean that when we do wake up reality will necessarily be very pleasant. On the contrary, unless we in the West pull ourselves together, sacrifice some of our present standard of living, and prepare for a non-nuclear war with new modernised weapons and techniques, which were referred to by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, we may well before long find ourselves faced with the choice between oblivion and defeat, the latter in the circumstances being the more probable option. And he it said en passant that this moral really underlies the very entertaining and well-informed book on the Third World War by General Sir John Hackett and others, which has I believe already sold over 3 million copies.
But if we do so build up our inherent conventional military strength, then all the chances are that we shall never have to use it. Nor is it at all impossible, even economically, so to build it up, given the scrapping of Trident, and as soon as possible, a withdrawal of our forces from the Falklands. I know the case for keeping Trident, which was so eloquently set forth in the admirable maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, but on the whole I must say, although one must never criticise a maiden speech, that on this point I greatly prefer the logic of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver.
Additionally, if we want the money for this purpose, the means for saving very considerable sums of defence are well set out in the recent very professional "Omega" Report of the Adam Smith Institute which, incidentally, emphasises the need for adequate home defence, that was so well elaborated on by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton. Unfortunately, besides, quite rightly, drawing attention to the need to strengthen the Navy and the RAF for the protection of these islands and the so-called northern flank, the report suggests that the necessary money should be found by halving the British Army of the Rhine and the tactical air force in Germany. It also favours an important, and not simply a token, contribution to the defence of the so-called hidden flank; that is, the oil routes in the Indian Ocean. Again, I should like to know whether the Government reject both of these proposals.
My conclusion is what many of my friends and I have been saying—I regret to say, unheeded by governments—for many years. I looked up the papers
208
the other day and I found that I was making suggestions about the inadequacy of the "flexible response" as early as 1967, which is some time ago. Yes, we simply must act on the assumption that, if war should break out, the first use of nuclear weapons by either side is incredible—let me say unthinkable—and hence impossible. That being so, the West as a whole, as we undoubtedly could if we tried, simply must now construct a credible conventional defensive system and to that end abandon some of the more expensive and, as I believe, redundant nuclear projects such as Trident and MX in the United States.
Anyone who seriously doubts the compelling logic of this argument, more particularly the Government, is advised to read the recent masterly article by that first-class political brain George Ball in the New York Review, several copies of which I have taken the liberty of placing in the Library. It will be noted that Mr. Ball does not recommend any formal declaration by the West of "no first use" similar to that made some time ago by Mr. Andropov for the Soviet Union. All he does say, and the argument is irrefutable, is that we must now prepare, if necessary, to tight a non-nuclear war. The article is called "The Cosmic Bluff" and I believe that, were he now alive, every word of it would be enthusiastically endorsed by the late Lord Mountbatten. My final question therefore is: have those responsible in the Government actually read George Ball's article; and, if so, can we be told exactly how they refute his conclusions, if indeed they do?
8.25 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I hope that I may be forgiven if, in the interests of saving time, I follow my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing in omitting most of the usual courtesies, and therefore do not follow very closely the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, which I greatly enjoyed. I agreed with almost everything, except the conclusion. I shall not even congratulate the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, on his maiden speech, because I think that it would be an impertinence for me to do so. Instead I would congratulate the House on acquiring a Member capable of producing so authoritative and admirable a speech.
The only other noble Lord that I must immediately mention is my noble friend Lord Cathcart, who produced an argument in favour of extended debates, or other debates, in addition to this one in the future. I wholeheartedly agreed with what he said and this suggestion should be given very careful thought. As he said, the All-Party Defence Study Group will no doubt give close attention to it and come up with a conclusion, which I hope it will do very shortly.
This debate is an annual fixture, but perhaps it contains a sort of trap. We have become so familiar with it that we may begin to feel that defence is simply a matter of being strong enough to persuade an enemy not to attack us, and to repulse him if he does. That is all very well for the Ministry of Defence, and it is all very well so far as it goes; but defence is a good deal more than that. It is more than the things with which the MOD is concerned: that is, the personnel and materiel of the fighting services and the management of the procurement executive. Therefore. I believe that there is a requirement for a much wider ranging

209
debate—wider even than the ones which my noble friend described in his speech—and, if noble Lords will put up with me for a moment, I propose to embark upon a slight widening of the area of the debate.
Chapter 1 of the White Paper on Defence Policy states in paragraph 112:
"We have made it clear in successive Statements that the major threat to the security of the United Kingdom remains the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies, and that our membership of NATO provides the only realistic way of countering that threat."
The second part of that statement bothers me. Is membership of NATO really the only realistic way of countering the threat? I do not believe that it is. We have learned the lesson of Canute. To hold back the red tide that might come flooding across Europe we have set up something more dependable than an armchair on the beach. NATO is our sea wall and the tide will not come flooding across that strand. But have we learned the lesson of Arthur Hugh Clough:
"…while the tired waves, vainly breaking,
Seem here no painful inch to gain,
Far back through creeks and inlets making
Comes silent, flooding in, the main"?
With these creeks and inlets the Ministry of Defence is not concerned, but we are and we know well that the means by which the Soviet tide comes flooding in silently are the insidious means of subversion, destabilisation and the proxy war. Over one-half of the world, at least, the Kalashnikoff is now as familiar a symbol as the Coca-Cola can, and where there is no actual fighting there is the struggle for hearts and minds. How are we doing in that struggle? The continuing existence and coherence of the Commonwealth as the successor to the British Empire provides, I suggest, a good enough answer for us, the British. In this field we might not unreasonably claim to have some experience and some skill and therefore to be qualified tactfully to offer advice. Indeed, we may be qualified to express our view on the crucial art of making friends and influencing people. Let us begin with the Americans, for they are already our friends. I believe that in the interests of peace it is high time for us to start trying to influence them in a rather more emphatic way than we do now.
I myself am unshakeably pro-American. It is vitally important that both as a nation and as a member of NATO we should continue to be so. And at this particular moment, in view of the events in Beirut, we should also feel deep sympathy for them and for their marine corps. But this does not mean that we should be silent when they say things which we feel would be better unsaid or that we should acquiesce in actions or policies that we find to be dangerous or rash. On the contrary, it is our duty sometimes to speak up and to do so, not in spite of the friendship and the alliance but because of them.
It is, apparently, an accepted principle that if any kind of communism should seem to be spreading to any country outside Western Europe or North America, the United States are entitled to intervene, if necessary by force. American interests are the touchstone. I sometimes wonder whether, if the touchstone were the peace of the world, rather than American interests, the result would always be exactly the same. It seems to me that it is rather as though a father were to say to his small son, "By God, I'm not
210
going to have you beaten up by these bullies; I'll beat you up myself and put you in hospital so that they can't get at you". Is that unfair? I admit that it may be, but it is worth considering. I think that it is not altogether an unfair description of various things that have happened in the past in such places as Indo-China and even, conceivably, in Nicaragua. This is a gross over-simplification, but the principle seems to me to be fairly clear. Would your Lordships think that the people of Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos have been gently weaned away from the totalitarian to the democratic ideology, or would you suspect that all the time:
"Far back through creeks and inlets making
Comes silent, flooding in, the main"?
I remain absolutely and advisedly silent over the singularly inapt timing, from my point of view, of the American entry into Granada, almost in the middle of my speech.
I am periodically surprised by the apparent amazement of some of our rulers on both sides of the Atlantic when the Soviets perform some nasty but perfectly characteristic and probably perfectly logical action. The shooting down of the Korean airliner produced an instant reaction of almost hysterical abuse, name-calling and incredulity. What puzzles me is the incredulity: could anybody imagine such callousness, such barbarity, such total disregard of human values, life and truth? Yes, I can imagine it because I know what the Russians are like. I hope that President Reagan and Mrs. Thatcher do, too. Of course such things are barbaric and evil to us. To the Russians, on the other hand, they fall correctly within Lenin's definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat proclaimed by him in 1920:
"The scientific concept of dictatorship means nothing more than unrestricted power, absolutely unimpeded by law or regulations and resting directly on force"—
a definition, incidentally, that provides for the slaughter of the supposedly dictatorial proletariat.
What worries me almost as much as anything is that our rulers here as well as in the United States should greet such happenings with all the appearance of surprise. I think it should be compulsory for every Minister of every NATO Government—indeed,every Government—to go and look at the Berlin Wall. You may think that you know all about it from descriptions and eye-witness reports, but to receive the full impact of its sheer human beastliness it is necessary to go and look at it with your own eyes and to reflect that it is the product of minds that see nothing wrong with it. Whenever I see it I feel that I want to go away and wash.
This obscenity will not last for ever; but for as long as it does last it behoves the rest of us to ensure that the ideas that it represents and embodies do not spread. They will not be stopped by force of arms because force of arms is the agency by which they do spread. Nor will they be stopped—on the contrary, in fact—by joining in a competition of vulgar abuse and "yahbooery" with the other side. This is counterproductive and alienates the lookers-on. Nor will they be stopped by the more violent means fairly frequently favoured by the American Central Intelligence Agency.
I think it is time for an authoritarian voice on our side of the Atlantic—I do not mean my voice—

211
speaking quietly behind closed doors to express alarm at some of the activities of the CIA. This is not the occasion for describing such activities. They must occasionally astonish the world by the publicity with which they are conducted, but let nobody beguile us into thinking that those activities are none of our business. They are very much our business, because often they are the implementation of policies which are designed to destabilise this or that régime. Destabilisation followed by takeover is Russian policy, whereas NATO's policy is—or ought to be—exactly the opposite.
I confess that I have sometimes suspected that the CIA would consider that it had achieved its highest peak of success if it were to succeed in destabilising the USSR itself, a feat which would be comparable in its effects to the celebrated triumph of Samson over the Philistines in the temple of Gaza. The CIA is a fact-gathering body, an intelligence gathering body, but it is also executive. It has the power and the resources to put its own findings into effect. It is under no government or ministerial control and is answerable to nobody except the President himself. Nobody really is, except a congressional committee, and I do not know how far any committee is able to investigate the most highly classified proceedings.
The reason why we are entitled to complain about the agency is simply this: as long as the most powerful of the NATO Allies relies on an agency of this kind, which is autonomous in fact, autocratic in character and often immoral in method, it is in a poor position to convince the uncommitted nations that it is in some way superior to other people.
There is in this and in other European countries a growing tendency towards what is described as anti-Americanism. This must be nipped in the bud. It is wrong and it is dangerous. With this end in view we may reasonably tell our American friends what we see as the causes of this deplorable and dangerous trend. Let me emphasise at this point that in no circumstances, in my opinion, should we follow the line taken by Mr. Enoch Powell. What it means, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has pointed out, is that we should take a less slavish line, or adhere less to American policy and actions, and that we should be more ready to state a line of our own.
When I quoted a verse of that celebrated hymn by Clough, Say Not The Struggle Naught Availeth, I cheated a little by putting it in a negative way; using it to underline a pessimism rather than an optimism. May I quote another verse in order to put the matter straight. And if in doing this, my words happen to reach the ears of any of my friends in Washington, I hope they will believe I intended it as a compliment:
"Not by eastern windows only
"When morning comes, comes in the light.
"In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly—
"But westward, look the land is bright".
8.40 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl, however much one may disagree with some of the points he has made. If the noble Earl will excuse me, I will follow one or two of his points in a moment. Before I do so, I must add
212
my congratulations to those which have been expressed already to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, on his maiden speech. My congratulations are perhaps more on the form and style of his speech than the content. I myself have often admired speeches made in this Chamber and elsewhere by noble and gallant Lords who have distinguished themselves in the services. I remember very much a speech made by the late Lord Mountbatten of Burma at Strasbourg. If the noble Lord has not read that speech recently, perhaps he will do so and then we can look forward to hearing from him with even more enthusiasm than that with which we have greeted his maiden speech, which he delivered with such distinction.
I find myself in more agreement with the noble Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Gladwyn, than has been the case for many years. I do not know whether this is due to the clarification which Dr. Johnson said dawns upon those men who are about to be hanged. Perhaps when civilisation itself is about to be hanged, a kind of general clarification will gradually come over all of us and we shall then begin to find, for the first time in a very long while, that we see things rather more clearly than we have done when we have been without such recognition of mutual danger.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I believe Dr. Johnson said that it concentrated the mind wonderfully.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: Yes my Lords; Dr. Johnson did say that and I got the quotation wrong. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for correcting me. The threat has concentrated our minds and clarified them as well, and my point is made even more strongly with the noble Lord's kind assistance.
It is commonly supposed by opponents of the peace movement—by Government spokesmen, for example —and it has been expressed in previous Government documents, that to be pro-peace is to be pro-Soviet. The present document is rather less shrill in style than some others, and although there is an implication to that effect, it is not spelt out in such violent terms as those in which some Government spokesmen have indulged in the past. Clearly it is not the case, because if it were true that to be pro-peace is to be pro-Soviet then the converse would be that to be pro-American would be to be pro-war. It is important that both propositions are seen to be totally untrue.
It is not the case that to be pro-peace is to be pro-Soviet; it is not the case that to be pro-American is to be pro-war. What is sadly true—and the noble Earl touched on this point—is that the involvement of the American Government in various parts of the world—Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos—and their tragic commitment at the moment in the Lebanon and their activities in Central and South America and the Caribbean are creating a frame of mind in much of the third world in which the CIA is more feared than the KGB and the American marine is seen not as a guarantor of peace but as the mailed fist of greedy American capitalism.
It is a false picture, but there is an element of truth in it. Those of us who know America and admire Americans know that it is a complex society. The picture of America as a dominant force determined to

213
establish itself wherever it goes is not the whole truth. But one can see that this is an aspect of the truth, and it is that aspect of the truth which will commend itself to people who find themselves at the sharp end of the Americans' attention
To them it appears that America is determined to prop up its satraps, and is even ready to undermine democracy at any point where the ballot box might produce a Government uncommitted to the rule of the dollar. In this situation it is quite pointless for either side to preach about freedom. That great anti-Soviet state, South Africa, has no more intention of allowing a free vote at the ballot box for all her citizens than has the Government of Czechoslovakia. Indeed, if your Lordships were forced to chose between being a black South African or a Yugoslav, East German, or Czech, or even a Pole, where would you find the most freedom? I have become increasingly convinced over the years that a society which allows 40,000 children to die of starvation every day while over-eating becomes the main source of illness in the wealthy West is not viable—and that such a society must destroy itself. In the nuclear weapon, it has invented the means of that destruction.
When distributing the blame for this situation, it is important to bear in mind that the West has always been the leader on the ladder to the holocaust. It was the pacifist West and not the aggressive Soviets who dropped the first atomic bomb. It was quite unnecessary and yet killed thousands of Japanese men, women and children. Those bombs could have been dropped in the sea with equal effect. But the actual killing and that which followed was part of the experiment.
I have studied this matter with some care because I was one of those people whose lives were supposed to have been saved by the dropping of that bomb, because we were going down to Burma. I was in the Royal Air Force at the time and at first I fell for the story. I have since found it to be untrue. That war could have ended without a single atomic death being on the Americans' conscience. The bomb was dropped on people rather than in the sea to demonstrate to the Russians who was boss. Not content with that, the American Government increased the power of their weapon and developed the hydrogen bomb—and killed more people in testing that.
The Soviet Union has never caught up except on the one point on which it has surpassed the Americans' missile strength; that is, in respect of land-based missiles of medium range—the SS.20s. The cruise missile of course is a response to that development. The United States' Government, in opposition to the best American military and political brains, want to be able to kill all the Russians several times over and by several different launching methods—air, sea, land, strategic, medium and battlefield. It is really quite lunatic and the Soviets are following in equal lunacy.
This morning we were told that, for the first time, the Soviets are stationing theatre missiles outside their own territory; in East Germany and in Czechoslovakia. Now there is reason to believe that these sites have already been chosen and that deployment will be simultaneous with the American deployment of cruise so that all that will happen as a result of the deployment of cruise will be an escalation of the
214
nuclear level to the point at which the explosion may take place. I have no doubt that the populations of East Germany and Czechoslovakia are as unenthusiastic about this as are the people of Western Europe. Who wants to become a primary target for extinction on either side?
Cruise has been rushed and a recent technical assessment, after examining the missile in detail, concludes that the acceptance of deployment of,
"an untested, unreliable bug-ridden system could turn out to be fatal to its hosts".
That is the weapon which we are proposing to admit, and not even retain operational control over in our own country. This is madness—absolute madness. In another generation we would never have dreamt of allowing our sovereignty to be eroded to this extent. I have no doubt that the unreliability of the cruise weapon is likely to be even more true of the Soviet attempt to follow the same pattern. So altogether the consequence of this deployment will bring the holocaust nearer to us.
In 1954, nearly 30 years ago, I set up an anti-H-bomb campaign committee which was dedicated to the proposition that this country ought not to manufacture its own hydrogen bomb. At that time I said that our civilisation could not live with nuclear weapons beyond the end of the century. We had nearly 50 years to go so it appeared to be a long time ahead. Now we are getting a little closer; but instead of projecting myself another 50 years ahead I believe that on the present course we shall not survive the present decade. I believe that the situation is as grave as that.
There is just this possibility. The Americans have shown in Grenada that they cannot be trusted. Let the Prime Minister learn from her humiliation and tell President Reagan to put his cruise missiles anywhere he likes, but not in England's green and pleasant land.
8.54 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, first as one of his supporters let me join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, on his outstanding and very clear maiden speech. It has given us an opportunity of hearing a voice from the Navy at a time when ship design has been the talking point for some months now.
One of the main features of the new frigate programme is the way the ship and its weapons system is designed to be less manpower intensive yet at the same time will be a high performance fighting unit ready to meet the operational requirements of the Fleet around the world. The noble and gallant Lord has drawn our attention to this important aspect of our fighting services, as technology means nothing unless it is in the hands of skilled volunteers. He has demonstrated expertly in his speech how much we depend upon the high quality of the men who crew the ships and give them the fighting efficiency which they have. That is something which we are always inclined to take for granted.
From Cumberland to Coventry and from Chatham to Carlisle the men come to serve on the surface, beneath it and in the air, and I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble and gallant Lord again in our future debates. If the Navy feels it is

215
suffering from a tonnage gap in deploying ships in the defence of our shores then I am sure Parliament welcomes a peerage gain and voice which can close the gap and deploy weighty words in debates on our defence strategy.
The pace setter on the present defence scene is technology change, which means that the requirement process has been upset and it is no longer technology dependent. We have smart weapons whose IQ has advanced from 80 or 100 to something like 125 with an expectancy, I am told, of 150 in the near future. Not only are the weapons intelligent, they are much more accurate. Moreover, weapons systems have become much more reliable and are therefore a better deterrent and peace-keeping influence. As far as I can see, the only disadvantage of reliability is that weapons systems can now be sold off to the less skilled and less responsible countries which perhaps have more aggressive intentions and they can use them without having to invest so heavily in maintenance, training, hack-up and all the ancillary services. All they need is purchasing power, or borrowing power, and an end-user certificate from the supplier and friendly Government.
Defence technology is flourishing. There is no shortage of developments, such as in the areas of information and processing, stealth and intelligence, munitions and protection, motive power and vehicles, all of which cover the terrestrial dimension.
Space is a different matter, but I welcome the launching of Skynet IV which is expected to take place from the space shuttle in 1985. This shows that this country is looking to the possibilities in space and the launching of that communication satellite will provide total communications coverage for all our services in the world so that they can communicate hack to headquarters.
Yes, technology change has caused the revolution in defence but it has forced us to get back to the firm ground of very sound management so that the right technologies are selected and developed. Unfortunately, this means that the more developments there are to choose from the bigger the hit list becomes and it is easy to follow the success and failure stakes on the weapons scene merely by reading all the right magazines.
The message that comes out of the Defence Estimates is that the Government have a strong belief in the critical role that industry plays in technology development provided it is consulted early on how best to meet the requirements for the United Kingdom and its collective defence needs as well as for sales to third parties. The Government/industry, or defence customer/contractor relationship is beginning to develop along the lines which I think will find the best way of accommodating the very high price that we have to pay for bringing the new weapons and equipment into service.
I was interested in what my noble friend Lord Cathcart said about the form that our defence debates take and the way that he would like to see them develop in the future. But I was sorry to hear him relegate the question of research and development, and that is the same as saying industry, to an
216
Unstarred Question status. I think that it should be included, perhaps on the second day of discussion, or even under its own heading.
The most recent decision to opt for the Type 23 Frigate has been taken in very difficult circumstances where the measure of capability has had to be assessed in detail to include such things as the sensing or detection powers beneath the surface, on the surface and in the air; hull profiling; quiet running for low sonar response, low radar response and thermal imaging; endurance and longer docking intervals; sea keeping; as well as three sorts of fire power: under water, surface to surface and surface to air; and a host of other considerations involving construction techniques and materials, with the Falkland Islands' experience as a vital guideline.
It has not been a simple decision, but the question asked by many people is whether we should have opted for the S.90s by Thorneycroft Giles with their less expensive, quicker to build, short, fat hulls. I think that there are two overriding factors that outweigh others in reaching the decision. The first is how these designs can be rated against the Russian Navy ships and how they will work with the NATO Alliance navies. The second is what they are like for the crews to live in, bearing in mind what I said earlier, that a ship is only as good as its crew and is the sailor's home for most of the time that he is in the Navy.
It is difficult for many of us to judge the situation expertly. While we are looking for the dream ship several solutions come to mind. I must admit that I am prompted to think more seriously of the S.90 proposal when I see that the wide bodied aircraft has come into service and that the nuclear submarine with all its middle-age spread is now a standard design. Has everything at sea, for example, got to be pencil-thin for good performance? I do not know, but I hope that the right decision has been reached. I believe that there is a very strong case for the S.90 solution in the light of potential sales to other countries who wish to buy less capability more cheaply and quickly. I think that the case is helped by United States studies of vertical launch missile systems with a heavier load, demanding a broader ship. But this is all still in the future. With our front line force of destroyers and frigates now numbering something like 59 and going down, to me it makes sense that we pay over the odds to get performance to match our opponent's greater numbers.
The decision has been taken in the face of the prevailing thoughts from various disciplines. There is even a call to go back to steam. There is this call for the broad hull. But let us not forget that the new Plessey Type 996 surveillance radar has been ordered for the fleet, the new lightweight Sting-Ray torpedo is here, the docking intervals of warships have been extended by new hull treatments and the use of what I call "fast paint", and there are many other advantages which I think justify the Type 23 choice.
I just want to say something else about the defence/industry relationship. The fixed price contract measures now operating seem to be directed towards the larger contracts where the R and D phase has established the design of the product or system—in other words, the point at which the production phase has been reached. This is understandable, but I think

217
that the real difficulties lie in the R and D phase where fixed price contracts are just not acceptable to industry. There is a dilemma here for the Government. On the one hand they are accused of doing too much in-house work at their research establishments with the known disadvantages of industrial remoteness, no easy spin-off machinery and over-specification. However, I think that this does result in good user groundwork, provided it is done on time. With greater investment in industrial R and D, the necessary pre-development work cannot be done at a fixed price. Manufacturers are reluctant to do it in any case without the probability of follow-through to production, coupled with the role of prime contractor, so as to have proper management and control over component supply and other assemblies and subcontracting work.
This I think means that the Government must be more selective in the choice of contractor to ensure value for money at the early stages of a project and make wider use of industrial resources: for example, by calling on firms in the contract research and development field with their excellent rapport with industry and universities so as to project the particular skills which have a technical significance in defence. I declare an interest here, and I have seen that this has been done to some extent, but I do not think it has been done sufficiently. However, I am glad to read in the booklet of the Secretary of State for Defence on selling to the Ministry of Defence the following:
"In some instances the R and D establishments at present also take the lead in design but the intention is to transfer this responsibility to the relevant parts of industry wherever possible".
I should like to see as much of this done as can be done.
I think that the deterrent business is becoming such a calculated one that industrial participation is absolutely vital at all stages, and I hope that the Government will continue to privatise more of their programmes and projects in the defence field.
9.6 p.m.
Lord Cameron of Balhousie: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for missing the earlier part of this important debate on defence. I am particularly sad and sorry to have missed the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin. He is an old friend. We served together for some important years on the Chief of Staff organisation. I am sure that his wise words and considerable experience, which is particularly recent, will be of great use in the House in the future. I look forward to reading in Hansard the speeches I have missed. It is also a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, knowing his interest in research and development. If he stays to hear what I have to say, I hope that he will agree with me.
The hour is late and I shall be brief. In the time available I should like to speak on four issues: our deterrent posture, the no-first-use nuclear theory, the Soviet chemical capability, and, lastly, the sweep of new technology. I declare straight away that I am a Trident D5 supporter and will argue the case with anyone, but tonight perhaps is not the occasion.
218
But there are those in this House, we know, who advocate that we should get out of the deterrent business and use the money made available to improve our conventional forces. I think that the first point is this: would the money so released by this action all be made available for conventional forces? I think not, and I believe that the Chancellor would demand his cut.
But if it was, what would the £7½ billion being spent on Trident D5 over the period of 20 years get for us in the way of conventional forces? The air defence of this country costs more than that now, though without a deterrent it would have to be greatly increased, and rightly so. Our anti-submarine capability costs more than that now. It would also have to be increased, and rightly so. The Tornado programme costs more than Trident D5, and the whole of the money would purchase only around two extra tank divisions(if we could man them), and with the Soviets already having a 90 division superiority, could we really trade away our deterrent for such a small return? Conventional forces, though highly desirable, are expensive, and an increase could involve an element of conscription —and maybe that would not be a had thing.
I have been much associated with the Tornado aircraft, and have flown it. It is a great aircraft, but at no stretch of imagination could it be placed on the same basis of overall effectiveness as the threat posed by Trident. And think of the rejoicings in the Kremlin when Yuri Andropov hears that the British are giving up Trident and buying two extra armoured divisions also. The Soviet superiority would go down to 88 divisions, and I am sure that that would worry him!
But some ask, why a complex system like D5? Surely we could stretch Polaris, or use cruise missiles. Let me say that the Soviet Union at present has a SALT I limitation on anti-ballistic missile systems restricted to the so-called "footprint" in and around Moscow. But their R and D continues apace, and when the treaty expires, or the United States goes for an ABM system, they would quickly be able to deploy a defence system throughout the Soviet union, and we would need D5 to penetrate that system. Please take my word for it.
On cruise, it cannot really be assessed as a strategic deterrent system which requires a certain amount of certainty. It is a perfectly adequate system in the INF role, but in the strategic role its long flight time and its vulnerability in flight make it unsuitable. Cruise would also have to be put in a submarine if it was to be invulnerable to pre-emptive attack. It would certainly cost more than the Trident D5 system, because it is the submarine costs which are the greater part.
So let us leave it all to the Americans (shall we?) as some have argued in this House! But quite apart from the ethical issue here, how can we possibly really rely totally on the United States when goodness knows what political or international situation may have affected their strategy and their alliances? Surely a glance at central America is enough to convince one that it would be really totally unfair and unrealistic to place our reliance for the next three decades on guaranteed United States support. The events of the last few weeks, indeed of the last few days, are an indicator.

219
Lastly on the deterrent issue, we must not let our British force be included in the Geneva talks. As long as the Soviet Union has some level of nuclear weapons we must remain in the business. The French have absolutely no doubt about this situation, as M. Mitterrand made quite clear when he was here in London earlier. Would we be happy to see them as the sole European nuclear power?
"If, between the two big powers, the numbers went down massively and enormously and we moved into a totally different world—a far greater reduction than I can foresee, certainly within the next five years—then there may be circumstances when ours will have to be counted. But I cannot foresee that at the moment".
The words are not mine; they are the Prime Minister's, but I agree with every word of that statement.
I should like to speak now for a moment on the fashionable theory of "no first use". We shall hear much of it in the days ahead; indeed there has certainly been much mention of it in the speeches that I have heard this afternoon. Personally I prefer the expression "no early use" or, "use as a last resort". The first use of nuclear weapons in a situation in Europe, in the sorry circumstances where our conventional forces are about to be overrun, is—and I hope will remain—part and parcel of NATO strategy.
Those who advocate "no first use" but who are not pacifists seem to imagine that we can have a nice, cosy conventional war. But what abut the 50 million dead of the last war and the very many millions brutally injured in Hitler's war? Have we forgotten all that so soon?
Since those days, and in the days ahead, the technology associated with conventional weapons has advanced and will advance the effectiveness of these systems to a degree. But the Soviets, as we have heard today, are also well up with these increases, and can give like for like. They would be fighting the sort of war that would suit them vastly. A "no first use" declaration would be a desperate temptation for them to try something. "No first use" is pure gimmickry, beloved by the analysts and others. Could we trust the Soviets, and could they, indeed, trust us? I do not think so.
On my third point, the Statement on the Defence Estimates mentioned that,
"the Soviet Union has a massive and growing chemical warfare capability".
Perhaps I can enlarge a little on that bland statement. As the House will know, this country has no capability and has not had for some years. The United States is just beginning to react to some extent to the Soviet build-up. It is estimated that the Soviets hold over 300,000 tonnes of nerve agents in the USSR and in Eastern Europe. In addition, the Soviet armoury contains hydrogen cyanide, a lethal blood agent, and blister agents such as mustard gas and others. Their research and development in chemical weapons continues.
The Soviets have a wide range of delivery systems, including guns, bombs, rockets and aircraft sprays. They recognise that CW is especially effective in a surprise attack using non-persistent agents against heavy concentrations, such as troops in forward positions, airfields, nuclear bases and a variety of other targets. Soviet troops, down to the lowest level, are
220
highly trained in chemical warfare. Each soldier has a respirator and a protective suit, and they have comprehensive decontamination facilities. Soviet armour is equipped with filtration systems to remove CW agents from the air. Tank crews can thus dispense with protective equipment.
I wish I could say that NATO forces were similarly equipped. The British are perhaps best off, but never being the aggressor and having to be prepared for a surprise chemical attack means fighting or, say, servicing aircraft in protective clothing, which is no joke. At present there is no real deterrent to a chemical attack except, of course, some nuclear response. But I could see the NATO authorities and heads of Governments wrestling with the problem of whether a chemical attack merited a nuclear response. There is no doubt that a surprise attack of this nature would wreak havoc among NATO forces. I believe it to be a likely Soviet tactic because installations such as airfields would not be damaged but could be used by occupying forces soon afterwards.
Surely the only real defence is to develop a deterrent capability of our own. We are all utterly revolted by chemical weapons, but we cannot just turn our back on the situation as it has developed. I can understand the lack of enthusiasm shown by the Soviets to negotiate a realistic treaty banning CW when they would he negotiating away a clear superiority of their own.
I finish by praying that the armed forces of this country have both the imagination and the financial support to take full advantage of the sweep of new technology. I hope that they will analyse carefully how new technology will affect the size, shape, strategy and tactics of our armed forces and, indeed, of the armed forces of NATO. I am sure that noble and gallant Lords will have read President Reagan's "Star Wars" speech of 23rd March. He looks to the day, not too far in the future, when ballistic missile systems in flight will be vulnerable. He stated that he was directing scientists to develop new technologies,
"to remove the threat of nuclear missiles…to be able to intercept and destroy intercontinental missiles before they have reached our territory or the territory of our allies."
He was talking about lasers and beam weapons, and he was supported by a report of United States scientists last week. Many distinguished scientists in this country are utterly cynical about such technology being possible. Well, I have heard that all before. In my view, it is not too early to start thinking about what the achievement of such a capability would do to international stability.
My final words—and the content might surprise your Lordships as a result of what I have already said—are that as a Christian I am a man of peace; indeed, a consultant of the United Nations Peace Academy. I am for multilateral disarmament and balanced force reductions. I hope with all my heart that the START and INF talks in Geneva will be successful, but I fear that the psychological ground for peace has not yet been properly prepared. But since wars begin in the minds of men it is in the minds of men that the defences of peace must be constructed. That is the real challenge that confronts us. I hope we are up to it.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, it so happens that what I have prepared to say follows very closely on what the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just said. However, I should like to put in one separate remark before I come to it, and that concerns the Lebanon. Yesterday, at "Statement time", it seemed to me—I said it at the time, but I want to say it more clearly now—that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on behalf of the Government, displayed a certain confusion about the purpose for which our small force was part of the multinational force in the Lebanon. Is it, on the one hand, to give general support to the present Lebanese Government, or is it, on the other hand, to help to keep the peace and to separate factions which might otherwise fight? We must realise that there is at least a potential contradiction between the two. The two aims could very easily come into conflict, and we must know why our forces are there, if they do come into conflict. For that reason I beg the Government, in common with a broad swathe of congressional opinion in the United States, to be precise, to be prescriptive. Why is it there? What are its orders? Parliament should know.
Overall, I believe that our purpose must be to pursue peace by all means, including the diplomatic means. In order to do this effectively we must remember what has happened in Lebanon. By far the most important thing that has happened there is that it was invaded by its two land neighbours. All the rest is relatively unimportant. Therefore, the restoration of peace obviously depends on those land neighbours going away again, clean out of the country, without conditions, and going away in the same order in which they came.
I turn now to what I mainly want to speak about, and that is recent developments in strategic and technical thought in the United States, and what they mean for us. It seems a long time ago since these Defence Estimates were prepared and published. Since then we have had the Scowcroft Report published in April, and the continuing body arising out of it. As a follow-up to this report it seems generally accepted that Midgetman is to be built and that mini-submarines carrying one or a few missiles each are on the cards as a future possibility. I should like to think that that might affect the decision about Trident. I should like to read to the House the key passage in this report. The Scowcroft Report noted that:
"although it believes that the ballistic missile submarine force"—
that is, Trident—
"will have a high degree of survivability for a long time—a submarine force ultimately consisting solely of a relatively few large submarines at sea, each carrying of the order of 200 warheads, presents a small number of valuable targets to the Soviets".
If that is so for the United States with a programme of 40 submarines, how much more so is it for this country with a programme of four?
The report goes on:
"the Commission recommends that research begin now [in the United States] on smaller ballistic missile carrying submarines, each carrying fewer missiles than the Trident, as a potential follow-on to the Trident submarine force".
At the time Trident was ordered that report had not been prepared or published. What is wrong with Trident? I wish I had the skill and the time to follow all the points which have been made in favour of it by
222
those noble Lords who were former defence chiefs who have spoken in this debate.
But our position is this. First, it is very expensive. Secondly, it constitutes an over-kill capacity for a minimum deterrent country like ours. We ought to be a minimum deterrent country. And Trident is against the new United States build-down proposals.
Thirdly, it is undisarmable. What has been ordered is a one-boat-on-station force. You cannot reduce that without abolishing the entire force, which amounts to unconditional, and possibly even at a given stage unilateral, disarmament; which is unwelcome to noble Lords on the defence side. I discount the rather pointless gambit of filling up the tubes so that you could not fire anything out of them. This would not only be wasteful of money already spent: it would also attract far too much Soviet inspection if it were to carry any conviction.
Fourthly, the Trident "buy" is incompatible with the new Scowcroft philosophy, which I have just read out, of single warhead launchers on a multiplicity of small platforms. Fifthly, it would of course be vulnerable to any Soviet answer to the proposed American ABM programme—a point which I think was covered by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, at least by implication.
Sixthly, and lastly—and I do not want to labour this point—this country may now have more options of things to buy from the United States than when our Trident decision was taken.
The Scowcroft Commission is not the only event that has happened in the United States. There has been the so-called "Star Wars" speech. We know that it was made without any consultation with the allies, and I think many of us know that it was made without any consultation with the organs of government concerned in the United States itself. But the programme is running; we must face that. It has not fallen over like a pack of cards when exposed to the light of criticism. It is no good our sitting back and crying out in incredulity and disapproval.
Since then there has been the report of the Future Security Strategy Study. The chairman was Fred S. Hoffman, who is the chairman of a corporation called Pan Heuristics. Note that the director of research of that corporation is Albert Wohlstetter, and connoisseurs of these arcane fields will know that where Wohlstetter is to be found the wise man ignores at his peril. This study recommends a development programme which it holds would not break the 1972 ABM Treaty, or any other treaties. The development programme would not: by implication, presumably, deployment of what is to be developed would.
I should briefly like to quote to the House from the findings of this study. The Hoffman study said:
"Even prior to deployment, the demonstration of US technology"—
this is in space-based ABM—
"would strengthen military and negotiating stances and options for immediate deployment and would play a significant role in deterrence. It could be a hedge against early Soviet Union breakout of the Antiballistic Missile treaty".
Then it says:
"Such a programme would drive them"—

223
that is the Soviet Union—
"to try and develop possible counter-measures, increase emphasis on their air-breathing forces and conduct research and development on new families of weapons delivery systems. It drives the USSR away from their preferred approaches of updating and proliferating existing strategic forces".
I think that we must ask ourselves whether or not we think those are desirable aims, for those are the aims recommended. To me they are familiar had arguments. They say in effect that if we do not do it, they will; therefore we must do it and that will make them do it quicker.
First, there has been the Scowcroft Report and then the Hoffman Report. Thirdly, there has been the Defensive Technologies Study Team Report under the chairmanship of James C. Fletcher. This moves forward from the more familiar space-based lasers and particle beams which we have been reading about for some years, and recommends things which will be new to many of us—hyperactivity projectiles, shotgun projectiles, electro-magnetic rail guns, et cetera, all space based.
I give a couple of quotes again to obtain the flavour of it. It recommends space-based anti-matter beams, a proposal which comes from our old friend Rand. The report in question says:
"Anti-matter is now produced in some quantity at high energy particle accelerator facilities in the United States, Europe, and the Soviet Union. Technology for storing this anti-matter has also been developed".
It continues to advocate the use of mass from extraterrestrial sources for shields and high-inertia platforms in space. That means simply not trying to shoot bits of the earth up there and build them together in space, but getting bits of the moon down and using asteroids which are near the earth, because it will be cheaper to do that than to build the vast boosters needed to lift the earth weight off. Another quotation:
"The group"—
that is, the Fletcher group—
"concluded that extra-terrestrial materials may provide the required mass at costs competitive with, or significantly cheaper than, options requiring launch from the earth's surface".
What is proposed is that we get the raw materials for space-based ABMs from the moon and from asteroids.
All this, it is also argued, would be rather hard to detect from the ground by the Russians, or anyone else, because it would he able to hide in the signals noise produced by the space junk which is already up there. I should note in passing that the Fletcher team included a sub-team called the Red Team, whose job it was to think what the Russians might do, and they thought that U.S. development of strategic defence of this sort would cause the Russians to redouble their efforts to build new and more efficient offensive weapons.
Next comes Dr. Keyworth, the President's science adviser. This is the fourth document concerned. He states that it is possible that a ground-based laser weapon will be available by 1990—in seven years. This document also recommends a multi-tiered array of weapons to attack Soviet warheads all along their flight path. Multi-tiered means in effect using all the systems I have just mentioned.
224
All these reports were wrapped up together in one bundle and forwarded by an inter-service group to the President. This group was led by Secretary of Defence Weinberger. The documents came before the President earlier this month, with four price tags on them—four recommended sizes of development programme—which ranged between 18 billion dollars and 27 billion dollars for the fiscal years 1985 to 1989.
Let us think now what is likely to be the effect of all this, if it is done, on the Russians. Either they will match it with their own corresponding ABM system or they will match it with an increase of their offensive systems, or both.
Let us now imagine the world in which the Russians have reacted in this way, and its effect on us. Let us also imagine a world where the U.S. have done this and the Russians have not yet done it. Would the U.S. system I have just outlined be able to destroy Russian missiles, including the so-called ICBMs, targeted on us in Western Europe? A factual question. (Of course, the Russians can hit us with their intercontinental missiles any day they want, not only with the intermediate range ones but also with the intercontinental ones and their cruise missiles in submarines, and many other delivery systems.)
If this U.S. system would not be able to destroy Soviet ICBMs targeted on us, would that not constitute an increase in the Soviet ability to use blackmail against Western Europe and to drive wedges between us and the United States? I think that increase would be a free gift to the Soviet Union.
If the United States system, on the other hand, were able to destroy the Soviet ICBMs in flight when they were targeted on us, at what cost would they be able to do so, and what nations might expect to enjoy that protection besides ourselves? All of NATO? Presumably, my Lords, hut let us now think around the world. Would there be a scramble among other nations to get under the United States' umbrella? Or to avoid getting under it? Lastly, to return to what I was arguing earlier, would the consequent Soviet ABM development put Trident out?
Scowcroft, Fletcher, Hoffman, Keyworth and the Weinberger package have gone to the President, and he will be taking decisions in the next few weeks about how to fund it. It seems to me that the case is now urgent for a greatly improved co-ordination and consultation mechanism between ourselves and Western Europe in general and the United States. Where is our input into this vast intellectual ferment in the United States, which is likely to be succeeded in a few weeks by vast expenditure which will change the entire geopolitical shape of the world? Where is it? Inquirers are told that our embassy in Washington, including its military section, has very good contacts with the Pentagon from day to day, and I do not doubt it. But these are the best and furthest-sighted brains which are to be found in the United States, working on something which has not yet scratched our consciousness. Are our best and furthest-sighted brains plugged in? I doubt it, and I believe the task is urgent.
Supposing it all goes ahead and supposing there is no disarmament, I have no doubt that in time there will have to be Anglo-French, or perhaps even Anglo-

225
Franco-German, arrangements which will take over more of the NATO deterrent role from the United States than is done at present by the unco-ordinated British and French national forces. It is interesting to see that in recent days Mr. Chirac, who is a neo-Gaulist and Mr. Chevénement, one of the leaders of the French Socialist party, have adumbrated something of that sort.
I should like to touch briefly on another immediate and local problem: that is the deployment of the SS.20s. So often I have heard, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, said it again in this debate, that the SS.20s were introduced to meet Chancellor Schmidt's request that weapons should be introduced to counterbalance the deployment of the Soviet SS.20s. The text normally cited for this is his famous 1977 Alastair Buchan Memorial Lecture at the IISS. I have read that lecture again and again. I find no request in it to deploy forces to balance the SS.20s. I do not know how anyone else can find such a request in it. Chancellor Schmidt maintains he never made such a request. It is not in the commonly cited document, and I suggest we stop attributing it to him. If we do we may the quicker find out who it was who first made it. At the moment it is mysterious.
226
I agree with those—principally my noble ally Lord Mayhew—who say that we should not await the arrival of cruise missiles in glum apathy. We are still alive. The last minute is approaching, but we all agree that the last minute was to be the moment when changes could be expected if ever. Let us continue to do all we can to obtain them.
The Government will, I hope, have noticed the proposals of my right honourable friend Dr. Owen in a lecture last week to the RUSI. I do not expect the Government to say anything about them, either now or at any other time publicly, but I take this opportunity of commending them to the urgent and well-intentioned study of the Government as a possible solution at the last minute to this intensely difficult and dangerous matter.
In the long run everything depends on devising a disarmament procedure which shall be on the scale needed—the right number of countries, the right number of topics. I, for one, hope to live to see the day when officials round the world no longer say that they can only tackle these matters bite by bite. The situation is not bite-sized. It must be tackled in a way which is at its own measure.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for outlining the policy of the Government in respect of defence—a most important subject which has attracted a considerable number of speakers today, many with great authority. The maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, was welcomed and will be welcomed on many occasions for the weight that we must give to his conclusions. It has been a wide-ranging debate. There has been the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, about some of the misleading answers of the Government and his concern about the maritime role; there was the very substantial speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, claiming the merits of the conventional role in preference to the nuclear, a study which we should be well repaid for reading later. There was the concern of my noble friend Lord Cledwyn and the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, especially about the dual control and on the conclusions of the Geneva talks. There was the idealism of my noble friend Lord Brockway and the independent voice of my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham, apart from the general concern expressed by many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others, on Trident.
I want to deal at this late hour with only two main points. Those concern the United Kingdom defence policy and costings, and that leads to the conventional role, and about the need for taking a overall view with regard to our defence commitments. In Command Paper 8288, The Way Forward, the Government identified the four roles in which the armed forces contribute to the collective deterrent. I believe that this point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. I think that we ought to examine the commitment of the Government with regard to defence. These four roles, as noble Lords will know, include the provision of independent strategic and theatre nuclear forces committed to the alliance; secondly, the direct defence of the United Kingdom homeland; thirdly, a major land and air contribution to the European mainland; and. fourthly, the deployment of a major maritime capability in the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel.
Again, in Command Paper No. 8758, it is confirmed that,
"These roles remain the priority for our defence effort and the modernisation of forces devoted to these tasks must still have the first call upon our resources".
That is a very important statement which I think few will deny. While the Minister claims priority for these four roles, there are other obligations and responsibilities which are for Britain alone to fulfil. They include, as The Way Forward reminds us, threats to Western European interests outside the NATO area; the great deal of military activity in which we engage outside Europe, including Cyprus, Hong Kong, the Falkland Islands and Belize, and this activity ranges from peace-keeping operations such as those in the Lebanon and Sinai, through deployments and exercises to loan services and seconded personnel, training teams, sales assistants and other things.
228
The Leader of the House who was good enough to refer to so many issues, referred to only some of these obligations. Regrettably, he did not expand on these heavy commitments. It may be that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will go a little further in that direction. They are important if we are to get an overall view of our defence commitments and costings, a matter which is of concern to him, particularly at this time. The Government claim that the four roles mentioned remain their priority for our defence effort. This is hardly true when we have commitments which, like the Falklands, are ours alone.
Little has been said so far today about the Falklands. In the Falklands, Mrs. Thatcher rather foolishly made it very clear that it is our business alone and others should keep out of the confrontation between the Argentine and the United Kingdom. She has claimed great credit for having regained possession of the Falklands when really she should not have lost it. That really is the cause of the trouble, and will be responsible for an immense amount of costing in the future.
Of course, this costing commitment is going to be an on-going one for years to come, and, being our commitment alone, it will mean that either we must reduce our contribution to NATO and the four roles to which I have made reference or we must find other money and other resources. Of course, these factors have nothing to do with the rights or wrongs of the Falklands, which has been the subject of detailed debate over the past year or so. But they concern us if we accept, as I think we must, Falkland Islands responsibilities, because they involve other priorities of spending.
The Government have placed themselves in such a position by this mismanagement of our defence and foreign affairs policies that there is no sign of any negotiation with the United Nations or with other countries with regard to the future of the Falklands. This must mean that they have put the Falkland Islands at the top of their defence priority list. The fact is that even though the four roles are said to be top priority, if we alone have the Falklands commitment then no others will be responsible for it and that will inevitably come either at the top or pretty near it. So we hope that events in the Argentine in the next few months will help towards a solution.
Those who have undertaken the arduous 8,000–mile journey to Port Stanley can have nothing but praise for those who took part in the campaign and those who since, day by day, travel the Vulcan and the Hercules air bridge long haul to a destination which is only 400 miles from Argentina. I think the House should be told more about the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Falklands in respect of the Antarctic and the Latin American areas strategically and in other ways, for that might then put this commitment more into perspective. I think that would he most helpful for all concerned.
Of course, much remains to be done in respect of the proposals of the Shackleton Report, especially with regard to land ownership and land use as well as the overall development of the economy and the social

229
structure there for the local population. It certainly is helpful for anyone who has been there to recognise the scale of the problem and the possibilities, and, of course, the cost of the great commitment.
In relation to our obligations outside Europe, I want to say a word or two about Belize, which has not been mentioned by the noble Viscount, if I am correct. That is another commitment which is causing concern both here and abroad, since the Government appear to take the view, according to reports, that our resources are not sufficient for the defence of Belize as well as of the Falklands, both areas being the subject of long-standing disputes. Guatemala poses a threat to Belize which, for geographical reasons, appears to be a greater threat than the Argentinians are to the Falkland Islands.
As in the handling of the Falkland Islands situation, Mrs. Thatcher may give the wrong signals to others about our intentions, and I believe that clarification is needed to avoid the consequences. We need to be told much more about consultations with others about the future of Belize and, indeed, about other territories of that sort. I noted the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, regarding the Falklands, his concern for an adequate maritime role, and his reference to paragraph 330 regarding the obsolete Royal Navy ships and the need for better quality and quantity of merchant shipping for defence purposes.
When the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, referred to the predictable path of discussions in these debates, I wonder how many of your Lordships would have dared to have mentioned in the White Paper debate of 1980 that if the Government were involved in a Falklands situation they would have to use vessels which were due for scrapping or which had been sold to other countries. If allegations of that sort had been made at that time I am sure any noble Lord would have been laughed out of your Lordships' House. But that was the situation, and one is frightfully fearful of similar situations arising in other parts of the world in the future.
So the Government's defence policy is a cause of great concern, as many noble Lords have said today, as regards various aspects, particularly fears of piling up an increasing nuclear commitment on top of so many other defence commitments not only within NATO, hut in other parts of the world. This is a major point to be borne in mind by the Government.
There are constant sneers and vilification of any who question, much less disagree with, the Government's policies; but there is increasing concern about the Government's intentions—concern felt not only by the general public but by some of their own supporters. I think we can recall debates in both Houses where former Defence Ministers of the party opposite have expressed their concern about cruise and Trident and about the enormous burden which defence is piling up for us. Last Saturday's great protest rally in London was clearly composed not only of those who support a unilateral nuclear weapons policy, but, indeed, of others from all walks of life whom the Government choose to ignore or, at least, to discredit.
But let us examine some of the aspects dealt with here today and widely outside Parliament. The matter
230
of costs and the nuclear threat was raised by my noble friend Lord Stewart, who said that you cannot have tax cuts and high defence spending, and that if you do you have to make cuts in other directions. This year, Britain will spend nearly £16 billion on defence, which is almost 13 per cent. of public expenditure and is second only to our social security commitments, which may have to be cut in order to make allowances for defence. Although we appreciate the work of the parliamentary committees which look into defence spending, I believe that the point made by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn about a better monitoring of spending is relevant and urgent in the present situation.
Indeed, a number of Members of both Houses have questioned the deployment of cruise and Trident, not only in terms with which we are so familiar but expressing grave fears that, if we go ahead with these projects and our conventional capability is in question, we may be forced to go nuclear at an earlier stage, if not at the start of an emergency situation. No wonder that my noble friend Lord Brockway challenged the Government in their claim that they have a mandate for Trident, especially when their vote represents a minority of the voters in the country. But recent surveys have shown the concern of people about some of these factors in defence spending.
In a debate some time ago, I expressed the view that the possibility of direct confrontation between the super-powers seemed to be less of a threat than some of the comparatively minor incidents which could lead to major situations of international gravity and danger. The Korean aircraft incident caused grave concern, as we know, and the ignorance of the true circumstances, which naturally take time to be discovered and revealed, provided periods of great international tension, and indeed danger, even in this era of micro-technology. I think that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, said that after the Falklands experience the unexpected may test us yet again.
In this House in the last few months the Government have given the impression that fears about the dual control of weapons based here, and questions about safeguards concerning the control and use of other equipment, were quite unjustified because an agreement made years ago in very different circumstances for a very much less awesome weapon should be accepted without question. I believe that the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and noble Lords in other parties justify the Government in looking into this matter of dual control, especially as cruise is likely to be deployed here in the very near future.
There could be, and there have been, a number of deadly errors in equipment, including radar malfunction of the ballistic early warning system in Greenland, a false warning of a massive Soviet missile strike approaching the U.S., a collision of aircraft carrying nuclear weapons, the accidental transmission of emergency messages and, of course, hoax messages, too. The House and the country have a right to know more about the Government's thinking on these possible dangers, following the Korean aircraft incident which could have had grave repercussions

231
indeed. With the deployment of cruise and Pershing near we need to know much more about the safeguards demanded by Members in all parts of the House. These are matters of urgent priority.
I want to deal with the conventional capability. Today noble Lords have been treated to a first-class, authoritative speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. It was based upon a study of the opinions of a considerable number of international people, whose views need careful consideration. It seems to me that many of the claims during the election campaign about the unacceptability of the nuclear deterrent and the unilateral policies have failed because the public, who have a right to demand that this country is properly defended, expect either a nuclear or a conventional capability, and they have not been satisfied so far that the conventional capability is the kind of role which we should adopt. But I believe that the study which the noble Lord has mentioned will go a long way towards satisfying those fears.
We know that, because of the enormous technical and scientific progress which quickly dates weapons systems and renders equipment obsolete, there is a constant need for re-equipment and replacement at very much higher cost. Having spent over 20 years on aircraft design and space systems and having been a member of the North Atlantic Assembly—a very commendable body which helps people to realise some of the problems and potential of our NATO alliance—one becomes very much aware that the pace of change, which is growing considerably, will mean greater up-dating of equipment and much higher cost. This is a factor which has to be taken into account when we are involved in new equipment and modernisation.
The fact is that if we are hooked on to a system, whether conventional or nuclear, we are caught up in spiralling costs, with unlimited future commitments. If the nuclear capability makes too great a demand, in an emergency we must fear that it could lead to the early deployment of nuclear weapons—a prospect which we should all fear.
I want to say a word about the chapter in the White Paper concerning new technology and new tactics. This has important aspects which need much more study and publicity. I believe that this factor was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, who dealt with it in an authoritive way. The chapter refers rightly to the fact that,
"Exploitation of new technology is potentially one of the West's greatest assets, since the free world's capability for invention and innovation is much greater than that of the Soviet bloc".
The chapter goes on to say:
"This could be of immense importance in an era when the pace of technological change is increasing so rapidly and when the implications for enhanced conventional deterrence and a consequent raising of the nuclear threshold are considerable".
Those are important words. I wonder whether the time is not so far off, if not here, when the conventional roles, aided by considerable technological improvements, are such that the nuclear role is lessened, with fewer dangers and less cost, yet still with a formidable defence and deterrent capability. I
232
believe, as I say, that we owe a great debt to the noble Lord, Lord Carver, and indeed to others who have pressed the claims of conventional deterrence.
I believe that the question raised by my noble friend Lord Cledwyn needs an answer. If the Government are going to deploy cruise before the Geneva talks are completed. is not this some indication that the Government intend to have cruise anyway, whatever the outcome of the talks themselves? Is it still possible to wait a little longer to see whether we can get the assurances that we need?
Finally, I come to what the Government are concerned with—one-sided defence. I believe that the White Paper deals only with one side of our defence effort—detailing strategy, manpower, weapons, equipment and other resources—and deals only with the health, accommodation and other aspects relating to service personnel. But the fact is that in time of war everybody is in the front line. We could get to the situation, with the cuts in the health service and the running down of' other vital services, where in an emergency we should not have the resources which are necessary for our survival. That does not take into account the army of the unemployed, the 3 million who have no role in Thatcher Britain at the present time.
When the Government bring forward their proposals for civil defence I am sure they will be anticipating that some of the facilities now being closed and cut will be available in an emergency situation. I believe that these are some of the factors to which the Government should give consideration.
I believe that a tribute is necessary and justified to our service personnel who form the backbone of our services. We have to recognise, too, the role which can be played by the civilian population in an emergency. Therefore, the maintenance of our services will be vital in that situation. I hope that some of the comments I have made tonight will help to curb our defence costs and make the task of the Leader of the House, when he comes to deciding priorities, a little easier than it might have been.
10 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, in rising to reply to this debate I am more than usually aware of my inadequacies in the face of so much experience and expertise. I suspect that I am one of the few noble Lords on today's speakers' list who has never even served in the armed forces, let alone risen to the levels of distinction and gallantry of so many of your Lordships. I was therefore especially pleased that the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, chose the occasion of today's debate to make his maiden speech. If it is not presumptuous of me to do so, I congratulate him upon it and express the hope that he will frequently intervene in our deliberations. He is indeed a splendid addition to what is already a great galaxy of talent on these matters—and I quite understand the reasons which have prevented the noble and gallant Lord from being in his place at this time.

233
My noble friend Lord Whitelaw has already described the essential elements of our defence policy and the rationale behind them. For my part, and before dealing with some of the specific points which have been raised, I should like to tell your Lordships of some of our plans for our reserve forces; this point was very much in the mind of my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. Their role is vital. The Territorial Army, for example, forms 30 per cent. of our mobilised army in wartime. The skill and efficiency of these units has been repeatedly brought home to me in recent months when I have visited a number of their camps and exercises. I have no doubt whatever that next year's exercise "Lionheart" will again demonstrate the superb work of these men and women.
It is our intention to increase substantially the strength of the Territorial Army, for deployment both at home and in Germany, from its current level of about 72,000 to 86,000 by the end of the decade. The Territorial Army has recently received much new equipment: the Milan anti-tank guided weapon system, the Blowpipe air defence missile system, the 105 millimetre light gun for the field artillery regiments, and the Clansman radio equipment—and more new equipment is in the pipeline.
Another important measure has been the establishment of the Home Service Force. This new force is designed to appeal to those with some military background who are not able to undertake the full commitment required by the Territorial Army. A pilot scheme has now been running for just over a year and the early indications are very encouraging. Recently, I had the opportunity to meet some members of the force and to watch them training. I can assure your Lordships from my own observations that the Home Service Force is a well motivated and experienced body of men. It will be a valuable addition to our home defence capabilities and we believe there will be considerable scope for expansion from present levels. We are now examining the next stage.
I must not give the impression that only the Army has volunteer reserves. Although much smaller in size, the Royal Naval Reserve and the Royal Marines Reserve both have vital roles in war, which depend on the high levels of training achieved by these dedicated volunteers. The Royal Naval Reserve is being strengthened by the entry into service of two new classes of vessel. The new Fleet minesweeper will be a valuable addition to our mine countermeasure forces; keeping ports open would be a vital task in the event of war. The first ship of this new class—HMS "Waveney"—should enter service early next year. The second new class of vessel for the RNR is the 20 metre patrol craft, four of which are already in service. I recently went to sea with one of the first of these, HMS "Fencer", in service with the Wessex Division at Southampton.
The Royal Marines reserves play a major part in our defence plans; they will be deployed to Norway to take part in a major NATO exercise next year. All those who join the Royal Marines reserve must complete commando training to the same standard as their regular counterparts before the award of the green beret to enable them to take their place alongside the regulars in wartime.
234
The Royal Air Forces's volunteer reserve forces have two elements: the RAF Volunteer Reserve, which is a small, highly-specialised force; and the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, which is an expanding force currently made up of six squadrons in the airfield defence role, as well as headquarters units in support of maritime operations, a movements squadron and a recently formed aeromedical evacuation squadron. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force has already doubled in size under this Government, and further expansion is planned. As well as forming additional squadrons for airfield defence over the next decade, we hope to form units involved in missile defences and helicopter flying. Other possible roles are being examined.
The commitment demanded of a volunteer reservist is considerable. Take the case of a soldier in the Territorial Army. To qualify for his annual bounty, he must attend an annual camp for a fortnight and undertake a further 12 full days' training. This is the minimum in addition to the regular drill nights. Such is the enthusiasm of the men and women who give their spare time to train for the defence of their country that many undertake far more than the minimum obligation.
Our defence strategy is, therefore, not in the hands of the regular formations alone, but is a responsibility shared by the general public as a whole, most obviously by its participation as volunteers in the Territorial Army and the other reserve forces. This was forcibly brought home to me when I attended recently a conference for commanding officers of London's Territorial Army units. They were eager to emphasise the importance of all employers being willing to release our part-time servicemen from employment for the necessary periods of training. I hope that the point will not be lost on the many of your Lordships who hold high office in our industrial and commercial companies.
The reserve forces are but one of the links between the service and civilian communities. The civilians who work in defence industries also have an important part to play in our defence strategy. The Ministry of Defence is by far the largest single customer of British industry. In all, more than 90 per cent. of our defence equipment expenditure is spent here in the United Kingdom, supporting no fewer than 242,000 jobs directly in British industry and another 193,000 indirectly. MOD procurement of non-equipment items supports a total of 160,000 jobs, and sales of defence equipment abroad another 145,000. At any one time more than 10,000 British companies are working on defence contracts, and the Ministry may place as many as 30,000 contracts a year through its headquarters purchasing organisation alone.
A particular example of the teamwork necessary in the defence of our interests was the performance of all those involved in the Falklands campaign last year. The skill and professionalism of our sailors, soldiers and airmen has rightly drawn high praise, but let us not forget the civilians who worked so hard, too. The contribution of our merchant seamen, for example, was vital, and their courageous performance was a credit to their traditions of dedicated wartime service. We should remember the tragic destruction of the "Atlantic Conveyor"; the inspiration provided by the "Canberra", and the "Queen Elizabeth II"; the

235
humanitarian work on board the "Uganda", and many other ships of every size.
In the light of these considerations it gives me great pleasure tonight to be able to tell your Lordships that, as I announced to your Lordships earlier today in a Written Answer, Her Majesty the Queen has graciously approved the award of battle honours to ships and units of the armed forces and the Merchant Navy which took part in the Falklands campaign last year. Those of Her Majesty's ships, submarines and squadrons of the Fleet Air Arm, as well as Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and vessels of the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service, which saw service in the South Atlantic between 35 degrees south and 60 degrees south from 2nd April to 15th June 1982 will be awarded the battle honour "Falkland Islands 1982". Merchant Navy vessels which were taken up from trade in support of the operation will also receive the honour.
In accordance with a longstanding tradition which dates back more than 150 years, the Royal Marines do not receive battle honours for any individual operation or campaign in which they have been engaged. Instead, the corps motif of the globe surrounded by laurel is the symbol of their outstanding service throughout the world.
Regiments which took part in the campaign will, in accordance with normal practice in the Army, be able to claim the theatre honour "Falkland Islands 1982" as well as individual honours for the engagements at Goose Green, Mount Longdon, Tumbledown Mountain and Wireless Ridge. After these claims have been considered by the Army Board, recommendations will be submitted for Her Majesty's approval.
Squadrons of the Royal Air Force which saw service south of 35 degrees south and north of 60 degrees south or took part in operational sorties south of Ascension Island will be awarded the battle honour "South Atlantic 1982". Full details of the ships and units concerned are contained in the Written Answer which I gave to my noble friend Lady Vickers earlier today. I am sure your Lordships will join me in welcoming the award of these battle honours as a permanent record of the singular achievement of the Services, and the invaluable assistance of the Merchant Navy in liberating the Falkland Islands and in passing our congratulations and thanks to the men and women involved.
May I turn now to some of the particular points that have been raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in his opening remarks asked me particularly about the deployment timetable for the cruise missiles. The necessary preparations are proceeding at RAF Greenham Common in order to achieve NATO's aim of operational deployment of the first flight of cruise missiles in the United Kingdom by the end of the year unless an agreement can be reached in the arms control talks in Geneva involving the total abolition of all missiles of this sort, including SS.20s. Your Lordships will be informed when the first cruise missiles and launchers arrive. I should emphasise that the Government's determination to meet our
236
undertakings given at the time of the 1979 NATO twin-track decision in respect of the deployment of cruise missiles in no way calls into question our commitment to a successful outcome to the arms control talks.
I think that every noble Lord will share the desire expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, to see value for the money that we spend on defence. I am happy to say that we are doing much in this area. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has recently introduced a system of management information for Ministers and senior management. This will provide a solid data base on which to assess our activities, costs and performance, and to manage our defence resources positively. I have myself been involved in studies into the more economical conduct of our training. We are looking at more collective training involving the three services and at what the private sector can offer. Major General Groom has just completed a major review of Army training.
I know that escalating equipment costs and scrutiny of our procurement expenditure to ensure that we obtain value for money are major preoccupations for my honourable friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement. We frequently seek to collaborate in equipment production with our NATO allies, to pool technological and production resources and increase production runs, thus lowering unit costs.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, and a number of other noble Lords, raised the subject of the cost of Trident. I shall come to that in a moment. Perhaps I ought not to rehearse all the arguments as to why the Government believe that Trident is the right system for us, but we believe that it must operate to maintain a credible independent nuclear deterrent force.
As noble Lords are well aware—and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Lewin, so ably explained—the Government have decided to replace our existing Polaris submarine force with the Trident force when the life of Polaris runs out in the 1990s. We believe that although, as has been correctly pointed out, the size of the British deterrent as a proportion of the strategic forces of the super powers is very small, that is to miss the main point. In absolute terms we believe that the British force is capable of inflicting potential damage which an aggressor would regard as unacceptable. One Polaris submarine is capable of delivering more explosive power than all the munitions expended in World War II. An aggressor knows that a decision on its use rests in European and not in American hands. It is this extra risk and uncertainty which an aggressor must take into account and which is such a powerful addition to Alliance security.
I was somewhat concerned to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, paint a rather bright and humanitarian picture of the Soviet Union. I do not believe many of the nations represented at the CSCE conference in Madrid would have agreed with him. The totally inexcusable shooting down of the Korean airliner—which has been referred to by more than one noble Lord—is surely yet another reminder that Soviet attitudes have not changed as much since the invasion

237
of Afghanistan and the suppression of Poland as I think perhaps the noble Lord would have us believe.
If I may return to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, there is just one point he made with which I omitted to deal, in particular about Belize. This was also in the mind of my noble friend Lady Vickers. We maintain a garrison of around 1,500 servicemen in Belize in order to assist in the defence of that country against external aggression. The garrison includes an infantry battalion, Harriers and Rapier missiles. The garrison will remain for an appropriate period to perform this task. Meanwhile, we continue to train and equip Belize's own expanding defence force, which already has troops deployed in operational locations. Of course, we consult our American allies on a number of topics, including the future of the garrison in Belize, but naturally details of these discussions must remain confidential.
I want to make absolutely clear the sincerity of the United States, which some people have questioned during the course of this debate, to the arms control negotiations in Geneva. In both the INF and the START talks the United States has put forward genuine and radical proposals for sweeping reductions in nuclear forces. The focus at present is naturally on the INF talks as the date for the first NATO deployments approaches. The United States, with the full support of its NATO allies, has put forward a series of proposals for reductions in the number of nuclear weapons on both sides. We continue to believe that the zero option—no missiles on both sides—would be the best outcome.
My noble friend Lord Cathcart was one of many noble Lords to suggest that there should be more opportunity in your Lordships' House to discuss defence. I am sure that in addition to defence in the NATO and United Kingdom context, we would need to bear in mind the need to debate our interests outside the NATO area. These remarks, I am sure, have been heard by my noble friend the Chief Whip, and will doubtless be considered in the proper way.
During his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, questioned whether the present Government had a mandate for any of their policies. I am not sure that I followed the detailed arithmetic which the noble Lord advanced, but I am conscious at least of the majority which we enjoy in the other place.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, also expressed a view, which he has expressed before quite properly in your Lordships' House, about the need, as he sees it, for a comprehensive disarmament treaty. I do not think that I need to deploy all the arguments that I have deployed to him before today on that question, except to say that we prefer a step by step approach in these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, knows that I do not share many of his views in these areas, but I am sure that we all share his wish to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and to maintain peace. We do not trust the unilateral measures which have been ignored by the Soviet Union in the past; nor do we put much store by grandiose but hollow declaratory gestures. What we are striving for is balanced and verifiable disarmament.
238
The noble Lord mentioned the conference on disarmament in Europe. We wholly support this new initiative and are taking an active part in preparations for the opening of the conference next year. We sincerely hope that the negotiations in Stockholm will result in a reduction in tension and the enhancement of security in Europe.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, referred to the report of the European Security Study, Strengthening Conventional Deterrence in Europe, in which he was involved, and which was published earlier this year. This report is being studied with great interest in the Ministry of Defence. The report concludes that we could achieve a dramatic increase in capability in this decade at affordable cost. While the prospect is an attractive one—and who would not wish to raise the nuclear threshold?—we should be realistic about the potential. Analysis to date suggests that the report is optimistic, but we should remember also that our existing defence programme already contains many examples of high technology weapons which should be brought to fruition over the next few years. We are examining with our NATO partners the possibilities for the further selective introduction of high technology weaponry where this offers the prospect of a high pay-off within existing budgets.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, raised some powerful arguments in favour of the formation of a home defence force. As my noble friend Lord Whitelaw has already indicated, the Government attach very great importance to enhancing the defences of the United Kingdom home base to meet the assessed threat. I have already underlined the role of our reserve forces in this function. The question in considering the noble and gallant Lord's proposals is one of priorities, and it may be preferable to concentrate any extra resources on a further expansion of the Territorial Army and the home service force, rather than risk diluting our efforts by setting up yet another force.
I return to the speech of my noble friend Lady Vickers, who was one of many speakers who commended the Merchant Navy and stressed its importance. I have referred to the battle honours that are being awarded. The Government place the highest value on the contribution made by British ships in support of our forces in the South Atlantic. The Government's policy is that British ships are used for the Government's Falkland Islands task whenever possible. Foreign ships have been used only when no British ship was suitable and available, except in a very few cases when a high price differential was unacceptable in the light of the Government's general duty to obtain value for money. British shipowners have been given, and will continue to be given, every opportunity to obtain charters.
I am aware of the natural concern expressed by members of the seagoing Merchant Marine. I have met the general secretaries of the NUS and the MNAOA to explain the Government's firm resolve to continue to make the fullest possible use of British ships in support of the Falkland Islands. I am afraid that I have to tell my noble friend, however, that the "Rangatira" was not awarded a battle honour because she did not satisfy the criteria that I outlined a few moments ago.

239
I agree with my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing that the Royal Air Force will need an advanced agile combat aircraft in the mid-1990s and beyond to replace its ageing Phantoms and Jaguars. It is currently envisaged that such an aircraft would be geared primarily to the air-to-air role, but it must also have a good ground attack capability. A number of other European countries perceive a similar need for their own air forces. The potential for the collaborative development and production of a European combat aircraft is being considered. It is still early days, but the signs are encouraging. We are pressing ahead with the experimental aircraft programme to demonstrate in one aircraft a range of advanced technology which will be applicable to a variety of future combat aircraft.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about our position in the Lebanon. I am sure that all your Lordships will wish to join me in condemning the appalling bomb attack on French and American troops in Beirut and in expressing the deepest sympathy to the relatives of those who lost their lives. We have offered all possible help in the evacuation and treatment of casualties, both on the spot and at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus. As my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary made clear in another place yesterday, we have no present intention of changing the role or size of our force.
We remain resolved to support the Lebanese Government in their efforts to bring about a lasting reconciliation in the country, but clearly we need to consider the future of the MNF in consultation with our partners in the force. As your Lordships may already be aware, the Foreign Ministers of the four countries concerned will be meeting later this week.
Our troops are already making a valuable contribution by guarding meetings of the committee set up to implement the ceasefire. We shall continue to do all that we can to establish a lasting peace. Naturally, the safety of our own men remains at the forefront of our minds at this time. Your Lordships may be aware that General Sir Frank Kitson, commander of the United Kingdom's land forces, has today arrived in Beirut to review the position on the ground.
Our debate today has inevitably been overshadowed by events in the Caribbean and at the other end of the Mediterranean. But whatever the importance of these events in regional terms, or, indeed, the scale of the tragedy in Beirut, the fact remains that the main threat to the United Kingdom and the Western Alliance continues, as it has for more than 30 years, to come from the Warsaw Pact in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. In the last few years, that threat has significantly increased with the deployment of SS.20s in increasing numbers. Nigh on 700 warheads are now, at this very moment, pointing at Western Europe. Additional units of the same kind can be moved westwards from the far regions of Russia if required.
I emphasise again that this is a new threat which has emerged only in recent years. If that were not enough,
240
now we hear that the Soviets are deploying yet more missiles of the latest kind to add to their monstrous arsenal. And all the while the Soviets profess their innocence and their peaceful intentions while they equip themselves not just for defence, as they claim, but to blow us all to kingdom come.
What other course therefore could the NATO allies have taken in 1979, but the one that they did? The announcement of the twin track decision eventually to deploy cruise and Pershing II missiles as a counter to this new and deadly threat, while at the same time pursuing with renewed vigour the search for balanced and verifiable measures of disarmament, could frankly not have been delayed a moment longer. To do so, would have allowed the Soviets, with their dismal record of aggression around the world, to build a superiority in these weapons which perhaps—who can say?—they might have been sorely tempted to use.
My Lords, the Government remain convinced that the only sure way for ourselves and the Western Alliance to maintain the peace is to convince the potential aggressor, by our deeds and our words, that if he attacks us we can and will respond so as to inflict unacceptable damage upon him. But I promise your Lordships that we shall never do so save in response to such an attack. But, in the meantime, I hope we have your Lordships' support. On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes past ten o'clock.

  OPTICAL DISPENSING
  OPTICAL DISPENSING
  ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL: SECURE UNIT BEDS
  ST. LUKE'S HOSPITAL: SECURE UNIT BEDS
  THE SOCIAL SERVICES: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  THE SOCIAL SERVICES: PUBLIC EXPENDITURE
  EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENTS: RECREATIONAL USE
  EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENTS: RECREATIONAL USE
  THE FALKLANDS CAMPAIGN: BATTLE HONOURS
  THE FALKLANDS CAMPAIGN: BATTLE HONOURS