Sitting of 26 October 1983

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

      NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
      Orders for consideration read.
      To be considered tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT

    Waltham Forest
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many new housing starts there have been in the London borough of Waltham Forest in each of the past four years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The figures, which are published in "Local Housing Statistics". are: 464 in 1979, 219 in 1980, 261 in 1981 and 256 in 1982. However, in the first half of 1983 there were 241 starts, almost as many as in the whole of each of the two previous years.
    Mr. Deakins: Is the Minister aware that those are rather paltry figures for a greater London borough with a considerable population? Is he further aware that they offer no hope to those of my constituents who are extremely inadequately housed, particularly in conditions of overcrowding and dampness? Do my constituents really have to wait another three or four years until we have a Government who would give their housing needs top priority?
    Sir George Young: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take a broader view of the housing need in his constituency and accept that many local authorities, particularly in London, are switching resources from new build into the modernisation and improvement of existing stock, into the modernisation of council estates, and into bringing vacant properties back into use. If he takes that broader view, I hope he will find that his constituents have a more encouraging picture than the one that he has just painted.
    Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend will be aware that the London borough of Walthan Forest council owns houses in my constituency of Billericay. I believe that discussions are taking place between Waltham Forest and Basildon about the transfer of those houses to Basildon. Does my hon. Friend envisage any difficulties over that transfer?
    Sir George Young: If the local authorities do not agree on the voluntary transfer my right hon. Friend has a role to play towards the end of the negotiations, and it would be wrong for me to prejudice his decision by commenting at this stage.

    Local Government Reorganisation
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the main benefits to ratepayers from his proposals for further reorganisation of local government.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Patrick Jenkin): Abolishing the GLC and the metropolitan county councils will, by removing a tier of local government, produce savings from which ratepayers in these areas will benefit.
    Mr. Madden: How did the Government make these proposals without havig a cost-benefit analysis made? Is it not true that if these ludicrous proposals go through

    267
    ratepayers will be left with a hefty bill, diminishing services and loss of democratic control over those services? When the Secretary of State is in Bradford a week on Friday, will he take the opportunity to announce that he is scrapping these proposals and switching the £160 million or so that they will cost to places such as Bradford in order to avoid cuts in education and the National Health Service and to avoid the closure of hospitals such as Thornton View hospital in that city?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have not heard so much rubbish for a long time. By removing an entire tier of local government, which experience has shown to be unnecessary, it seems to me inevitable that substantial savings will be made. The hon. Gentleman knows that the White Paper contains proposals whereby the staffing and precepts of joint boards will be watched very carefully for a transitional period of three years to make sure that there is no repeat of the empire building that went on before.
    Mr. Shersby: What safeguards does my right hon. Friend propose over the precepting powers of the new joint boards?
    Mr. Jenkin: They will be subject to the system of selective rate control, for which legislation will be introduced in this Session. As I have just said, for the first three transitional years Government approval of the precepts will be required.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: How can the Secretary of State justify the proposed abolition of the GLC with the consequence that London, unlike any other major capital city in this continent, and larger than at least 18 sovereign states in the world, will be left with no strategic authority for all strategic issues? What will the financial benefits be, because there is none set out in the White Paper?
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman may not recollect that when the Herbert commission recommended a structure for local government in London over 20 years ago the word "strategic" did not appear in its report. During the 1960s and 1970s some of us sought to see whether it was possible to define a strategic issue. In fact, none cannot equally be performed by other more economical means. That is why we have come to the conclusion that the search by the GLC and the metropolitan counties for some type of strategic role has demonstrated that they have no such role.
    Mr. Benyon: As it appears that there are considerable controversies about cost savings, if any, as a result of the proposals, will my right hon. Friend appoint a prominent firm of chartered accountants to assess the conflicting claims?
    Mr. Jenkin: Savings will depend upon the precise way in which the services are devolved to the boroughs and districts and on the decisions by the boroughs and districts and the joint boards on how they will carry out the functions. It is not possible at this stage to do other than make assumptions which may or may not be justified. I am confident that there is substantial scope for savings and we intend to ensure that they are brought about.
    Mr. O'Brien: Is the Minister aware of the statement by his predecessor in May, just before the general election, that there would be a saving of 9,000 jobs and £150 million through the abolition of the Greater London council and the metropolitan councils? Is the Minister saying that that is no longer a fact?
    Mr. Jenkin: I have repeated the figures on a number of occasions since the election. They represent a broad estimate and could be substantially higher. More than half the total local government overspend this year is attributable to the upper tier councils, including the GLC and ILEA. The total amount of overspend involved there is about £415 million. The hon. Gentleman can see from that that there is plenty of scope for saving.
    Mr. Heddle: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that the joint boards will be manned entirely by democratically elected councillors and that they will not become Government-appointed quangos?
    Mr. Jenkin: It is now clear that all that we have read in the local government and other presses about how we plan to go for a whole bunch of quangos is nonsense. The only exception to the joint boards consisting of local councillors nominated by elected councils is the provision for the continued presence of magistrates on police boards.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State has said that he wants to cut out an unnecessary tier of government and empire building and that these proposals will produce savings. Will he quantify precisely the savings from the abolition of seven elected local authorities and their replacement by one London planning commission; five new police joint boards; seven new fire joint boards; one London transport authority; six new transport joint boards; one staff commission; seven bodies to hold and dispose of property; a statutory body for the management of debt, residual superannuation matters and residual legal liabilities in London; consortia for central purchasing in London; seven administering bodies for external debt; seven administering bodies for staff superannuation; seven administering bodies for legal rights and liabilities; seven statutory joint arrangements for waste disposal and a 48-member ILEA being replaced by a 50-member ILEA?
    Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has obviously devoted attention to the White Paper. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman has left out of account the disappearance of an entire tier of elected councillors and all the overhead administration that goes with that. It is nonsense to imagine that because some of the services will be run by the districts and boroughs jointly—although most will be devolved upon the districts and boroughs, which are anxious to receive the powers, as the right hon. Gentleman will know from his Manchester experience—this cannot be achieved without substantial economies. We shall monitor the overheads necessary to staff the joint boards and ensure that the savings are achieved. I assure the right hon. Gentleman of that.

    Local Government Manpower
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has made any forecast of the change in the total number of employees in local government service in England and Wales between the 1979–80 and the 1983–84 financial years.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: We do not attempt to forecast these figures, but I can tell the hon. Member that between June 1979 and June 1983 local authority manpower fell by 111,000 compared with an increase in Labour's last four years of 48,000.
    Mr. Lloyd: Does the Secretary of State accept that the job losses, far from increasing the efficiency of local

    269
    government services, have led to a cut in the quality and quantity of those services? Does he accept that local authorities have a critical role to play in the inner city areas and should be breaking the cycle of decline instead of being prevented from doing so by the Government's actions?
    Mr. Jenkin: There is no correlation between the numbers of people employed and the quality of services provided. Some of the best services are provided by authorities which manage with the fewest people. One has only to recognise the quality of education provided by ILEA, which employs about 50 per cent. more staff per pupil than any other local authority, to see what I mean. I do not accept the correlation. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman does not recognise the substantial contribution which the Government are making in the inner cities through the programme and partnership authorities and through other designated districts to provide the support for inner city regeneration, which the hon. Gentleman and many of his hon. Friends wish to see.
    Mr. Forman: Is it not vital for local authority manpower to be used in the most efficient way? Is my right hon. Friend aware that, through legislation, other Departments often put on local authorities fresh statutory obligations which are not sufficiently taken into account in the rate support grant settlement?
    Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's point. The local authority associations make the same point to us. The additional staffing required for any of the new duties placed upon local authorities is minute compared with the total volume of local authority staffing and expenditure. Moreover, a large number of authorities have managed to continue the downward trend in manpower, as requested by the Government, while taking on board new duties, such as the statutory sick pay scheme and the unified housing benefit.
    Mr. Eastham: The Secretary of State seems to be boasting about the services provided by the inner cities. Is he aware of the sheer misery caused by transferring to local authorities extra duties such as providing rent subsidies? Local authorities are being compelled to take on thousands of workers because of the frustration and misery caused by the transfer of duties to the local town halls.
    Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman does not help his case by massive exaggeration. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Government are aware that in some areas the transition to the new unified housing benefit has been accompanied by some difficulties. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary of State are aware of the problem and are working on it.
    Mr. Latham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that some hon. Members on the Government Benches need to be convinced that another reorganisation of local government will not mean more bureaucrats, or the same number of bureaucrats doing the same jobs for more pay, but under different names?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend should recognise that the monitoring and controls which we shall ask the House to accept when we introduce legislation go further than anything that has been done in any previous reorganization
    270
    of local government. Ratepayers will expect nothing else in the light of experience. We are determined to ensure that my hon. Friend's anxieties are not justified.

    Rating Reform
    Mr. Powleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the White Paper on rating reform.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I have received a large number of representations, which express a wide variety of opinions.
    Mr. Powley: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for that answer, but does he share my view that although there will be an obligation to consult representatives of business and commerce before fixing the rate level, as suggested in the White Paper in paragraph 5.15, many Labour-controlled local authorities will continue to ignore those representations, as they have done in the past, without regard to the implications of so fixing the rate level?
    Mr. Jenkin: There is a limit to how far we can go through legislation, but a great many local authorities now have satisfactory arrangements for consulting business opinion and find it a valuable help when they come to fix their budgets and rates. We intend to make it a statutory obligation to consult, and provisions to that effect will be brought forward in legislation which I shall present to the House at around the turn of the year.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of the considerable support for the principle of a local income tax as a fair and more effective way of paying for local services, will the Secretary of State give an assurance that the coming computerisation of the Inland Revenue will not be carried out in such a way as to make the introduction of a local income tax impossible?
    Mr. Jenkin: That is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There are three main drawbacks to the use of a local income tax for local revenue. The Government are committed to reducing the tax on incomes, but that proposal would only have the effect of increasing it. A local income tax would massively increase, even with the help of computers, the staffing required in the Inland Revenue. The option favoured by most supporters of a local income tax would mean deduction of the tax at source by the Inland Revenue and therefore there would be a thin nexus between the payment of tax by the taxpayer and the service that he gets from his local authority.
    Mr. Parris: Does my right hon. Friend accept that until local authorities raise locally what they spend and spend no more than they raise this will always be a cliff-hanging operation?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend will know that my predecessors have successively reduced the proportion of local expenditure that is met by the rate support grant. That has been widely welcomed by many local authorities as increasing local accountability — [Interruption.] I am quoting what was said to me by the chairman of the Association of County Councils. The proposals which I shall discuss with the Consultative Council on Local Government Finance tomorrow provide for a small further reduction in the proportion met by the rate support grant.
    Mr. Kaufman: The Secretary of State said that he had received a wide variety of opinions about his White Paper. Which does he regard as the more accurate description of it:
    "this misconceived piece of legislation",
    which is the view of the chairman of the Association of County Councils, whom a moment ago the right hon. Gentleman quoted with approval, who is of course a Conservative, or
    "totally unacceptable … a major constitutional change which would be a fundamental breach of local democracy and accountability and be wholly unworkable in practice",
    which is the view of the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils?
    Mr. Jenkin: I agree with the proposition that
    "Because of their responsibilities for the management of the economy, Central Government must concern themselves with total local government expenditure and taxation."
    That came from the Green Paper of the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member.
    Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, to many Conservative Members, local government taxation based on property valuation is wholly unacceptable, and therefore it is unacceptable to increase the proportion of local government expenditure that is based on an unacceptable system?
    Mr. Jenkin: I understand my hon. Friend's anxieties in this regard, but no Government have searched harder for an acceptable alternative to rates. As I said at a distinguished gathering in Blackpool a couple of weeks ago — it was a view that was accepted by the overwhelming majority of those present — we were unable to find a more satisfactory alternative to rates. It remains the least unsatisfactory local tax.

    Timber Frame Housing
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects the Building Research Establishment's report on timber frame housing to be published.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Ian Gow): The report was published on 7 September.
    Mr. Roberts: I thank the Minister for publishing the report, but does he agree that it does not give timber frame housing a clean bill of health, even though some building contractors have seized upon it to try to justify the use of timber frame housing construction? Is the Minister aware that the report says that 24 further points need full investigation, which the Building Research Establishment is asking the Minister for funds to enable that to be done? Will he provide those funds? Does he agree with the statement in the report that it is too soon after the introduction of this highly insulated system of timber frame building for judgments to be made on the use of timber frame housing? Will he take action to assuage the fears of people now buying houses built with the timber frame system?
    Mr. Gow: The report refutes most convincingly some of the wild allegations made by the hon. Gentleman when he sought leave to move the Adjournment of the House on 28 June under Standing Order No. 10. The report found that timber frame housing was performing satisfactorily and that there was no evidence that there were more
    272
    problems or greater risks of defects due to deficiencies in design or workmanship than in traditionally constructed houses.
    Mr. Watson: Does my hon. Friend agree that many owners of timber frame homes have no worries at all about their structural soundness, but are nonetheless concerned that their market value may decline as a result of recent publicity? Will he therefore take every opportunity to emphasise that the timber frame method of housing construction in the vast majority of cases is a safe, sound and economical method of construction?
    Mr. Gow: That was the conclusion of the Building Research Establishment's report. It is fair to point out to the House and to those who own timber frame houses that the system of construction has been in use for many years in the United States, and notably in those parts of the United States where climatic conditions are similar to our own.

    Homelessness
    Mr. Fisherasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he intends to take to tackle the problem of homelessness.
    Mr. Gow: Statutory responsibility for assisting the homeless rests with local authorities, which decide their priorities within the resources, including capital receipts, available for their housing investment programmes. Homelessness is a factor used by my right hon. Friend in determining housing investment programme allocations. Its weighting was increased for the current financial year.
    Housing associations also play an important role, providing hostels and shared accommodation for single homeless people; and the development programme which my right hon. Friend has approved for the Housing Corporation this year includes an increased allocation of £31 million for this purpose.
    My Department continues to provide grant-aid to voluntary bodies helping the homeless.
    Mr. Fisher: When the Minister has finished washing his hands of the problems of the homeless in this country, will he consider providing some extra money to help them with their problems? In particular, when he is determining HIP allocations, will he consider increasing loan sanctions to local authorities with particular needs in this respect?
    Mr. Gow: I think that the hon. Gentleman prepared his supplementary before he heard my answer. The Government are well aware of the special problems of the homeless. That is why we have taken the measures that I announced in my answer.
    Mr. Winnick: When will the Minister recognise that allowing local authorities to build only a few council dwellings increases homelessness? Are the Government not ashamed of the fact that for two to three years the amount of council house building has remained at the same level as in the 1920s? When will the Minister accept responsibility for the tens of thousands of people who are unable to resolve their housing problems for the reasons that I have stated?
    Mr. Gow: I am happy to report that housing starts in the public sector this year are significantly higher than they were in the comparable period last year.
    Mr. Alton: I welcome the Minister's announcement that the total amount of money available for homelessness is to be increased in the present financial year, but will he give some indication of whether next year's public expenditure cuts are likely to have any impact on that programme? Will he look again at the general needs index, which is used in determining the funds available to housing associations, because some voluntary groups, which do magnificent work in this sphere, fear that much of their money is being siphoned off into other parts of the country where the problems are perhaps not so great as in their own?
    Mr. Gow: The general needs index is reviewed each year, and this is the time of year when that is done. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible about expenditure next year.

    Pressure Groups (Grants)
    Mr. Brandon-Bravoasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce measures to restrict the power of local authorities to give grants to pressure groups.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I am aware of the concern about the grants that some local authorities are making and have the matter under review.
    Mr. Brandon-Bravo: As a local councillor, I am as jealous as the next to maintain local power of decision, but does not my right hon. Friend feel that local government, indeed local democracy, is ill-served by the use — or, rather, the misuse — of public funds for overtly party political purposes? Does he agree, for example, that the payment of rent and rates for party political groupings, or grants to "Women"—even "Babies Against the Bomb"—is not a proper function of local government and in some way should be discouraged and deplored?
    Mr. Jenkin: My hon. Friend has put clearly the dilemma we face, because there is great value in many of the payments that are made from the free 2p. Under section 137, many valuable voluntary bodies are supported and payments go to the support of industry and the urban programme. The problem is the misuse of that power by some authorities for purposes which were never remotely within the contemplation of Parliament when the power was put on the statute book, and that is why I am reviewing the matter. As for party political bodies, if it is an overtly party political body it is clear to me that that would be outwith the scope of the section. The problem is that some activities are carried on under other banners that have a strong party political flavour, and that can be a very difficult matter.
    Mr. Steen: Will my right hon. Friend encourage local authorities to give grants to groups that are concerned with the prevention of urban sprawl, that want to encourage the halt of green field site expansion and that wish to see some of the statutory undertakers sell some of the 75,000 acres of land that they are not using? Does he agree that this is an important task, even if it may conflict with some local planning officials views?
    Mr. Jenkin: We give a good deal of support in one way or another to voluntary bodies that are concerned with the conservation of the countryside and the preservation of wildlife and so on. I am currently reviewing the way in
    274
    which we marshall the amount of support we give under various statutory powers, and I take note of my hon. Friend's remarks. He will recognise the value of the register of sites, which my predecessor set up, in bringing on to the market, and making available for builders, the large number of sites that are in public ownership and that public authorities of all sorts are now being obliged to disgorge. I intend to continue that policy and, if necessary, will be prepared to use my powers under the Act to make sure that the land is brought on to the market.
    Mr. Dubs: Even if the Secretary of State does not like certain pressure groups which may receive support from local authorities, would it not be better if he left the judgment about making such grants to these pressure groups to the good sense of the electorate, rather than seek to interfere into yet another area of local government activity?
    Mr. Jenkin: That is clearly a point of view that will be borne in mind in the course of the review. There is no doubt that there has been some abuse of section 137 which has caused widespread concern and dismay, but people are not satisfied that this is the sort of issue on which an entire local election would turn.

    Conservation and Environmental Protection
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list those bodies he has met during the summer adjournment regarding conservation and environmental protection matters.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): During the recess my right hon. Friend and his colleagues met a wide range of bodies with interests in conservation and environmental protection. I will, with permission, publish the full list in the Official Report.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am grateful for that reply. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the mounting concern in areas such as Cumbria and southern Scotland about the increasing level of acidity in the natural rainfall in those areas? Does he agree that there is an urgent need to consult scientific and other groups concerned with this important subject? Does he further agree that the Government should take urgent steps to increase research to study and monitor this problem?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for the responsible way in which the hon. Gentleman put the question, because research is what is needed first. We are increasing the resources for research. We are full participants in the United Nations convention on long-range transboundary air pollution. Britain is the only country in Europe which in every decade since 1940 has quite dramatically decreased the amount of sulphur dioxide put into the atmosphere. Some progress has been made, but much more needs to be done.
    Sir Hector Monro: Is the Minister aware that the Nature Conservancy Council much appreciated his visit to its meeting in September, was delighted to hear of his personal interest in conservation and wildlife and knows that he will work closely with the council in the future? Is he further aware that the October meeting of the council was held in Scotland and that the council is giving careful and detailed consideration to the problems of acid rain?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I greatly enjoyed my first visit to the NCC and I look forward to enjoying many more. I knew that the subject was coming up at the meeting in Scotland. All the different bodies involved — scientific, nature conservation and the scientists in my Departments—will be increasing their effort and concentration on this subject.
    Mr. Bell: May I refer the Under-Secretary to a statement made yesterday by the Secretary of State concerning the people of Cleveland? He spoke of conservation and environmental protection matters. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the people of Cleveland will look with great interest at the list of bodies that were consulted this summer, in particular to see whether consultation took place with the Nuclear Industry Radioactive Waste Executive? They will be asking whether the environmental protection of Cleveland will be taken into consideration when considering placing nuclear waste in the bowels of the earth at Cleveland. I refer the Minister—
    Hon. Members: "No."
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not refer the Minister to anything. He should ask him a question.
    Mr. Bell: When the Minister looks into the environmental protection of the Cleveland area, will he take into account the national interest and will he look elsewhere for a site for the placement of nuclear waste?
    Mr. Waldegrave: The question is ranging rather widely. My right hon. Friend said yesterday that there would be the full inquiry process—probably of two public inquiries—and he has placed in the Library of the House a consultative document dealing with the broad national criteria that will be necessary for any licensing of nuclear disposal sites. The interests of the inhabitants of Cleveland, not only on environmental aspects but on many others, must and will be dealt with at those inquiries.
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: Does my hon. Friend accept that most conservation bodies are deeply worried by the present system for the cost benefit analysis of drainage schemes? As these analyses are kept secret, the conservation bodies have no means of judging them and there are grave doubts whether the correct factors are taken into account. For the benefit of conservation, will my hon. Friend work with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see that there is an improvement?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I shall consult my colleagues in that Ministry and return to my hon. Friend on the subject.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister confirm that one of the organisations that met Ministers during the recess was the Council for National Parks, which wished to discuss with them the report of the Brotherton committee, which had said that on national park bodies and similar organisations the interests of environment, conservation and recreation were under-represented compared with those of agriculture and land-owning? What response does the Minister intend to make to that representation?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I met the Council for National Parks and discussed with it the Brotherton report, which criticised the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member for appointing retired Labour politicians, and criticised us for appointing, in its view, too many agriculturists. We had a full-ranging discussion
    276
    of the matter, but it must be remembered that there has not been one appointment that the Countryside Commission has not approved under either Government.
    Following is the list:

    Meetings between DoE Ministers regarding environmental/ conservation matters during the Parliamentary recess.

    Date

    Body

    Secretary of State

    September 8

    Historic Buildings Council

    September 13

    Mr. Nicholas Hinton (Director, National Council for Voluntary Organisations)

    September 19*

    Countryside Commission

    September 20

    Joint Committee of Heritage Amenity Societies

    September 27

    Historic Houses Association

    October 5

    Chairman of Development Commission

    October 20

    Chemical Industries Association

    Mr. Gow

    August 31

    Severn-Trent Water Authority

    September 9

    Anglian Water Authority

    September 9

    Northamptonshire Naturalist Trust

    Mr. Waldegrave

    September 1

    Peak District National Park

    September 7

    Severn Trent Water Authority

    September 15

    National Farmers Union

    September 21

    Nature Conservancy Council

    September 27

    British Veterinary Association

    October 6

    Nature Conservancy Council

    October 6

    Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

    October 10

    Professor Ashworth—Salford University Pollution Control Advisory Service

    October 19

    Council for National Parks

    Sir George Young

    September 7

    Centenary Congress of the Institution of Environmental Health Officers

    September 19

    Building Conservation Exhibition

    * Mr. Waldegrave was also present at this meeting.

    Metropolitan Green Belt
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he intends to propose any changes to the metropolitan green belt areas.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: In the recent draft circular about green belts it is expressly reaffirmed that the essential characteristic of green belts is that their permanence and their protection should be long term. I stand firmly by that statement.
    If green belt policy is to be successful, however, it is important that local planning authorities should, when drawing detailed green belt boundaries, make provision for necessary future development.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that statement. Does he accept that there has been great consternation as a result of the draft circular that he issued during the summer? Does he agree that the best way forward would be to ask any authority, if it feels that it has land in the green belts that is suitable for development, publicly to declare sites that can be developed so that the merits of every site may be examined? Does he accept that the final circular should be confined to extolling the success of our green belt policies and reminding the public of the need for eternal vigilance in protecting them?
    Mr. Jenkin: I shall want carefully to examine my hon. Friend's proposal. I hope that my statement is absolutely clear. I am as committed as any of my predecessors to

    277
    preserving a strong and clear green belt policy. The Government have extended the approved green belt in the metropolitan area, especially in Kent, Essex and Hertfordshire, and in other areas such as Merseyside, Hampshire, Tyne and Wear and Nottingham. The extent of the London green belt has been increased by about 45 per cent. since 1979 and now measures about 1·2 million acres. As The Times clearly stated in response to the draft circular:
    "There is a case for revision of green belt boundaries; considerable tracts of the land are neither green (used for agriculture or accessible open space) nor much of a worthwhile girdle."
    If we want the policy to survive, we must ensure that the detailed boundaries that are drawn are clear and defensible and can be maintained in the long term.
    Mr. Park: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, rather than encroach further on the green belt, it would make more sense to provide more money for derelict land clearance, especially in areas such as the west midlands?
    Mr. Jenkin: We have substantially increased the amount of money that is available for derelict land clearance and I hope that that programme will continue. It is essential that it should do so if it is to bring into reuse some of the land that has been left derelict by former industrial and other enterprises. However, it would be unreal to imagine that all our housing and development needs for the foreseeable future could be met in that way alone. The problem is to balance the needs of future development with the Government's clear desire to preserve a strong, firm, clear and permanent green belt policy.
    Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern and worry that the draft circular has created within Hertfordshire, especially in my constituency of Hertfordshire, South-West? What value and what weight is now to be attached to the county structure plans dealing with housing?
    Mr. Jenkin: Where detailed boundaries have already been drawn up in local plans following a county structure plan, there is no suggestion that the boundaries should be redrawn. The circular is directing attention to instances where broad green belt areas have been designated in county structure plans and where the local plans have still to be drawn. That will be a relatively small matter, but it recommended that when drawing up these plans the local planning authorities should have regard to the essential needs of future development. If that is not done, I have to tell my hon. Friend that one will be driven eventually to breaking the green belt boundaries, which is the last thing that anyone wants to see happen.
    Mr. Hardy: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear that green belt land does not have to be intensively farmed to secure his approval? Will he also make it clear that if the green belt in the metropolitan counties is diminished, the chances of development within the conurbations, which may be more desirable, will be considerably lessened, which will not be in anyone's interests?
    Mr. Jenkin: Much of the misunderstanding is on the part of those who have not read the relevant paragraphs in the circular, and that can be said of some of the press comments. I accept the argument of the hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy), and there is no suggestion that
    278
    the draft circular, which remains a draft, is proposing anything other than the most modest changes to meet particular difficulties that have arisen. We want to make sense of green belt policy so that it can be permanent, or at least long term. The policy is an essential part of the structure of our planning system and I am still considering many of the representations that I have received.
    Dr. David Clark: It can perhaps be accepted that the draft circular in itself is modest, but it becomes most worrying when read alongside the draft circular on housing land release. Does the Minister appreciate how benefits have accrued to the nation in both rural and urban areas as a result of green belt policies that have been created and implemented by successive Governments since the war? Does he understand that there are many on both sides of the House who feel that there are some things that are more important than mere speculators' profits? Will he now withdraw the draft circular?
    Mr. Jenkin: That which the hon. Gentleman refers to as speculators' profits could well represent houses for those who want to have a home of their own. It does not help the argument to indulge in smears of that sort. There is a problem, but I have repeated firmly and clearly the Government's firm commitment to a long-term green belt policy. As I have said, the London green belt has been enlarged by about 45 per cent. over the past four years. That should be a token of the Government's concern. I shall take account of the anxieties that have been expressed on both sides of the House before I decide how further to proceed with the circular.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give the lastest cost estimates for the construction of the runway and the associated housing for air facilities in the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Gow: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 27 June. Our latest estimate of the value of the work on the airfield and associated RAF facilities is £190 million.
    Mr. Dalyell: Is the Minister not aware, from his visit to the Falklands in the congenial company of my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie) in 1978, that the geology is very difficult? Is he coy about giving the House the figure of £370 million?
    Mr. Gow: I recall the visit that I made in the company of the hon. Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Lambie). I am not in the least coy about giving the facts to the hon. Gentleman. The figure today is the same as the figure that was given by my right hon. Friend before the summer recess. It is £190 million.

    System Building
    Mr. Blairasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will recompense tenants in local authority-owned houses built by the Bison group of companies for problems of dampness from which they suffer.
    Mr. Litherlandasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will order a public inquiry into Bison timber frame and other system building.
    Sir George Young: Claims on account of dampness are not a matter for my right hon. Friend, but for tenants to take up with their local authority landlords. While my right hon. Friend has no plans to order a public inquiry into any type of system-built housing, we have asked local authorities to satisfy themselves, if they have not already done so, that Bison wall frame houses and flats do not present a safety risk.
    Mr. Blair: Does the Minister accept that it is wrong that local authorities should shoulder the burden of repairing houses that suffer from inherent structural defects when local government has often used these types of houses at the behest of central Government?
    Sir George Young: If the authorities are in subsidy, they will receive help in remedying the defects to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. If they are not in subsidy, it would be wrong to take away resources from authorities that may be less well off to tackle the defects that have been described. If an authority is not in subsidy, it is because the Government take the view that there are adequate resources within the authority to enable it to pay for the remedying of the defects.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Minister accept that there is an overwhelming demand for a public inquiry, and that to deny that inquiry to taxpayers, ratepayers and tenants generally, who have had to live in this appalling housing, would once again be an example of the Government's willingness to abdicate their responsibilities to the British people?
    Sir George Young: We have no plans to launch a public inquiry into a system that was discontinued many years ago. More important is the need to ascertain what is wrong with the buildings and to take steps to put right the defects. That is what we have encouraged local authorities to do. We hope to be able to offer some assistance with some help from the Building Research Establishment.
    Mr. Tim Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that a recent "World in Action" programme on the subject offered a complete travesty of the facts, and that, following that programme, Salford council extracted an apology from "World in Action" on behalf of its tenants, in whom unjustified fears had been aroused? Is it not true that there has been no successful legal action against Bison? In that case, is not compensation or a public inquiry unjustified?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend is right. If the local authority felt that it should take legal action against Bison, it would be free to pursue it in the courts. My hon. Friend is right. That has not yet been done.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Is the Minister aware that tenants who have bought timber frame houses under Government legislation are now facing huge bills for repairs? Therefore, will he permit the local authorities to give them grant-aid to carry out the necessary work?
    Sir George Young: We have announced an inquiry into some types of buildings built by local authorities and then purchased by tenants, mainly using pre-cast reinforced concrete. We are not aware of the substantial problem that the hon. Gentleman outlined. Perhaps he will let me have further details.

    Wessex Water Authority
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will hold a meeting with the chairman of the Wessex water authority to discuss capital expenditure by the authority.
    Mr. Waldegrave: I expect to meet all the chairmen of the English water authorities individually during December, when we will discuss their authorities' financial prospects for 1984–85.
    Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that twice in recent years the river Stour has caused serious flooding in Christchurch and that many of my constituents cannot disabuse themselves of the idea that it is due to work done by the water authority to straighten out the river and so on? Is he further aware that in discussions that I have had with the water authority I have found that there is difficulty in assessing the work that can be allocated to capital resources, which is causing confusion, probably due to legislation passed in the House rather than to the water authority's shortcomings? Will my hon. Friend consider that matter?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the problem, as my hon. Friend has been assiduous in bringing it to the attention of my predecessor and myself. The chairman of the water authority has had meetings with some of the district councils concerned to investigate and draw up plans. I shall investigate my hon. Friend's point.
    Mr. Denis Howell: Is the Minister aware that a study of the appointments that he has made to this and every other regional water authority, in which the chairman receive a salary of £24,000 and the member's salary is £9,000, shows blatant political bias? Every one of those regional water authorities is packed with Conservatives in whom we can have no confidence. Furthermore, is it not disgraceful that the first act of every one of those water authorities was deliberately to exclude the press from attendance at any of their meetings? Does not that justify the criticism that he is supplanting local democracy with "watercrats" and creating a centralised bureaucracy, to which we have every right to object?
    Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly refute the implication of the right hon. Gentleman's first point. The chairman of the north-west water authority is a Labour councillor and there are two other Labour councillors on it. There is at least one other Labour chairman. He is a distinguished chairman, appointed on his merits, and previously was a Labour councillor. Political bias has in no way entered into those appointments.

    Gipsy Sites
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what criteria he follows in designating official gipsy sites; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The responsibility for providing official gipsy sites rests with the local authorities concerned, who have a statutory duty under the Caravan Sites Act 1968 to provide adequate accommodation for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area. Advice on

    281
    statutory procedures, alternative forms of gipsy accommodation and practical matters affecting site provision and management is contained in DOE circular 28/77, a copy of which is in the Library.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend take powers to seek to amend legislation under which gipsy sites can be forced into overbuilt and overpopulated areas such as Northolt at a cost to public funds of £500,000 for a 15-caravan site? Will he do so bearing in mind the fact that the people coming on to those sites are mostly not honest didicois but tinkers, and are unacceptable to the local community, which they often disturb seriously?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I have no plans to amend the Caravan Sites Act 1968. It is important that the House should understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always relies on the advice on the selection of appropriate sites given by the local authorities.
    Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister talk to West Midlands county council about the itinerant gipsy site at Tameside drive in Castle Vale, in Birmingham, which boasts a row of pylons on one side, a pellet-making plant on another and the M6 on the third side? Does he agree that residents on that site face a health hazard?
    Mr. Macfarlane: I am unaware of the details of that site. I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. No doubt he will write to me more fully with details. If it is a designated site, it will have been selected by the local authority. I need more details to be able to answer more fully.
    Mr. Key: Does my hon. Friend agree that the major problem with gipsies lies not with the traditional gipsies but the so-called "new age" gipsies or the so-called "peace convoy" gipsies who have moved around the country, particularly during the summer, in ever-increasing numbers and who are apparently outwith the law?
    Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend has made an important point. It is a serious problem affecting many parts of England and Wales. That is why my Department initiated a discussion paper last year. We are still looking at its recommendations. No doubt I shall receive further advice in due course.
    Mr. Cartwright: In view of the considerable nuisance suffered regularly by many Londoners due to travellers' caravans parked on council estates and so on, when will the Minister do something effective to help councils which have more that met their obligations under the Caravan Sites Act 1968, yet still suffer from those regular problems?
    Mr. Macfarlane: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. If the local authority has designated sites and provided the appropriate number of pitches in the area, the local police have powers. That is a matter for the local chief of police and the local authority.

    Woodlands and Green Space
    Mr. Freesonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if his Department will take steps to encourage the provision of additional woodlands and green space in the inner city areas.
    Sir George Young: My Department already encourages the development of green space and tree planting
    282
    in the inner city. The amount of resources devoted to such environmental improvements under the urban programme in partnership and programme authorities has risen from £11 million in 1980–81 to some £20 million in 1983–84.
    Mr. Freeson: Does the Minister agree that, compared with the expenditure of about £18,000 million a year in local government, the figures that he has quoted for improving the environment and greening it are paltry? Does he agree also that one of the best ways to avoid the pressures on the green belt, referred to earlier, and to avoid pressures to build more housing estates way out in the countryside in the outer metropolitan areas, would be to have a massive drive to green the cities and create the environment and decent surroundings in which people have their homes?
    Sir George Young: The figures may be small in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman, but they are double what he spent when he was a Minister in the Department. I agree that we must aim to make the inner cities more attractive for people to live and work in. I have recently approved environmental improvements under the urban programme in the London borough of Brent.
    Mr. Steen: Would it not be better to halt the expansion on the urban fringe, with 60,000 acres of green field sites disappearing every year, and to fill the land on the register, of which there are currently 100,000 acres which are dormant or empty, or the 250,000 acres throughout the country which the Civic Trust says is idle?
    Sir George Young: I would not dissent from my hon. Friend's broad proposition.

    Council Rents
    Mr. Strawasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the increase in money and in percentage in the average level of council rents since May 1979.
    Sir George Young: Average council house rents, in England and Wales, are estimated to have increased by £7·65 or 120 per cent. between April 1979 and April 1983.
    Mr. Straw: Do not the figures that the Minister has given represent a shameful example of the Government's double standards, when they give money away to the rich and penalise the poor by forcing up council rents by more than twice the rate of inflation? Is the Minister aware that in many Conservative local authorities profits from council rents, which have doubled under the Government, are being used to subsidise better-off ratepayers? Does he condone that practice, or will he stamp it out?
    Sir George Young: The double standards come entirely from the Opposition, who said that their policy was to increase rents in line with earnings but refused steadfastly to do so during their period in office. The sharp increases that I have described were necessary because the Opposition ducked the difficult decisions that they should have taken. The actual increase in council rents for this year is working out at about 40p per week—about a 3 per cent. increase—which is the lowest increase in rents for 10 years.
    Mr. Eggar: Is it not the case that council house tenants who purchased their houses when the Government came into office are actually paying less for their mortgages than others are paying in rent?
    Sir George Young: That may well be the case, and it shows the sense of the policy to which we are both committed.

  BILLS PRESENTED
    PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION (No. 2)
    Mr. Clement Freud presented a Bill to prohibit female circumcision: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time upon Friday 25 November and to be printed. [Bill 42.]
    POLICE AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE
    Mr. Secretary Brittan, supported by Mr. Secretary Prior, Mr. Secretary Heseltine, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Douglas Hurd and Mr. Barney Hayhoe presented a Bill to make further provision in relation to the powers and duties of the police, criminal evidence, police discipline and complaints against the police; to provide for arrangements for obtaining the views of the community on policing and for a rank of deputy chief constable; to amend the law relating to the Police Federations and Police Forces and Police Cadets in Scotland; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to read a second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
    TRADE UNION
    Mr. Secretary King, supported by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Selwyn Gummer and Mr. Alan Clark, presented a Bill to make provision for election to certain positions in trade unions and with respect to ballots held in connection with strikes or other forms of industrial action; and to amend the law relating to expenditure by trade unions on political objects: And the same was read the first time; and ordered to be read a second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 43.]

Control of Dog Nuisance
3.31 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to protect the public from some aspects of dog nuisance by the introduction of limited controls.
May I say how appropriate it is that I should follow the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). I mean him no harm.
As any hon. Member who has put his head into the kennel and involved himself in canine politics will know, he is asking for trouble, if only from his secretary, who will be deluged and overwhelmed by a Niagara of correspondence. Canophilia and canophobia are both very powerful emotions because most of us consider, quite rightly, the dog to be man's best friend.
It is easy to underestimate the concern, the inconvenience and the downright nuisance caused by stray and latch key dogs which are spawned by a minority of irresponsible dog owners. We can all imagine—perhaps some of us even remember—the terror of an elderly person or a child out on an errand who is suddenly confronted by a wild and unpredictable Alsatian. We should also consider the problems facing a blind person walking in one of our inner city parks and not knowing what each footfall may bring or how to cope with the filthy result, or a mother taking her child to school or to the local shops dancing along the pavement, not from joy but from hygienic necessity. Imagine the hell of living next door to an ill-treated dog yapping and howling every one of 24 hours. Imagine what it must be like to be a teenager on the threshold of adult life who suddenly discovers that he is losing his sight in one eye which is affected by toxicana canis from someone else's uncared-for dog.
The Government have long been aware of the problems and of the depth of public concern. The facts are that each year 10,000 farm animals are savaged, two-thirds of which die. More than 100,000 bitten patients are treated in our hospitals each year. Hundreds of thousands of ill-fed, unkempt, miserable strays are, sadly, put down. Fifty cases are known each year of severe eye damage from toxicana canis, and the total is probably much more.
So far, the Government have not seen fit to act, constrained by a variety of political considerations, some good. Certainly it may be imprudent, and I hope uncharacteristic, for this Government to increase directly the burden of central levies and taxation and to establish a centralised bureaucratic apparatus for the control of dog nuisance, but there is a way forward. The problem is very much local. In some areas there is a much greater problem than in others. In some areas the perception of the problem and the solution which could be required would be quite different from that in other areas.
I believe that the solution is to let local communities decide. I suggest, first, that we should do away with the anachronism whereby the police are responsible for strays. I am sure that the Police Federation and chief constables would be delighted. The responsibility should be transferred to district authorities, but it would be wrong to burden any institution with duties without giving it the wherewithal to carry out those duties.
I propose that we should have a flexible licence, running, say, between £1 to perhaps £8, £9, or even £10,
286
with the level of the licence to be decided by each district authority within its own area and all the money so raised to be spent on the control and welfare of dogs. I believe that there should be an exception for the blind, for whom a licence should be free and, certainly, there should be safeguards for pensioners.
At the lower level, there would be sufficient funds to administer the system and to provide a register of licensed dogs. At the higher level, it would be possible to sustain a regime of dog wardens with responsibility for the control of strays, for enforcing the licence take-up — at the moment only half the dogs in this country are licensed — and for seeing that the streets and parks are kept clean from the foul mess that they currently have on and in them.
We would be able to organise and supervise kennels for the welfare and the recycling of stray dogs. We would be able to provide special provisions for dogs, particularly in our parks. I believe that such a solution would be acceptable to the Association of District Councils, as it would be to the RSPCA. Most responsible dog owners would be happy to pay a higher licence fee to reduce the hardship and the cruelty suffered by so many of our dogs, and to enable us to take action against the irresponsible owners who besmirch the reputation of dogs as a whole.
One final point. Many dogs are bought on impulse—the appealing puppy which is purchased for the family at Christmas often becomes a savage stray by summertime. I think that the more deliberate purchase of a pet would ensure the better keeping and looking after of that pet. I therefore believe that it would be appropriate to ensure that a licence is acquired before the dog is acquired.
The measure is concerned with the welfare of dogs and the peace of mind of our people. I ask for its support.
3.37 pm
Mr. Andrew Bowden: I rise to oppose the Bill. I declare my interest immediately. My wife and I own a dog, although I suspect that the dog owns us. There are no problem dogs—there are only problem owners.
I am utterly opposed to the recycling of dogs, as suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, North (Mr. Marlow). The Bill is part of my hon. Friend's campaign to bring into Great Britain the terrible Dogs (Northern Ireland) Order, which is draconian, and anti-dog. Under that order, dogs causing apprehension can be destroyed. On that basis, there would not be many left.
As to my hon. Friend's crackpot suggestion that we should let local authorities decide the level of the dog licence, between £1 and £10, that would be a bureaucratic dream or a bureaucratic nightmare. Are we really suggesting that we should have the situation where Mrs. Jones' dog on one side of the road pays £10 and Mr. Smith's dog, on the other side of the road, pays only £l?
The measure is ill-considered. It would be unfair on all dog owners. I repeat—there are no irresponsible dogs, only irresponsible dog owners.
I accept that of the 6·5 million dog owners a small minority do not keep their dogs under control but allow them to foul the pavements or to run wild, which is utterly unacceptable in our society. They should be fined very heavily indeed. If, in all our constituencies, every irresponsible dog owner was fined £50 for fouling the

287
streets — [Laughter.] That would be £50 for the dog and, if necessary, £100 for the owner. That would solve the problem overnight.
Let us abolish the dog licence. We do not want a Swansea for dogs; a Swansea for vehicles is bad enough. Let us have stringent byelaws to penalise those who do not keep dogs under control.
Dogs provide companionship and comfort for millions of our fellow citizens. It may seem incredible, but there is strong medical evidence that they provide great benefits. A person is less likely to have a heart attack if he owns a dog, he will make a quicker recovery from illness and there are many other benefits. The proposed Bill will solve nothing. It is a bureaucrat's dream. I ask the House to reject it.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):
The House divided: Aves 173. Noes 47.

Division No. 49]

[3.40 pm

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Alton, David

Freud, Clement

Anderson, Donald

Garrett, W. E.

Ashdown, Paddy

Glyn, Dr Alan

Ashton, Joe

Gourlay, Harry

Barron, Kevin

Gower, Sir Raymond

Batiste, Spencer

Greenway, Harry

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Gregory, Conal

Beith, A. J.

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Bell, Stuart

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Bellingham, Henry

Hannam,John

Bennett, A. (Denfn & Red'sh)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Hayward, Robert

Bermingham, Gerald

Hicks, Robert

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Hind, Kenneth

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Holt, Richard

Boyes, Roland

Home Robertson, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Bruinvels, Peter

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Buck, Sir Antony

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Caborn, Richard

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Cartwright, John

Hunter, Andrew

Chapman, Sydney

Irving, Charles

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Clay, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cohen, Harry

Kennedy, Charles

Coleman, Donald

Key, Robert

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Coombs, Simon

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Couchman, James

Knowles, Michael

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Knox, David

Crowther, Stan

Lamond, James

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

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

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Deakins, Eric

Lightbown, David

Dickens, Geoffrey

Litherland, Robert

Dicks, T.

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Dixon, Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Dobson, Frank

Lord, Michael

Dubs, Alfred

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

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

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Evennett, David

Maclean, David John.

Fallon, Michael

McQuarrie, Albert

Favell, Anthony

McTaggart, Robert

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Maples, John

Flannery, Martin

Marek, Dr John

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Marlow, Antony

Foster, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Fox, Marcus

Martin, Michael

288

Maxton, John

Soley, Clive

Meadowcroft, Michael

Speller, Tony

Merchant, Piers

Spence, John

Mikardo, Ian

Steel, Rt Hon David

Miller, Hal (B'grove)

Steen, Anthony

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Murphy, Christopher

Temple-Morris, Peter

Needham, Richard

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Nicholls, Patrick

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Norris, Steven

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Onslow, Cranley

Thurnham, Peter

Ottaway, Richard

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Park, George

Viggers, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Wainwright, R.

Pike, Peter

Wall, Sir Patrick

Powley, John

Wallace, James

Price, Sir David

Walters, Dennis

Raffan, Keith

Ward, John

Richardson, Ms Jo

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

Wareing, Robert

Robertson, George

Watson, John

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Weetch, Ken

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

White, James

Rowe, Andrew

Whitfield, John

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Wilson, Gordon

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sayeed, Jonathan

Winterton, Nicholas

Sheerman, Barry

Woodcock, Michael

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Shersby, Michael

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sims, Roger

Mr. Jack Aspinwall and Mr. Den Dover

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

NOES

Ashby, David

Michie, William

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Monro, Sir Hector

Bryan, Sir Paul

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Campbell, Ian

O'Brien, William

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

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

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Proctor, K. Harvey

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Radice, Giles

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Redmond, M.

Duffy, A. E. P.

Skinner, Dennis

Ellis, Raymond

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

Farr, John

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Stanbrook, Ivor

Gale, Roger

Stern, Michael

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Tracey, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Walden, George

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Wall, Sir Patrick

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Welsh, Michael

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Tellers for the Noes:

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Mr. Andrew Bowden and Mr. Matthew Parris.

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Question accordingly agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tony Marlow, Mr. Dennis Walters, Mr. Hal Miller, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. Richard Needham, Mr. John Townend, Mr. Alfred Dubs, Miss Janet Fookes, Mr. Peter Lloyd, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Teddy Taylor and Mr. Neil Hamilton.

CONTROL OF DOG NUISANCE
Mr. Tony Marlow accordingly presented a Bill to protect the public from some aspects of dog nuisance by the introduction of limited controls: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 2 December and to be printed. [Bill 39.]

Unparliamentary Expressions
3.52 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make to the House about a breach of order that occurred yesterday. There was a good deal of noise and disturbance during Question Time and I did not myself hear what was said at the time. I am, however, clear, after studying Hansard, that an unparliamentary word was used.
To resolve doubts about the future, I wish to make it plain that it will always be my intention to uphold the rules of order in the House and I take this opportunity, before the opening of an important debate, to make that clear.

Grenada (Invasion)
3.53 pm
Mr. Denis Healey: I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
When I asked your permission yesterday, Mr. Speaker, to move this motion, I said that the invasion of Grenada appeared to be a violation of the United Nations charter, that it had split the Commonwealth countries of the Caribbean in two and that it raised the most fundamental questions about relations between Britain and her most important ally. Everything that has happened in the past 24 hours confirms the justice of what I then said.
Let me start by quoting an editorial in The Times today —a paper that is not notorious for supporting the sort of views that I put forward. It says:
"There is no getting around the fact that the United States and its Caribbean allies have committed an act of aggression against Grenada. They are in breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations."
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will confirm that judgment when he speaks this afternoon, because international law is the only thing that stands between the world and anarchy.
If Governments arrogate to themselves the right to change the Governments of other sovereign states, there can be no peace in this world in perhaps the most dangerous age which the human race has ever known. It is quite improper for hon. Members to condemn, as we have, the violation of international law by the Soviet Union in its attacks on Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan if we do not apply the same standards to the United States' attack on Grenada two days ago.
The Security Council is meeting at this moment to consider the matter. I want first to ask the Foreign Secretary to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will put at this meeting a resolution similar in terms to that which was put at the meeting 18 months ago when British territory in an island in another part of the south Atlantic was attacked by another aggressor, and that they will insist on the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Grenada and the immediate cessation of hostilities.
It has become clear in the past 24 hours that, if there is not an immediate withdrawal of foreign troops from Grenada, the fighting may go on for months, if not years. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] The Prime Minister of Barbados and the Prime Minister of Dominica have both said on the radio in the past 24 hours—of course they are right—that the island of Grenada is ideal territory for guerrilla warfare. It is already clear that fighting is continuing in many parts of the island. They have both said —I suspect that they know about it as they are directly involved in the operation—that that fighting is likely to continue for at least six months. I hope that Conservative Members who dispute that danger will take some notice of what was said by participants in the conflict.
There can be no denial of the grave damage done to the unity of the Commonwealth by what has happened in the past few days. The Secretary-General made his opposition clear on the radio this morning. Next week the Prime Minister will be meeting her colleagues in New Delhi and there is no question but that this matter is likely to arise. Again, I ask the Foreign Secretary to confirm that in all those Commonwealth discussions the Government will
292
stand for the principles of international law and make their condemnation of the invasion of Grenada plain for all to see.
I come now to the impact of the invasion on relations between Britain and her most important ally, the United States. I fear that I must start by saying that information that has come to light in the past 24 hours makes it clear that the statements made by the Foreign Secretary on Monday and Tuesday of this week—I bow to the ruling that you made, Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the debate not to use unparliamentary expressions—were imperfect, disingenuous and lacking in candour.
The Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States issued a communique in which it made it clear that its member Governments met last Friday in Barbados and decided then to undertake what was described in the communique as "a pre-emptive defensive strike" against an independent member of the Commonwealth—Grenada—and to seek assistance for this purpose from friendly countries both in the area and outside.
We now know that President Reagan received this request on Friday night last week but we learnt from Prime Minister Adams on the radio at lunchtime today that Her Majesty's Government received this request on Friday night last week. This was stated in the clearest terms by Prime Minister Adams on the radio at 1 o'clock. He also expressed his disappointment that Her Majesty's Government had not acceded to the invitation. The House will want to know how, in the light of this fact, the Foreign Secretary could tell us simply:
"There were reports that some members of the smaller group"—
in the Caribbean Commonwealth—
"were seeking military support … during the weekend."—[Official Report, 25 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 147.]
Even more, how could the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, say quite specifically in her statement in the House of Lords on Monday that no approach had been received from Commonwealth countries on this matter at the time when she spoke on Monday afternoon?
I can well imagine that the Foreign Secretary himself chose the formulation in his statement yesterday:
"No formal invitation was extended"—[Official Report, 25 October 1983; Vol. 47, c. 147.]
until Monday evening. However, the plain fact is that the Government were approached by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States on Friday. I gather that I may not say, Mr. Speaker, that the Foreign Secretary was deceiving the House, but he was certainly misleading it in the words that he used; and it is impossible to justify, by any stretch of the meaning of words, the statement of the Minister of State in another place on Monday afternoon.
We now know from what was said in Washington yesterday that the United States began considering military intervention against Grenada as soon as the military coup took place on 13 October, a fortnight ago. Reports from Washington on British television yesterday declared that the CIA had been planning such an operation for months before a coup took place. Indeed, Mr. Bishop—over whose death the President of the United States wept crocodile tears in his statement on Monday—expressed, in an interview on British radio last August, his concern about the imminence of an invasion of Grenada organised by the United States.

293
Indeed, our Foreign Affairs Select Committee, on examining the situation in the Caribbean 12 months ago, warned the Government of those fears, and the Foreign Office chose not to comment on this part of its report in the answer that it offered to the House last spring.
It is very difficult to resist the suspicion that the United States organised the invitation from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States so as to justify its invasion. This suspicion is attributed to British officials — from the Foreign Office, I presume—in a report in today's Daily Telegraph, which also attributed to British officials the words that it was seen by the United States as a figleaf for intervention — the same words as were used by the Soviet Government in their statement yesterday.
In any case, reports of a likely intervention by some east Caribbean countries and the United States were widely circulating throughout the Caribbean over the weekend. On Monday, Grenada radio reported in detail the proceedings of CARICOM, when some very important members of the Commonwealth—I mentioned some of them yesterday: Trinidad, the largest Commonwealth country close to Grenada, Belize, which is under threat from Guatemala, and the Bahamas—totally rejected that request.
We know now, too, from reports from Washington yesterday, that the American national security council took a tentative decision to accept the OECS invitation on Sunday evening. Were Her Majesty's Government aware of this? Was the Foreign Secretary aware of it when he told us 24 hours later in this House, on Monday afternoon, that he had no reason to believe that America was contemplating such a step? Either Her Majesty's Government were deceived by their major ally, or Her Majesty's Government were deceiving the House.
The Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday that contacts continued throughout the weekend, but the level at which they continued is very obscure. I suspect that the duty clerk at the Foreign Office was talking to the duty clerk at the British Embassy in Washington. What is disturbing is Senator Larry Pressler's statement on the "Today" programme on British radio this morning that, when the President told certain Congressmen of his intention on Monday, he told them also that the United Kingdom Government were in full support of the policy that he was describing to them. I hope either that Senator Pressler misheard the President or that the President was mistaken. It is very important that the Foreign Secretary should clear this matter up this afternoon.
If one looks through the history not just of the past few days, but of the past 12 months when the possibility of a military attack on an independent Commonwealth state was widely discussed throughout the Caribbean and many other parts of the world ——
Mr. Churchill: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Healey: I will give way in a moment.
When one looks at the history of this affair one must feel that Her Majesty's Government have been guilty here of the same sort of fecklessness as they showed in dealing with the threat of an Argentine invasion of the Falklands 18 months ago. The prime responsibility for that fecklessness must lie with the Prime Minister herself. She has shown a lack of grip, a flaccid indolence, in dealing with a threat to British territory. [Interruption.] She has
294
failed in her duty to the House. She has failed in her duty to the British people. She has failed in her duty to the Commonwealth, and she has failed in her duty to the Palace. [Interruption.]
Mr. Churchill rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. Healey: I should like the Foreign Secretary to tell us whether it is true, as widely reported in the newspapers this morning, that both the Prime Minister and the Palace first heard of the invasion from press reports. Is it also true that a telex from the Government of Grenada announcing the invasion was delivered to an old Foreign Office number which now belongs to a Scandinavian plastics company? [Interruption.] It is difficult to believe that incompetence and lack of grip could go any further. How on earth could the Prime Minister possibly imagine that a couple of minutes on the telephone with President Reagan, when the invasion was already under way, would make any difference?
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will tell us this afternoon what the Prime Minister said to the President during that fraught couple of minutes, and what he said to her. I must confess that my imagination leads me rather in the direction of a dialogue between the Glums.
I turn to the wider implication of what has happened for relations between Britain and the United States of America. The Prime Minister has made something of a cult of her special relationship with the American President at the expense of British interests, of her relations with our European partners and of our relations with the Commonwealth. Indeed, in her recent visit to the United States, she tried to outdo the American President in that astonishing outburst that was so rightly castigated by Lord Carrington a few days later as megaphone diplomacy. Nowhere has her servility to the American President been more evident than on the problems of central America and the Caribbean region. Contrary to all her undertakings at the European summit, she supported the use of force for the solution of the problems of central America although she had signed a communique, along with the other heads of Community Governments, specifically disavowing the use of force as a useful solution to the problems.
The Prime Minister has been an obedient poodle to the American President. [Interruption.] The true state of the relationship was put with brutal clarity by Secretary of State Shultz yesterday when he said:
"We are, of course, always impressed with the views of the British Government and Mrs. Thatcher, but that doesn't mean that we always have to agree with them and, of course, we also have to make decisions in the light of the security situation of our citizens as we see it."
So much for the obligation to consult between allies. and so much for the relevance of joint decision on the use of cruise missiles placed in Britain. To make these points is not to be anti-American, because members of the American Congress make them with as much force as I do.
The fact is that President Reagan has broken the postwar diplomatic tradition of all Governments in the United States since 1945, whether Republican or Democrat. He has abandoned reliance on co-operation and consensus with his allies in favour of what has come to be called a sort of global unilateralism. That tendancy of the United States to go it alone in every aspect of world affairs carries

295
with it immense dangers for world peace, since the American President at the moment sees the world exclusively in terms of red and white. He sees Russia as the foes of all evil in the world — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members may say "Hear, hear" but there were wars in the world before October 1917. There were conflicts in the middle east, Latin America and Europe. That inability to see the world except in the terms of the most primitive comic strip is immensely dangerous.
Of course, the experience that the Prime Minister has undergone in the past week or so was undergone not long ago by President Mitterrand over Chad. Some of the propositions attributed to the American President over the Grenada affair almost beggar the imagination. Apparently he asked the Prime Minister to make Grenada a Crown colony. So much for entering Grenada to restore democratic government. He told the world yesterday that he planned to ask the Governor-General to try to sort things out. I hope that the Prime Minister is aware that the Governor-General of Grenada is responsible to Her Majesty the Queen and not to the American President. I am glad to see that she concedes that point.
It really is time that the Prime Minister got off her knees and joined other allies of the United States, who are deeply concerned about the present trend in American policy. I shall put three specific and urgent suggestions to her. First, along, I hope, with her European partners, she must not offer support for a multinational force in the Lebanon unless the United States joins the European Governments in pressing President Gemayel to give the Muslim majority in the Lebanon a fair share of power, and concedes the right of Syria to have an interest in the problems — [Interruption.] Well, the Foreign Secretary apparently conceded that in his answer to a question I put on Monday. I just hope that he sticks to his guns when he meets Mr. Shultz tomorrow in Paris.
Secondly, the Prime Minister must fulfil the obligations that she accepted with other Community Governments to warn the United States of America against the use of force to solve central American problems. Nobody attacked American action in Grenada more strongly yesterday in the Security Council than the Government of Mexico. That Government certainly cannot be called Communist by any stretch of the imagination. It is about time that the Prime Minister started working with Governments who want conciliation in central America rather than with those who support confrontation.
One of. the most worrying things that the President has said in recent days is that we cannot pick and choose where we defend freedom. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] "Hear, hear," says someone. I do not know whether we can really expect the United States to defend freedom in El Salvador and Guatemala by the same means as the President has chosen to defend it in Grenada. However, I do think that there is a grave danger that he may choose the same methods in "defending freedom" in Nicaragua. It is vital that the influence of all America's allies is brought to bear at this moment to dissuade the American Administration from so dangerous and catastrophic a course.
Thirdly, if events continue as now foreseen, the British Government must, at the very minimum, refuse to accept the deployment of American missiles on British soil unless Britain has the physical power to prevent the use of those
296
missiles against her will. What has happened in Grenada must be a warning to the Secretary of State for Defence, the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary in that regard. We on this side of the House—and I believe many on the other side of the House — believe that America's action against Grenada was a catastrophic blunder and that the failure of Her Majesty's Government to prevent it was an unforgivable dereliction of duty.
However, something at least may be gained from the experience of the past few days. This experience should warn America's allies of the danger of servility to a leadership from Washington which could be disastrous to the interests of the Western world. It should remind all of America's allies of the need to unite to shift American policy to the ways of co-operation and common sense.
4.20 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I welcome this opportunity—[Laughter.]—of debating the issues raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) and of doing so in a spirit closer to a true recognition of British interests than he has shown. I begin by bringing the House up to date with the situation in Grenada.
The Americans have now secured both the airports on the island, at Pearls and Salines, as well as the radio station and Fort Rupert. But fighting is apparently continuing at Port Frederick and elsewhere. Several United States service men have been killed. There are unconfirmed reports that 12 Cubans have been killed during the fighting. There is no firm information at present about the extent of other casualties. In addition, there are reports that a number of Soviet nationals may have been detained, and rumours that Mr. Bernard Coard, one of the leaders of last week's coup d'etat, has sought sanctuary in the Soviet embassy. I am not in a position to confirm that. [Interruption.]
The latest information—the House would want to hear this, and it should listen to what I have to say—is that there are no reports of any British casualties. The United States Administration have informed us that they are willing to evacuate United Kingdom citizens to Barbados as soon as conditions allow. HMS Antrim remains ready to be called upon in case of need. We are also making contingency arrangements for evacuation by British aircraft. A consular mission from the British high commission in Bridgetown is standing by to go to Grenada as soon as practicable to establish how many British citizens may wish to be evacuated. The majority of them are long-term residents of Grenada.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that we have received assurances that the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, is safe. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] For his safety, it would not be sensible in the present circumstances for me to say more than I have. [Interruption.] The House must surely be prepared to acknowledge conditions of that kind and should be content to hear the news, of which I have been assured, that the Governor-General is safe. He may have an important role to play in the restoration of democracy in Grenada. He represents one of the few elements of constitutional continuity in Grenada. The American Administration are aware of that constitutional position and have, of course, undertaken to respect it.

297
The House might find it useful to be reminded of some of the events leading up to the present events. When Grenada achieved full independence on 7 February 1974, it was as a parliamentary democracy within the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister, Sir Eric Gairy, governed the country until March 1979 when he was overthrown as the result of a coup d'etat mounted by the New Jewel Movement. A People's Revolutionary government was set up led by a Marxist, Mr. Maurice Bishop. They suspended the constitution and governed by promulgating so-called "people's laws".
That was an unconstitutional regime. It lasted until 13 October, when Mr. Bishop was in his turn ousted by his deputy—I have already referred to him— Mr. Coard, a more radical Marxist. After several days confusion, a revolutionary military council was set up on 18 October, under the chairmanship of General Hudson Austin.
On the following day, 19 October, Mr. Bishop was killed, together with some of his closest supporters. There has been no satisfactory explanation of those killings, which have been rightly and widely condemned. After the killings, a 24-hour curfew was proclaimed which the revolutionary military council announced was to last until 24 October.
On 20 October, the day after Mr. Bishop's death, General Austin called on the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon. He told him that the revolutionary military council was in control, and that he intended to announce the composition of a new cabinet three days later. He later extended this to two weeks. On the same day, 20 October, the Grenadian high commissioner in London was called to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that we could underline our concerns about the safety of the British community.
On 21 October, the British high commissioner in Barbados learnt that some Caribbean Heads of Government were pressing their colleagues in the Caribbean community to ask for military help in restoring constitutional government in Grenada. We promptly instructed our embassy in Washington to ascertain how the United States Government might respond to such an approach.
On the following day, Saturday 22 October, the United States diverted towards Grenada a carrier group, led by USS Independence. They stated that that was a signal to the local authorities——
Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recall that I asked him to confirm the statement of Prime Minister Adams of Barbados that in the night of Friday a request was sent to Her Majesty's Government for support for military invasion of Grenada by a number of east European Caribbean—[Laughter]—east Caribbean Commonwealth — states. The behaviour has some similarities. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm the Prime Minister's statement?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am just about to deal with that. We were informed on the same day, 22 October, that Heads of Government of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States had decided to put together a multinational force and to call upon friendly Governments to help restore peace and order in Grenada.
Later that evening, we were informed by the American Government that they had received a firm request from the Heads of Government of that organisation to help restore peace and order in Grenada.
298
It should be pointed out, incidentally, that Barbados is not a member of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. The United States Government told us that no decision had been taken on how to respond, and that they had concluded that they should proceed very cautiously. They had, of course, no reason to suppose that vie should support any such approach had it been made to us.
On Sunday 23 October, the British high commission in Barbados was informed that a formal request for British participation in a multinational force would probably be handed over later that day. This did not happen, but we received later that day the conclusions of a meeting held in Trinidad by all the Commonwealth Caribbean countries — except, of course, Grenada. They had decided in favour of political and economic measures against Grenada, but were divided about the desirability of military action.
We were in close touch with the American Government throughout 23 October and two American consular officials accompanied our deputy high commissioner from Bridgetown, Mr. Montgomery, on a visit to Grenada over the weekend. The purpose of that visit was to form a firsthand assessment of the risks to British and American citizens. Separately on that day, we were assured by the United States Government that we should be consulted immediately if the United States decided to take any action, and informed that a United States emissary, Ambassador McNeil, had been sent to Barbados to confer with Caribbean leaders.
It was also on that day, 23 October, that HMS Antrim was instructed to sail from Cartagena in Colombia to the vicinity of Grenada, in case the evacuation of British nationals proved necessary. I wish to emphasise that that was a precautionary move, entirely unrelated to the suggestion of some Caribbean leaders that a multinational force should be established.
Ministers met early on Monday morning, 24 October, to consider events over the weekend. We then had available to us the report on the visit to Grenada from the British deputy high commissioner to whom I have already referred. Following that meeting, our ambassador in Washington was instructed to put to the United States Government factors which would have to be carefully weighed before any decision was taken. It was that afternoon that I made a statement to the House. What I said to the House that afternoon represented my complete statement of the truth as I then understood it.
Mr. Healey: The noble Lady, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, said in the other place on the afternoon of 24 October:
"We have not received any requests from the regional organisation in the Caribbean."— [Official Report, House of Lords, 24 October 1983; Vol. 444, c. 30.]
According to the Foreign Secretary, a request had been received on the Friday night preceding that statement. Either the statement was immensely disingenuous or it was plain wrong.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has not been listening to what I have been saying. I have rehearsed the sequence of events and no such request had been received by the time I have just reached.
Mr. Healey: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it was received.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have explained, and I shall explain again, that on Sunday 23 October, the British high

299
commission in Barbados was informed that a formal request for British participation would probably be handed over later that day, Sunday. That did not happen and, by the time that we came to Monday, the position was as I described it.
On Monday evening we received in London the text of the statement by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, which had been handed to the British high commissioner in Barbados, informing the British Government, among others, of the organisation's intention of taking action under article 8 of the treaty of that organisation for the collective defence and preservation of peace and security against external aggression and requesting assistance from friendly Governments.
Also on Monday evening, President Reagan informed my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister that he was giving serious consideration to the request from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and would welcome her thoughts. He undertook to inform my right hon. Friend in advance of any decision taken by the United States.
While our response to that message was being considered, a second message arrived from the President saying that he had decided to respond positively to the request that had been made to him. Ministers met immediately to discuss the situation and, shortly after midnight on Monday 25 October, my right hon. Friend sent a reply to the President in which, as she told the House yesterday, she reiterated the considerations which we had already put to the United States Government the previous day and expressed our concern at the course of action which he was contemplating.
My right hon. Friend also phoned the President—I am not prepared to disclose the substance of any discussion of that kind — in addition to sending the message, to underline the importance that she attached to the matter. Early on Tuesday morning my right hon. Friend received a message from President Reagan informing her that he had weighed the issues raised in her message very carefully, but had decided that United States participation in the multinational force should nevertheless go ahead.
That then is the sequence of events leading up to yesterday's military intervention. As I have explained to the House, Her Majesty's Government directed the attention of the United States to certain factors that should be taken into account. Some of these included the safety of our own community, the position of the Governor-General, and the fact that the CARICOM countries, the countries. of the Commonwealth Caribbean, although agreed on the need for political and economic measures, were divided on the advisability of military intervention. The United Kingdom and a number of other Commonwealth Caribbean countries took the view that no such action was called for. The situation was such that the United States and some Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean took the other view of the risk to which their citizens were exposed in Grenada.
The fact that, despite the reservations that we had expressed to them, the Americans decided to intervene in Grenada may be a matter of regret. We do not agree with the Americans on every issue, any more than they always agree with us—nor are we expected to do so. On some issues, our perceptions and those of the Americans are bound to be different. In this case, the United States had particular reason to consult most closely with those
300
Caribbean countries that had called on it to help resolve the crisis. Nevertheless, the extent of the consultation with us was regrettably less than we would have wished.
In the course of that consultation, my right hon. Friend made it plain to the United States Administration the views that we took, as one would expect her to do. For the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), when there is a difference of view between the two countries plainly expressed—[HON. MEMBERS: "You did not express it."] —to take that occasion as one for denouncing my right hon. Friend as anybody's poodle is disgraceful. Moreover, the right hon. Gentleman sought to make light—
Mr. Jack Straw: In view of what the Foreign Secretary has now said, which is very different from what he said yesterday, does he now condemn what the Americans have done?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Not so, Sir. What I have just clearly said to the House is that this was an occasion when the United States, in company with a number of Commonwealth Caribbean countries, has taken one view and the United Kingdom, together with a number of other Caribbean Commonwealth countries, has taken another view.
Dr. David Owen rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In those circumstances, it is no more for me to condemn the United States than it is for them to condemn us.
Dr. Owen rose—
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I did not see the Foreign Secretary give way.
Dr. Owen rose—
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. It is plain that the Foreign Secretary is not giving way.
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Healey.
Mr. Healey: The United States has committed a breach of the United Nations charter in international law. The matter is now under discussion in the Security Council in the United Nations. Unless Her Majesty's Government wish to continue playing the role that I attributed to them, they must express a view on the violation of the charter. It is the obligation of the Foreign Secretary, representing Her Majesty's Government, to make his views plain and not to run away from the problem.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the fact that the Security Council met last night at the request of Nicaragua, and will be meeting again today as a draft resolution has been tabled by Guyana, which would have the Security Council issue a strong condemnation of the action taken by the United States and the Caribbean countries acting with it, and which calls for the withdrawal of all troops involved. The right hon. Gentleman expressed his opinion that this country should support this resolution and in advancing that argument he sought to draw parallels with other circumstances that are irrelevant to this case.
Dr. Owen rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In a moment.

301
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East sought to draw attention to the views of the United States President on the dangers posed by the Soviet Union to the world, and dismissed them lightly. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I must draw his attention to this fact as the House considers his commendation of that resolution. The fact is that in Afghanistan troops have occupied the country. In Grenada, the intention of the United States and those who are acting with her is to move as quickly as possible towards the withdrawal of their troops and towards the holding of free elections. Would that the House could count on the prospect of free elections in Afghanistan—[Interruption.]
Dr. Owen rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was heard in silence and the Foreign Secretary should also be given a fair hearing.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: What has happened in this case does not, and must not be allowed to, weaken the essential fabric of our alliance with the United States. It does not, and must not be allowed to, cast any doubt on the firmness of our joint commitment to the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and all that that means.
Dr. Owen: Will the Foreign Secretary give way?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Member for Leeds, East suggested that this week's events are relevant to decisions that might have to be taken about the use of nuclear weapons. There is no credible analogy between our exchanges with the Americans on Monday night and the consultations that would take place before any decision could be taken to fire American nuclear missiles from Britain. [HON. MEMBERS: "How do you know?"]
As we have made clear to the House, there are quite specific understandings between the British and United States' Governments on the use by the Americans of their nuclear weapons and bases in Britain. Those understandings have been jointly reviewed in the light of the planned deployment here of cruise missiles and we are satisfied that they are effective. As I say, these understandings are specific, as are the arrangements for implementing them. They mean that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the British Prime Minister's agreement.
Dr. Owen: I understand the Foreign Secretary's reluctance to damage Anglo-United States relations, and fully understand, too, his reluctance to use words such as "condemn" of our principal friend and ally, but I disagree with his judgment that this event does not mean that we should have dual key on cruise missiles. Nevertheless, the Foreign Secretary has a duty to the House to make it clear, as he will have to do in the Security Council, whether he believes that the United States and the other Caribbean states were justified—I use the term "justified"—under article 8 of the charter in invading Grenada. Surely the answer is that they were not justified, and the Foreign Secretary should say so from the Dispatch Box.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: On a matter of this kind it is still possible for more than one view to be held—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign!"]—and it is not simply because I understand the reasons that prompt the right hon. Gentleman to respect the need for discretion. Of course we have to take care of what we say about one of our principal allies, but at this time. when the operations in that island
302
to restore democracy to the people of Grenada are still under way, nothing could be less helpful than for me to respond to his invitation to condemn the conduct of the United States.
Sir John Biggs-Davison rose—
Sir Geoffrey Howe: If I may return to the Caribbean—
Hon. Members: Yes—now.
Mr. Speaker: Order. These are very important matters.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It should not be overlooked that seven independent Caribbean countries have joined the United States in this intervention. Indeed, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, they urged it on the United States. It is not perhaps sufficiently recognised that, although these islands enjoy full independence, the islands of the Caribbean have a high degree of mutual dependence. There have been democratic elections in most of those islands very recently. They attach great importance to the consolidation of democratic processes throughout the region.
That is why the original coup of 1979 in Grenada was so disturbing, and why the bloody events of last week so deeply affronted them. The breakdown of constitutional government, the rule of law and public safety in one of their members was perceived as a dangerous disruption by a country in the immediate vicinity.
Not only was that the case, but we must remember that, just as the United States had some 1,000 citizens in Grenada, so the other Caribbean countries which have intervened have nationals of their own on Grenada and have Grenadians in their own islands. It is a very close family of states.
Just as that fact explains much of what has happened, so also it perhaps provides the key to the way ahead. Countries which have participated in the present operation will be well placed to assist the Grenadians to restore and set up the necessary machinery to ensure an early return to constitutionality and democracy.
Ever since the overthrow of Sir Eric Gairy 's Government, Grenada has been without constitutional government. Mr. Bishop declined to hold elections and was himself the victim of violent overthrow.
The countries that have intervened are democratic countries. Their stated objective is to restore democratic and constitutional government to the island. That is an objective which we fully share. It may be necessary and desirable for other Commonwealth states to play a part in that process. We shall be in touch with our Commonwealth partners about that, and we welcome the willingness of the Commonwealth Secretary-General to help towards that end. The Americans, as the House clearly understands., have made plain their wish to withdraw from the Grenadian scene at the earliest reasonable opportunity. Meantime, their forces and those of Commonwealth countries involved are exposed to great danger [HON. MEMBERS: "They should not be there."] We shall do nothing to make their task more difficult. We must all wish for a speedy and successful outcome, one that will quickly pave the way for genuine elections in Grenada, for the first time in many years.

303
The whole House will hope that Grenada will again be able to move forward along the path of democracy and so improve the prospects for peace throughout the Caribbean. [HON. MEMBERS: "Resign, resign!"]
4.45 pm
Mr. David Steel: The Foreign Secretary has told the House that it is possible for more than one view to be held on this issue. Of course that is true, but it is not possible for more than one view to be held by the Foreign Secretary, and he has failed to tell the House what instructions have been given to the British ambassador at the United Nations and what view will be taken in the Security Council. I hope that matter will be cleared up before the debate ends.
It is obvious that the reasons given by the American Administration for this exercise are not validated by any international law or by the charter of the United Nations. Of course, it is pressing the point too far to make comparisons with the Russian invasion of Afghanistan or of Czechoslovakia. Nevertheless, we should be quite clear that the United States Administration have thrown away the moral stance that we have always maintained of respecting other countries' national integrity and the right to resist outside interference. Therefore, I believe that the British Government were right to protest to the United States, but that they took it too late. I believe that the history of our relations with Grenada, over which the Foreign Secretary skated rather lightly, shows that we have been dragged along with a mistaken United States foreign policy over several years.
This morning Secretary of State Shultz was reported as saying that one of the objectives of the exercise was the hope of establishing a friendly Government in Grenada. We all hope for friendly neighbours and friendly Governments, but there is no rule of international law which allows the big powers to go round establishing friendly Governments in the small countries of the world. That is a very dangerous proposition to allow to pass without comment.
There is the danger that in making such criticism of an ally we will be thought to be anti-American. I hope that we can dispose of that now, because some of the most trenchant criticism has come from within the United States. For example, Senator Moynihan—with whose views on other matters I do not always agree—very pointedly said that the United States Government are imposing democracy at bayonet point. That is, I think, a graphic description.
I understand that in his television address President Reagan demonstrated a satellite photograph of the airport development in Grenada, as though it were some kind of defence secret that was being revealed to the American public. The truth is surely very different. The airport has been known to be being developed over some time. There are hundreds of American students at present in Grenada, some of whom, I am told, go jogging round the airport which is under construction. I am further told—I should be grateful if the Foreign Secretary would listen to me, because I want confirmation of this matter—that British employees of a radar company are working with the Cubans in the construction of facilities at the airport. May we have confirmation that that is true? Has the Foreign Secretary assured the President of the United States that
304
they are not part of some international Communist conspiracy? We must maintain a sense of proportion about the construction of the airport, which has been the subject of discussion with the British Government and with the United States Government over several years.
In 1974, criticism was expressed on both sides of the House that we had not adequately ensured fair elections prior to Grenada's independence. Many doubts were expressed, and they were later justified by the fact that the Gairy regime in Grenada, towards the end of its life, became extremely corrupt and violent. A secret police force operated on the island and normal law and order of the kind that we should have been supporting was suppressed. Yet the Gairy regime was propped up and supported by the British Government and by the United States Government.
Those who opposed the Gairy regime—including the Opposition and Mr. Bishop—were gradually outflanked by those who wanted to revert to undemocratic methods. That is what led to the coup and the installation of Mr. Bishop. Neither the British nor the American Government protested about the Gairy regime's conduct prior to its overthrow.
The first lesson that Britain and the United States must learn is that, if we value liberal democracy, which is a diminishing commodity in the world today, we must strongly resist totalitarian tendencies of both the Left and the Right. We must learn that we do not assist the process of encouraging liberal democracy by supporting every thug in Latin America who happens to be anti-Communist. That has been the present American Administration's position. On the contrary, far from supporting liberal democracy, that helps to hand the argument to the Marxists who are then unable to distinguish between liberal democracy and Fascist dictatorships or military regimes.
After the invasion of the Falklands, I recall how we suddenly found our detestation of the military junta in Argentina. Before that we were happily selling it arms. We must draw a firmer line in defence of liberal democracy and against the totalitarianism of both Left and Right. That is the first lesson.
What happened after Mr. Bishop came to power in the coup? The United States Administration reacted by cutting off their aid programme to Grenada and the British Government followed suit. The British ended aid. That was in contrast with the Canadian Government who, in view of that, decided to increase aid to Grenada in its most useful form—people. The EC did the same. Under the African Caribbean and Pacific agreement it maintained its aid programme.
In 1979 as a Government and country we opposed the views of our Commonwealth colleagues and EC partners and were caught in the coat tails of the American Administration. That, surely, is the second lesson that we should learn. The Canadian Government turned out to be right by attempting to prevent the game in Grenada going to Moscow. We ignored that.
The Select Committee in its report of 1981–82 was right to say that we should resume the aid programme. The Government rejected that view in their White Paper. I believe that as things have turned out the Select Committee was right.
In June this year Mr. Bishop went to the United States. For what purpose? One purpose was to try to secure some aid for the airport, the construction of which has now been

305
condemned. Canadian advisers had said that Grenada's economy should be developed with more tourist facilities. Since most of the tourists would have come from America, Mr. Bishop went to America to try to secure aid for the construction of the new airport. He was snubbed by the United States Government. He was seen not at ministerial level, let alone by the President, but by officials. His reputation at home was damaged by his experience, and he went off to Cuba and east Europe to get the funds and support that he was denied by the United States.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is not relevant.
Mr. Steel: The fourth lesson that we must learn is that the statement by Mr. Shultz yesterday, that the United States does not always have to agree with Britain, has a corollary which the Foreign Secretary enunciated a moment ago. It is that Britain does not always have to agree with the United States.
When the Foreign Secretary referred to the cruisemissile agreement he used precisely the same words as the Prime Minister in her answer to the House in May when she talked about the understandings and the arrangements for implementing the agreement. She said:
"The effect of the understandings and the arrangements … is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister." —[Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 435.]
No American Administration can guarantee that that will always be so. We have seen, surely, in these events that the House will be asked shortly to take a decision either to deploy cruise in this country without any effective guarantee that there will be control, because there is no dual key mechanism, or to decide not to. Let us not rely on undertakings which date back to the Attlee-Truman era relating to bombers, not missiles.
We must learn another lesson. It has become far too fashionable in Britain and in the United States to denigrate the United Nations as a useless organisation. The smaller states in the world, such as Grenada, are vulnerable to internal overthrow, to neighbouring regimes, to other states and even to the influences of big business. The smaller countries are entitled to greater protection from some form of international policemen. Instead of undermining the United Nations' authority, the British and United States Administrations should develop an active and positive role for that international organisation.
4.56 pm
Mr. George Walden: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for calling me to speak for the first time in the House. I hope that the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) will excuse me if I do not take up his argument.
I apologise to my constituents, since I shall speak only briefly about their affairs in my intervention in a foreign affairs debate. I am fortunate to be the Member for Buckingham, a new constituency. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), my predecessors, who set me high standards. The constituency has many traditions of excellence, in farming, in the human scale of its industry—Wipac and Airtec — in the British Rail engineering depot at Wolverton and in the independent university at Buckingham. We have our problems about health and rates, and I shall reflect my constituents' concern here.
306
The people of north and mid-Bucks are realistic, reflective and independent-minded. They know that whatever our difficulties things are tougher a few miles to the north. They also know instinctively what I am learning in the House — that we have a duty to look at the broader picture as well as the local and partisan aspects. That goes for the Health Service, and I believe that it goes for Grenada.
Most right hon. and hon. Members must be saddened by the disagreements that we have had with the United States, but I believe that most of us think that our historic relationship with that country is broad and deep enough to bear the weight of these disagreements.
Most of us will remember that only a year ago the whole of NATO, not to mention the Anglo-American relationship, was about to collapse under the weight of a length of piping. I do not want to underestimate the Grenada problem. Small places throw up big principles. However, I doubt whether Grenada can do to Anglo-American relations what Suez failed to do, grave though the position is.
I do not support intervention — I oppose it quite simply on principle. As a newcomer, I have listened carefully to the powerful speeches that have been made on both sides of the House with more force than I my self can muster, but I hope that the country as a whole will recognise our Government's courage in making their views clear on what has happened and in trying to convey those views to the United States to head off the situation that has now arisen. Surely it is more usual to be blamed for giving the wrong advice and to be listened to than to give the right advice and not be heeded. I also think that there is nothing reprehensible in trying to minimise the repercussions of these disagreements, in the light of our longer-term relationship with our major ally.
The Government have also been charged with impotence. It is never humiliating to be right, but the charge of impotence touches on the wider problem of Britain's influence in the world today. Britain still has enormous influence. In my experience, it is our biggest invisible export. That influence has been exercised for the good over many years. Things are bad enough in the world, but it is my impression that they would be that much worse without the activity of successive British Governments over the years to moderate the passions that govern the world.
The main reason why I am in the House today and not lying abroad for my country is that inexorably and inevitably our influence in the world will decline unless we put this country in order. Over the years I have become more and more aware of the relentless constraints on defence, on the difficulty of keeping up our high levels of generosity in overseas aid, and of the difficulty of exercising our influence through Europe, which is now a major channel for that influence, because that channel is too often clogged by financial squabbles of one sort or another.
It is impossible to call on this country to exercise more influence and to be more active in international relations if we do not tackle our domestic problems. If we aspire, as some would wish, to a quiet life in the economy, in our education or in our culture, how, in the longer-term, can we ensure our defence? How can we ensure the respect which I believe is due to us? How can we exercise our traditional influence, which is needed more than ever

307
today? It is because I believe that the Government recognise those truths that I am a Conservative Member of Parliament.
This debate reminds us that we need maximum British influence in the world today. Our view may not always prevail, particularly, of course, when other countries, such as the United States, see their security interests differently, but—and this is perhaps my most important point—as the tempo of East-West events quicken, so will the need for Britain's voice of restraint to be heard as loudly and as frequently as possible. I believe that our Government's courageous position on Grenada has heightened and not diminished our influence in the world. We shall continue, I hope, to look to the United States, and I hope that it will continue to look to us for mutual support and advice. We continue to be the bedrock of each other's security. Yet Grenada reminds us that in the longer term we must also look to ourselves and to Europe.
5.3 pm
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The House has just listened with attention to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who has taken the courageous decision to address it for the first time in one of the most tense of debates. The House will agree with me that he acquitted himself well.
The hon. Gentleman comes into the House with a great advantage and a great disadvantage. He comes with the great advantage of worldwide experience over a number of years and the ability to see the affairs of this country as they are seen from outside. He comes with the disadvantage of being in a sense typed by his professional association with a Department of State. Perhaps I might say to him that the House of Commons rewards those who serve it and it alone. It regards no qualifications and no status which purports to be brought from outside. It takes its Members as they are; and the hon. Member for Buckingham, who I hope will be a Member of this House for many years, will do best as he serves this House for itself and for its purposes.
I thought that yesterday the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister were under the impression that I had called in question the good faith of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I want to make it clear that in no sense did I seek to do so. On the contrary, I believe that today he made good the claim that on no substantial point did he mislead this House as to the facts as he knew and saw them at the successive times when he addressed the House. The difficulty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the charge against him are different and, in a sense, more serious. It is not in good faith that he has been lacking; it has been in faith—rather perhaps credulity—that he has been excessive.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman had a task that would have been unenviable for the greatest of parliamentarians—that of coming to the House on a Monday and saying that he had been in "the closest possible touch" with the American Government and believed that there was no reason for thinking they would resort to military action, and then returning next day to inform the House that the Americans had taken that action. I was not sure, listening to what he said this afternoon, that either he or the Government have learnt the lesson that
308
should be drawn from that experience. It is the knowledge of what interpretation the United States places upon consultation and common decision with its allies.
Consultation and common decision mean for the United States that it will from time to time take such steps and such decisions as, in its judgment, it considers to be right in the interests of the United States, that it will permit representations to be made to it by its allies, but that in the end it will go its own way regardless.
This has not been the first case from which we can learn that lesson. I disagree with the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in thinking that this is at all a recent experience. It has been the pattern of behaviour of the United States over the past 20 or 30 years. During the Yom Kippur war in 1973, when the European members of the NATO Alliance said that they saw no reason for it, the United States put its forces on full nuclear alert. It did not listen to the views, and it did not concert its action with the views, of its European allies. Again, hon. Members who were in the last Parliament will remember the humiliating experience of being driven to place upon the statute book a sanctions Act against Iran. Yet hardly had the House recovered from the fatigue of sitting up all night to do so than it heard that, without consultation or information to those who were endeavouring to support it, the United States had engaged in a wild and unlawful attack on the territory of Iran itself.
This pattern of behaviour of the United States is perfectly consistent throughout; it is a pattern that can be accounted for by the policy and outlook of that country.
At the invitation of Her Majesty's Government, the United States is about to station on the soil of the United Kingdom nuclear weapons which, we are told, will be used only after consultation and by joint decision with Her Majesty's Government. Anyone who, after the experience of the last few days and of recent years, imagines that the United States will defer to the views of the Government of this country if it considers it necessary to use those weapons is living in a dangerous fool's paradise. Anyone in office who entertains that illusion is in no position to serve the security of this country.
The United States is dominated by two mutually supporting delusions. The first is that it is within the power of any nation, let alone the United States, to create what it calls freedom and democracy by external military force — that it is within its power to decide how the inhabitants of other countries should, in its interests, be governed, and to bring that about in the last resort by military interposition.
It also believes that the world is involved in a Manichaean struggle between the powers of light and the powers of darkness and that the mantle of leading the powers of light has fallen on the United States. I do not think that the consequences of that delusion, a nationwide delusion held and expressed by Americans of every class and creed, can be better expressed than it was —significantly over 20 years ago — by the Washington correspondent of The Times during the Cuba crisis. He wrote:
"The President … in effect has assumed the supreme political authority that was always inherent in the American nuclear deterrent. The firm belief is that as the leaders of the Alliance, with control of most of the nuclear power available to the West, the Administration has a right and a duty to defend itself and its allies—even to the extent of bringing about a nuclear exchange. It is also firmly believed"—

309
and these last words are the most significant for what will happen unless the Government have wiser thoughts in the coming weeks—
"in the present situation that there will be no time for consultation; that a threat of war cannot be met by committee decisions."
What we should have learnt, or been reminded of, in the last few clays is that the only condition compatible with our national honour and independence for those weapons being stationed on our soil, if indeed they are to be so stationed, is that this country should hold the physical control and ultimate power of decision over their use.
I commend to the Government and the House—and, greatly presuming, if I may, to our American allies—a remarkable and profound statement by, of all people, George Washington. He is reported as having said:
"The nation which indulges towards another a habitual hatred or a habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
It is an habitual hatred which has diverted the United States from a true perception and appreciation of the real state of the world in which it has to live. It is an habitual fondness which has turned this country into something horribly resembling a satellite of the United States.
I hope that after what we have experienced in recent days we can set aside those prejudices which would divert us from our interest and duty, and that Her Majesty's Government, free of habitual hatred or habitual fondness, will preserve and pursue their sole duty to the interests of the United Kingdom.
5.15 pm
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) opened up broad horizons. There will be time to discuss those on many occasions. I shall confine myself to the immediate problem of Grenada.
No one who knows him would accuse my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary of trying to mislead the House, yet I find it difficult to understand how he could have made so bland and reassuring a statement as he did last Monday. Warships of the United States and our own were close to Grenada. Their purpose was to protect our respective citizens if they were in danger and I imagine that there was some contingency planning between the two. If there was not, there should have been.
Over the weekend there was much talk in the Caribbean islands of military intervention. There appear to have been exchanges between London and Washington—I do not know at what level — about the pros and cons of intervention. It seems strange in those circumstances that my right hon. and learned Friend could have given such a reassuring picture. I should have thought that the crisis was so close that it would have been better for him to have considered sending at least a Minister of State, if not himself, to the Caribbean or Washington to discuss the situation, whatever might have been the policy of the Government. I cannot help feeling that the handling of the situation has not been quite as effective as it might have been. Of course the weekend intervened, but such things have influenced us adversely before.
I come to the main issue at stake, the merits of the case. It will be agreed that there are broadly two schools of thought in Britain. There are those who think that the world is still at peace in spite of local crises East and West. There are those who believe that, in this situation, the
310
causes of those crises must be looked at primarily in their local environments—that each case must be judged on its merits—and that the proper course is to address them within the normal terms of old-fashioned diplomacy as enshrined in the charter of the United Nations and international law, and that we should not allow the struggle between the two superpowers—between Soviet imperialism and the free world — to influence our judgment too much. That is one school of thought which is held largely on the Opposition Benches and may be held by some of my hon. Friends.
There is another school of thought which believes that we are facing a global struggle—not a total war like the first or second world wars, but something more akin to the 100 years war or the 30 years war—a struggle for the control of the world between the two great centres of power in which the imperialism of the Soviet Union is seen, at any rate by those who hold this view, as the aggressor. If one looks at it that way, each local crisis must be considered as, among other things, a battlefield in a not-so-cold war.
I do not want to widen the discussion to the extent that the right hon. Member for Down, South did by illustrating my point too much, but those of us who feel that way say that what happened in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and Aden bears out our point and that in our view the free world must try to see where it can prevent the onward march of Soviet imperialism and, if possible, reverse it.
There is a Soviet doctrine that any gain that the Soviets make must be irreversible. I do not understand why the West should share that view. I understand that that is President Reagan's view. I understand also that it is the view that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister took long before she became Prime Minister. It appears from her latest speeches that she still holds it. For what it is worth, it happens also to be my humble view.
Let us focus this view on Grenada. As the House knows, Grenada is a small island. When I was an Under-Secretary of State at the long-forgotten Colonial Office., I was responsible for Grenada. Its domestic problems are fairly small and not too difficult to regulate. But it was in the process of becoming a Soviet base and an extension of Cuba, which is already a major base in the Caribbean, and Nicaragua, which is still in the process of developing into one. There were many Cubans working in Grenada. There were some scores of Soviet technicians, and perhaps, officers, working there as well.
Those developments were seen as a threat to the other Caribbean islands long before the latest coup. These are islands for which we were responsible until recently and which, like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I know fairly well. The developments were seen also as a threat to the United States. The developments in Cuba and Grenada, and in Nicaragua, too, can equally be regarded as a threat to Europe. All supplies from the west coast of America, in peace as much as in war, have to pass through the Caribbean to reach us. We, too, are thus closely involved. It should have been—I imagine it would have been—the aim of the free world, from the time that Mr. Bishop seized power by illicit means, to try to win Grenada back into the free world.
There may also have been an element of urgency about this, because a major airfield was being built. There was a substantial Cuban presence on the island as well as a not

311
unimportant Soviet presence. Had matters not come to a head when they did, the issue might have become much more difficult.
Mr. David Winnick: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying by his use of the words "free world" that as long as a regime is anti-Communist it does not matter what sort of dictatorship or tyranny may exist, be it in Latin America or South Africa, about which he has often spoken? Is he saying that that is acceptable? Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that repulsive reactionary regimes of the sort that existed in Grenada prior to Mr. Bishop taking over — regimes that are reactionary in every possible way—will lead sooner or later to military changes? Does he not understand that there will be changes by non-democratic means because democracy has ceased to exist in the areas over which the regimes prevail? The regimes which the right hon. Gentleman is willing to defend and justify because they are anti-Communist can be said in many ways to pave the way for some form of Communist regime.
Mr. Amery: I shall not take up all the points that the hon. Gentleman made in his eloquent speech. In Grenada there was a pro-Soviet Government and they were helped by Cubans and Soviets. Grenada could have become a threat, in the context of Cuba and Nicaragua, to the other Caribbean Commonwealth countries, to the United States and to Europe.
Mr. Allan Roberts rose—
Mr. Amery: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have already given way once on this point and I shall not give way again.
Mr. Roberts: I wished to intervene on a different matter.
Mr. Amery: When there came a second military and bloodthirsty coup, the danger to the Caribbean was underlined, as was the danger to the United States. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will agree that the majority of the Caribbeans —I have not added up all the islands—wanted some military intervention to take place. If the report in The Guardian is right, and if I understood my right hon. and learned Friend aright, the Caribbeans wanted us to help them in the process of intervention. They wanted us to give a lead and the United States was prepared, in the circumstances, to take part.
Here was an opportunity for Britain, as a leading Commonwealth power — I shall not say the leading power, because the Commonwealth is a community of equals, but Britain is a leading and founding member of the organisation—to give a lead. Here was our chance to send a Minister to co-ordinate the entire venture. Instead, we abdicated any form of leadership. We should have taken, as the Opposition would have wished, a stand against intervention. We could, as I would have wished, have said, "Let us join wholeheartedly in the intervention." However, we did neither. As a result of our relapse into pallid abstention, the Caribbeans turned to the United States for leadership and went ahead. We showed neither the courage to lead nor to oppose.
This performance cannot do much for the dignity of our country or to enhance our prestige abroad. I do not want
312
to exaggerate the importance of prestige, but we gained a good deal of it in the Falklands operation. On this occasion our performance has not been an effective way of maintaining the position that we then gained.
It is idle to say, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said yesterday, that the only difference between us and the United States was over whether it was necessary to take action to rescue our nationals. There were much wider considerations of state. I cannot help thinking that my right hon. and learned Friend was adversely or wrongly briefed by the Foreign Office on an exaggerated estimate of what the Third world or the rest of the Commonwealth would think. It is possible that some economic considerations were taken into account or the possibility that Defence Estimates might be raised as a result.
Luckily, the operation seems to have been pretty successful; and now the problem is to repair the damage that has been done to our relations with our closest allies. In my judgment, the damage should never have occurred. Here was an issue on which there was no reason to differ from the Americans. Hon. Members who are old enough will have heard me thunder against the Americans over Suez and other operations where I thought that British and American interests were in conflict. In this instance I see no conflict. There is only a marginal difference of view and I fear that the Americans were right and we were wrong.
Mere gestures will not repair the damage. There will be a need for closer co-operation in the struggle against Soviet imperialism. I believe that this is a cause to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and, I hope, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary are as deeply committed as the President of the United States.
5.28 pm
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: The performance that the Government have given us today can hardly be described as the pursuit of arrogant power. It has been a pathetic and demeaning example of what they are incapable of saying to the United States. The United States has demonstrated that it believes that the Caribbean is its own basin. It believes that it can do what it wishes in the Caribbean, and the Government told the House on Monday that they felt that there was no danger of an invasion of Grenada. The following day Grenada was invaded. The British Government still do not know what to do about it or to say to the United States in reply. I hope that we shall recognise throughout the debate the nature of American policy in the entire region and recognise the scandalous role of British foreign policy in the region.
The Americans have sought consistently to undermine and destabilise the Governments of Grenada since 1979. They have sought consistently to undermine and destabilise the Government of Jamaica. They did so until Mr. Seaga was elected Prime Minister. They have consistently sought to undermine and destabilise any Government in the region who have sought to develop the interests of the people rather than the interests of the multinational companies that are busy exploiting those people.
At the centre of the debate and of the activities of the United States lies its belief that its role is to defend the people who pay the Government — the multinational companies. The British Government are doing exactly the same. In every conference chamber around the world, the

313
British Government support American foreign policy. They do not have a foreign policy in the Caribbean or central America. All they know is to follow the United States—except that when the issue of Grenada came up they did not know what to do. So, for three days running, we have had a pathetic appearance by the Foreign Secretary, who has been wondering what to do next. He comes to the House, wringing his hands, wondering what on earth to say next. He knows that he has been made to look an absolute idiot because he was incapable of standing up to the Americans for once. The one thing that the Americans do not respect is the Uriah Heep diplomacy that the British Government operate towards them. The Pavlovian response of agreeing to everything that the United States demands and wants has got them nowhere and has made them look incredibly stupid and shortsighted.
We should consider some of the events in Grenada over the past five years, because a most amazing travesty of history was given to us this afternoon. It is a tribute to the people of Grenada, the New Jewel Movement Government, Maurice Bishop and others who held office in that Government, that a nation of 300 million people should seek to invade a country of 110,000. It is some threat to a nation of 300 million that warrants a military intervention. The real threat to the United States is not a military threat from the people of Grenada any more than there was a military threat from the people of Nicaragua or from the people of Guatemala in 1954. It is a threat of ideas and example. The New Jewel Movement Government in Grenada achieved a sense of liberation for its people, health care, a reduction in the illiteracy rate that makes it among the lowest in the Caribbean, and a reduction in unemployment from well over 50 per cent. in 1979 to 15 per cent. in 1983. The Tory Government came to power in 1979 and during the same period threw 2 million people on to the dole queue. That is a comparison between what the popular Government were trying to achieve in Grenada and what the Government have been trying to achieve here.
I hope that the House will recognise that the intervention in Grenada must be totally condemned. If we are talking about a genuine liberation of the people and genuine self-determination, that means the removal of foreign troops from Grenada. The American troops are doing nothing there but impose upon the people of Grenada a Government who will be subservient to the United States, provide a base for yet more American aircraft carriers in the Caribbean and make the Caribbean safe for American multinationals that continue exploiting people. Exploitation has been going on for centuries, and it has been taken over by American multinationals.
The House should consider the attitude that was taken towards the Government of Maurice Bishop and his colleagues after Eric Gairy left office. In case the House did not realise it, the Government that was led by Mr. Eric Gairy in Grenada—
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Corbyn: I am not giving way. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to speak.
The Government led by Mr. Eric Gairy were by any standards a corrupt and inefficient Government. They were a poodle of Western and American policies. That
314
Government were never condemned by Conservative Members and even now they are not condemned by Conservative Members. Somehow, the theory was built up that it was some form of friendly democratic administration. It was nothing of the kind. It was the opposite.
The achievements of the Government of the New Jewel Movement over the past few years are an inspiration to many people in the Caribbean. Because they are an inspiration, the Americans spent an amazing amount of money trying to promote an economic blockade of that country—the British Government joined in — to prevent foreign aid going to Grenada—the British Government joined in — and to promote CIA methods of destabilisation, as we have seen in so many other countries in the Caribbean, in central America and throughout Latin America. It is wrong for the Americans to take the arrogant view that they can decide everything that goes on within their hemisphere. I reject that, as do many other hon. Members.
While we are considering the situation in the Caribbean, we should also consider what is happening not far away in central America. The present Sandinista Government of National Reconstruction in Nicaragua came to power in 1979. They have achieved much in health care, in education, in housing and in putting an end to illiteracy. What support and help have they received from the British or American Government? They have received an economic and military blockade. American-financed CIA forces have invaded the country, murdering people and destroying the economic base, all in the name of the national security of the United States.
By no stretch of the imagination could one say that either Grenada or Nicaragua could raise an army, air force or navy that could cross the sea or land and invade the United States. The Americans know perfectly well that there is no military threat. They know perfectly well that there is no military threat from anywhere in the Caribbean or central America other than the threat of ideas and inspiration. Two countries have recently sought their liberation—Grenada, which has been so brutally crushed by the American forces, and Nicaragua, which sought its liberation by asking American-owned multinationals to leave and foreign countries to leave it alone so that it could develop its own way of life, democracy, economy and a decent standard of living for its people. That model is too much for American power to contend with, so the Americans have to oppose and destabilise it.
The British and American Governments are obsessed with the Soviet-Cuban threat of domination of the whole region. I ask the House to consider what the Government of Grenada, Nicaragua or any other country should do when the country's trade is blocked off, its aid is removed., and an economic and military blockade is raised against it. What is it to do to get help? Where is it to get support and assistance? If anyone imagines that the Government of either Grenada or Nicaragua were somehow imposing themselves on the people and were forced on them at the point of a Russian gun or a Cuban bayonet, he should read his history of Grenada and what happened there in 1979 when Eric Gairy was forced out of office by a popular revolution. The people could no longer stand the corruption, the secret police and the prison system that he imposed on them. That point must be put across in the House.

315
The Americans' claim that they went into Grenada to protect the lives of Americans and foreigners in the area is farcical. The area in which there was fighting, in which people have been killed and in which murders have taken place is a tourist area, where all the foreign people were, and may still be for all we know. The United States' intention has been to remove the popular Government. I believe that there is a long story yet to be told about what the CIA has been doing in Grenada for the past four years and what it has been up to in undermining the Government before the dispute took place and before the military tried to take over last week.
The British Government announced this afternoon that they were concerned about the breakdown of democracy and about what they thought were not democratic Governments in the Caribbean or central America. Do they apply the same standards to the racist South African regime? Do they apply the same standards to any other oppressive Government? No, they do not. They are obsessed with supporting the United States in the Caribbean and in central America. They have emerged with egg on their face, as they were incapable of putting forward any view whatever to the United States.
We require from the Government a foreign policy that recognises that the people of the Caribbean and central America have had sufficient lectures and blandishments from western Europe and the United States and more than enough of American-owned multinational companies coming into their countries and running the economies for the benefit of people in London, Wall street or any other financial capital. I believe that people in the Caribbean want a sense of liberation which cannot be achieved if, at the same time, forces are being sent into their countries to promote the interests of those in the financial capitals.
I hope that the House will not only condemn the invasion of Grenada by the United States and demand their immediate withdrawal, but that the British Government will also be condemned for standing by and allowing a foreign power to invade Grenada.
The Foreign Secretary and Conservative Members have said that several Soviet or Cuban citizens were on Grenada at the time of the American invasion. I understand that thousands of American troops are stationed in bases in this country. Can it not be said that they are a threat to our democracy? Are they not a threat to us? What are they doing here? I ask hon. Members to have a sense of priority and proportion in this matter. I also ask hon. Members to condemn the American invasion and the inaction of the British Government. We must also at the Security Council condemn the actions of the Americans and demand their immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Grenada so that the Grenadians can sort out their own future in their own way without the assistance of American marines.
5.42 pm
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) on his excellent maiden speech in terms as sincere but less convoluted than were directed at him by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
We face a grave situation in Grenada. It is right that the House of Commons should come together to express its mind and, hopefully, the mind of the nation on the issues involved. Whatever the reasons that inspired the United
316
States to invade Grenada, I believe that the United States acted precipitately, unwisely, and illegally in invading an independent state. The position has been made worse for us as that state is also a member of the Commonwealth. The United States did not act with due consideration for the interest of its allies, particularly its closest ally, the United Kingdom. We are, therefore, right to feel aggrieved at what has happened. We have been treated cavalierly, arrogantly and contemptuously, and we should recognise that fact. The House of Commons should make that view clear.
Having said that and having condemned the United States for its action, that is no reason for turning on the Foreign Secretary as though he were somehow responsible for the actions of the United States. I believe that, within the limits of manoeuvre which were left to the Government, to the Prime Minister and to the Foreign Secretary, the Government have acted correctly and prudently in an extremely difficult situation.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is this convoluted?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: No; it is extremely clear. It is only the convoluted mind of the right hon. Gentleman that is unable to comprehend the distinction that I am making.
While it is right for hon. Members to speak freely, as they are not burdened with the responsibilities of office, that is not possible for those who are charged with conducting our foreign policy. The first matter to be considered was the need to protect British citizens. The Foreign Secretary, having considered the matter carefully, decided that they were not placed in such danger by the events so as to assume that their safety could be secured only by immediate intervention.
When looking ahead to possible developments in the crisis, preventive action was taken when HMS Antrim was moved into position, as an insurance policy, in case emergency action was needed. I see nothing to condemn in the Foreign Secretary's action.
Secondly, the Government made it clear to the United States Government that they believed that their action was unwise, and we counselled against it. That advice was rejected. The fact that the advice was rejected is not the responsibility of the Government. What on earth were the Government meant to do? What would the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) do in such circumstances? Were we to declare war on the United States because it did not accept our advice? Britain is entitled, both as a nation and as an ally, to give advice but not to impose that advice on an ally.
Thirdly, on seeing our prudent advice rejected, the Foreign Secretary realised that further damage could occur to the Alliance, on which the security of the world depends, if he had denounced the United States in intemperate terms. He might have avoided a few cheap jeers from Opposition Members and earned some cheap cheers. However, they would have been earned at the price of jeopardising the security of the free world.
Throughout this crisis the right hon. Member for Leeds, East—
Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman is winding his way back to the fold.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am not trying to enter any fold. I have one of my own.
Mr. Flannery: It sounds as though that is what the right hon. Gentleman is trying to do.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that other people's motives are as low as his. I am speaking my mind—[Interruption.]
Mr. Dave Nellist rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman if it was he who interrupted.
Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman has used the expression "free world" to describe the conditions pertaining in Grenada. What freedom can exist on that island when the per capita income is £400 per year?
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sounds more like a speech than a question.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: There is a clear distinction between political freedom and economic prosperity. They may be linked, and I hope that the Grenadians will enjoy both in due course, but I do not wish to be led astray into a discussion of that kind.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East has sought throughout to squeeze the last drop of party political advantage out of the crisis. That has been the case when we have heard him in the House and when we have heard him on television. I was astounded when he referred in the House yesterday to Grenada as a territory subject to the Queen. He knows that any advice tendered to the Queen in the present constitutional position can be given only by Ministers of the Grenadian Government. The British Government have no status, and the Queen has no status in the matter unless she is being advised by the Grenadian Government. For the right hon. Gentleman to pose as a champion of the palace is unconvincing.
The right hon. Gentleman's stance has unleashed the anti-American feeling that is strong in many Labour Members and, apparently, among members in other parts of the House. That sentiment came out in the speech of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). The right hon. Member for Leeds, East does not share that feeling, and it was his duty to attempt to restrain rather than to encourage it.
Damage has undoubtedly been done to the Alliance. The first duty of the Government is to seek to repair that damage as quickly and effectively as possible. It is right that we should make our views known through diplomatic channels, but it would not be right for the Foreign Secretary to stand at the Dispatch Box and condemn the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That is not the place to do it.
The Foreign Secretary has to balance the existing situation against the other interests involved in the Western Alliance, and that is what he has done. He has not condoned or supported the American action and he has made it clear that there are other interests to be considered besides those involved in the immediate crisis.
We must certainly work for the early withdrawal of foreign troops from Grenada and for the early reestablishment of constitutional government. I believe that those are the objectives that the Government have set for themselves. It is easier to state those objectives than to achieve them, but I believe that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are working towards them and that they deserve the support of the House in their efforts.
5.53 pm
Mr. John Fraser: I went to a large West Indian gathering at Lambeth town hall on Saturday night where there was a sense of sorrow and outrage at the murder of Maurice Bishop. His Government was not free of blemishes in the erosion of human rights—everyone ought to recognise that—and it was not democratic, but it was a popular Government and, whatever the political persuasion of those at the gathering on Saturday, they shared a sense of outrage.
A sense of outrage at the American invasion has been added to those feelings. The invasion disregarded any courtesy towards the British Government and all the conventions about the territorial integrity of states. Therefore, I express the outrage of West Indians and the much wider outrage of the whole community.
There has been a breach of international law and there is grave anxiety, underlined by the Labour party for a long time, about whether we can trust the United States in matters involving international co-operation. There are lessons to be learnt in relation to cruise missiles.
Let me underline the major anxieties. The fact that there has been a breach of territorial integrity goes almost without saying, but an extension of that principle should be underlined. People say—perhaps unjustifiably—that if the United States can intervene in such a heavy-handed manner, disregarding the views of the British Government, why can they not exercise some influence in, for example, Haiti, which has suffered the erosion of human rights for so long and from which, incidentally, Eric Gairy was learning a trick or two before he was deposed in 1979?
Why could not the Americans exercise some influence or intervene in Chile or in Guatemala, Honduras or El Salvador? Why is it only in states such as Grenada—small, Left and black — that there is this sort of condescending intervention, which would not be tolerated in other countries with different political persuasions and a different kind of population?
The third anxiety is how we can trust the United States in any matters in which we are supposed to have an accommodation. In this case, there were about four days for consultation. We were assured at Question Time on Monday that there was no question of an American military intervention. When cruise or Trident missiles are involved, there will not be four days for consultation; there may be only four minutes. If we cannot get an accommodation and have an honest agreement between allies in present circumstances, how can we believe that it could be done in other circumstances?
I am not expressing animosity towards Americans. It is inevitable that our two countries, with a common culture and language, are tied together, rather like East and West Germany. [Interruption.] I meant that light-heartedly. However, we must counsel the Americans on the way in which they behave.
If Fidel Castro and Yuri Andropov had got together to construct a propaganda exercise, they could not have done better than President Reagan has done this week. The Americans have thrown away all the moral advantage that they possessed over Afghanistan, but they have done much worse than that. They have sown the seeds of a whirlwind in the Caribbean. This is the first time that the United States Government have interfered overtly in a British Caribbean country.

319
That is a significant development, and although support for the Americans has been expressed by several independent Caribbean states, the United States has created a legend and it will reap the effects of it in the years to come. The Americans will not always have friendly Governments in Jamaica and close allies in Barbados. They have created a legend in Bernard Coard. He will become a hero, perhaps not tomorrow or the day after, but certainly in the months and years to come. No doubt he will be taken out of the Soviet embassy and off to Russia. He will become like some of the heroes in Africa.
There are lessons to be learnt. First, once democracy starts to deteriorate, it is extremely difficult to restore it. There was no way of getting rid of Eric Gairy except by a military coup. Without a restoration of democracy, the only way to get rid of Bishop was another coup. I am not approving of coups; I am simply saying that we have to pay careful attention to the way in which democracy can so quickly, sometimes almost inexorably, deteriorate.
I end with a Jamaican proverb which is relevant to what President Reagan has done in Nicaragua, El Salvador and other parts of central America. The Jamaicans say:
"The higher monkey climb, the more he expose him ras."
President Reagan has exposed his ras on this occasion. He has also done something that I have seen monkeys do at Whipsnade zoo. To put it proverbially, he has urinated over the Foreign Secretary. It is a strange irony that President Reagan should turn our Foreign Secretary into a wet.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker I must tell the House that the Opposition Front Bench spokesman wants to begin to reply to this important debate at 6.35 pm. Brief contributions will enable me to call more hon. Members.
6 pm
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The American Government have chosen to defend their actions on three grounds. First, they have said that they are there to protect innocent lives. That is a genuine and important consideration but there is no evidence to justify it. The evidence does not show that acute state of affairs which might have justified it. Secondly, they have spoken of restoring order. That is a dangerous doctrine which could be applied elsewhere by people of whom we do not approve. Non-interference in the internal affairs of independent states is the fundamental principle of international law and the United Nations charter. Thirdly, they quote such justification as there might be from the existence of a regional pact. That is perhaps the most dangerous doctrine of all, because there are other regional pacts around the world involving Communist powers which have been invoked by the Soviet Union as a justification for invading its neighbours.
However, we must accept that a state is entitled to regard a situation as affecting its vital interests to such an extent that it feels justified in acting in the way in which the United States has. It is a great pity that the Government have not recognised that that is the real case for the United States. It is not necessary for the Government to be an apologist for the United States when the United States justifies its actions on unreal grounds.
320
The United States is determined to prevent the growth in Grenada of a power base serving the interests of Soviet Russia. It is applying the Monroe doctrine and the doctrine of the sphere of influence. In that sense it is acting in the time-honoured way in which great powers have acted throughout history. It is better for us to recognise that and consider what justification there is for action on those grounds than to go on attempting to justify it in the way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has.
The biggest consequence that arises from the way in which the United States is trying to justify its action is that it makes it more difficult to denounce the Soviet Union for its invasions of Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. There is some hypocrisy in United States propaganda in that respect.
Equally, it is foolish for United States politicians to compare, as we have heard some do recently, this situation with the Falklands. There is no such parallel because the Falklands were and are our territory and the Falkland islanders are our citizens. They were seized from us and they had to be recovered. It is not at all the same as an invasion of an independent state.
What lessons can we learn from this experience? The first is that we cannot trust the United States to support us in all circumstances when its interests differ from ours. It dithered at first over the Falklands. We cannot ultimately rely upon it and therefore we must be prepared to defend our vital interests ourselves and, if necessary, to go it alone. We can do without cruise if necessary but we cannot do without our own nuclear deterrent.
Secondly, we should pause before undertaking any future joint ventures for friendship's sake. If British interests are not directly involved, we should not support the United States in its ventures around the world, whether in Lebanon, in central America or in the position that we have established over Belize.
Thirdly, we cannot go on condemning Soviet Russia and at the same time applaud the United States when each side is merely defending its own interests. Let us cooperate more with our friends and neighbours in Europe whose interests are more similar to ours.
My final point has already been raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). In trying to help clear up the mess that has been caused we must remember that Grenada is an independent sovereign state, a member of the United Nations and of the Commonwealth. Grenada paid us the compliment of adopting our Queen as its Queen when it became independent; therefore, she is its head of state. However, we have no right to interfere. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) was wrong when he said on the wireless this morning that the Queen must order the Governor-General to instal a new Government. The Queen has no such role. She has no right to suggest that any such move should be undertaken. That would lead only to a misunderstanding.
Mr. Healey rose—
Mr. Stanbrook: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to correct me in due course, but perhaps he will allow me to explain my point first.
The Governor-General has been appointed on the authority of the Queen as Head of State, but he takes his orders from the Ministers in Grenada, not from the Queen.

321
The only position in which the Queen becomes relevant is when it may be necessary to appoint a new Governor-General. In that event the appointment must be made on the advice of Ministers in Grenada. The United Kingdom Government have no role to play in that and the Queen has a role only as the Queen of Grenada, not of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Healey: With great respect, it was not I, but the Foreign Secretary, who said that the Governor-General should play a role in forming a new Government. I said that President Reagan had suggested that the Governor-General should do that and that he had no right to do so because the Governor-General was not responsible to the President of the United States.
Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, but he has forgotten precisely what he said about this matter. He has made so many statements lately about British subjects in Grenada, and so on, that he does not realise that he has fallen into error and contributed to a misunderstanding, an example of which he has just given us.
Grenada is not a colony; it is an independent sovereign state. The Queen's position there is not related to her position as Queen of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman said this morning that the Queen must act in a certain way. but she must do no such thing. It does not serve the interests of peace for someone of the right hon. Gentleman's status to add to the confusion and misunderstanding.
The Government's position in this affair has been honourable. They are doing their best but they are ill advised to follow the United States line in justifying what has been done. This is a straightforward case of power politics. We must accept the realities but press as soon as possible for the restoration of the original position and non-interference in the affairs of sovereign independent states.
6.10 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I do not have enough knowledge to comment on what the hon. Gentleman has just said about the attitude of the Queen, but I hazard a guess that she has been greatly disappointed by the pathetic performance of her Foreign Secretary today.
I can provide a little more evidence in support of the contention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) that the invasion was to a large extent preplanned and premeditated, and that the Foreign Secretary was naive—to say the least—when he said on Tuesday that only on Monday evening had the American Government given serious consideration to military action, and that their decision had been taken only on Tuesday morning. Does anyone seriously believe that the American marines could have been in action as quickly as that?
Strong evidence obtained by the Foreign Affairs Select Committee on our visit to Grenada shows that, even before the coup and the assassination of Maurice Bishop, the United States was planning for just such an invasion. I would not be able to advance evidence that the coup was engineered by the CIA in order to justify the invasion, but such things have happened.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) listed all the reasons which, in his and the
322
Americans view, might justify such an invasion. Hon. Members who visited Grenada will recall that representatives of the Grenadian Government pointed out to us that in August and September 1981 the Americans carried out an exercise called Amber and the Amberines at the military base of Viequez in Puerto Rico, during which they planned, prepared and rehearsed an invasion exactly like the one that has just taken place. It involved reference to a point "Amber" which corresponded exactly to the airport where the invasion took place. The ranger troops, who landed at Port Salines, had been involved in that exercise. I am looking at the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), because he was there too.
What was predicted when we visited Grenada in March last year has now happened. There is strong evidence to support the view that the invasion was preplanned and premeditated, but neither the Foreign Secretary nor any other member of the Government has yet told us whether the Americans have been deceiving our Government or whether our Government—and the Foreign Secretary in particular—have been deceiving the House. I hope that we shall be given a reply to that question today.
We have heard references to the reasons for the invasion. There can be no reasons for such a blatant breach of the United Nations charter; there can only be excuses. But the aim of restoring democracy is the most pathetic excuse imaginable. Some of my hon. Friends have already spoken about Gairy's regime. Who decides which democracies are acceptable? I do not want the Americans to be the arbiters of what is acceptable. Gairy maintained his power with the help of the mongooose gang—the night ambush squad which struck terror into the people of Grenada. That is not what I call democracy. That is not a democracy that I would wish to restore.
I hope that, even if the Foreign Secretary makes no other unequivocal declaration today, he will make an unequivocal declaration that we will not countenance the possibility of the automatic return of Sir Eric Gairy. That suggestion is being made. I heard Gairy on the radio today. He is staying in San Diego and being looked after by the Americans. He is ready to return, and I am sure that his return is part of the plan. I hope that our Government will give an unequivocal declaration that they will not countenance the return of that dictator.
Gairy was not only a dictator. When the coup in which he was deposed took place, he was at the United Nations trying to persuade it to set up a special committee on flying saucers. Not even hon. Members opposite are as loony as Sir Eric Gairy. Some hon. Members opposite were impressed by his knighthood, but we have been told that he recommended himself for the knighthood and the Queen could not refuse it.
On another occasion we must devote more time to the question whether we can automatically assume that Westminster democracy is the only kind of democracy. Is Westminster democracy automatically the right kind for a small island where it is difficult to maintain, or even to countenance, the neutrality of the Civil Service? With such a small population, people live in each other's pockets. Westminster democracy is not necessarily the only or the most appropriate kind.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Will the hon. Gentleman at least make it clear that he believes in regular elections, whatever form the democracy may take?
Mr. Foulkes: I am happy to make that clear. Indeed, both Government and Opposition members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee made it clear to the representatives of the Grenada Government that regular elections were an essential part of democracy.
Mr. Nigel Spearing indicated assent.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend confirms what I have said. If we accept that justification for an invasion, where will we end?
One of the most depressing aspects of this debate and of the two Government statements yesterday is that the Foreign Secretary has said nothing about the future. He has merely tried, inadequately, to justify his lack of action in the past. The Americans say that they will move out as quickly as they moved in. How many times have we heard that before? How many times have we seen American troops move in, intending to move out again quickly, but remaining not for weeks or months but in some cases for years? It is easy to move troops in; it is not so easy to move them out again.
I hope that the Foreign Secretary will make a clear declaration about what is to happen now. What has he done during the past few hours while he has been absent from the Chamber? What is he telling the Americans ought to happen in the future? The House would like to know that, even though the Government have acted pathetically in the past, they will be more resolute in the future.
Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend not agree that many Caribbean politicians made clear to the members of the Select Committee their regret that the United Kingdom had no firm policy in the area and their view that the United Kingdom's lack of enthusiasm was creating a political vacuum?
Mr. Foulkes: I endorse that point, which was also made earlier in the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) and in the report of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, where it received a pathetic response from the Government. If this is an example of the resolute approach that we hear so much about from the Government, this country is in a sorry state.
6.19 pm
Sir Peter Blaker: In February 1974 I visited Grenada as a junior Foreign Office Minister and handed over the instruments of independence. I have therefore followed with interest and concern the events in that country in recent weeks. I hope that Grenada will emerge from its recent travails in peace and with freedom. Apropos of the remarks of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnor and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), I should be very surprised if anybody except himself hopes to see Eric Gairy as Prime Minister again.
Mr. Foulkes: That "himself" is Sir Eric Gairy—not me.
Sir Peter Blaker: There is no comparison between the problem of the control of cruise missiles in this country and the situation in Grenada. The cruise missiles will come to this country at the invitation of the European countries. Their use will be governed by arrangements that have survived for more than 30 years and have been regarded as satisfactory by successive Labour and Conservative Governments. These arrangements have recently been
324
reviewed. They mean that no missiles can be fired or launched without the agreement of the British Prime Minister. I mean agreement, not consultation. Those arrangements have recently been confirmed as valid and satisfactory by both sides.
In contrast, Grenada is an independent country that lies close to the United States of America. As far as I know, there is no agreement or convention that obliges the United States to consult us about its actions in respect of that country. Nevertheless, the United States consulted us, and we advised it that we were against the action proposed. However, the Americans rejected our advice. The surprising fact is that some hon. Members—particularly Opposition Members—seem astonished that our advice is sometimes rejected by the United States. Many hon. Members seem to assume that we have the right to tell the United States what it should do, even about a country that is much closer to the United States than to us and to expect the United States to accept it. Some hon. Members have even described the Americans' rejection of our advice as a betrayal. That is farcical.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) said that the failure of Her Majesty's Government to prevent the American and Caribbean action was a dereliction of duty. Perhaps he did not think about what he said. If he thinks about it he will realise that he must have taken leave of his senses to say it. It cannot be a dereliction of duty that we made our views clear and that they were rejected — unwisely in my view — by the United States.
It is said that our advice should have been accepted in particular because Grenada is a Commonwealth country. But there are about 45 Commonwealth countries and that is one third of all the countries in the world. Is that proposition valid for them all? If so. we shall have much more influence in the world than we have had in recent times. It is to me a wholly novel doctrine that if the United States is concerned. in the formation of its foreign policy, with a Commonwealth country it must do what we say. I should very much welcome that, but it is very unlikely to happen. Indeed, just to propound the idea demonstrates that it is ridiculous.
Our action has shown that those who claim that this Government slavishly follow the policies of the American Government are wrong. We are not—in this case or in any other—the slavish supporters of the United States. Disagreements between the United States and this country from time to time are inevitable, because we are both free countries. Our relationship with the United States is not like that of Bulgaria with the Soviet Union. Bulgaria has no option but to do what it is told. We have our own view. There are bound to be differences between free countries just as there are differences between Members of free Parliaments. However, an association of free countries is in the long run much stronger than an association of countries that rests on compulsion, as does the Warsaw Pact.
The people of Grenada have not had a chance, during the past four years at least, to express their views. I do not think that they had much chance to express them under Eric Gairy before that. I hope that they will soon have the chance once more to express their views. I welcome the fact that Secretary of State Shultz has said that it is the intention of the United States to remove its forces from Grenada as soon as possible. I believe that it would be reasonable for the troops of the Caribbean countries

325
involved to remain somewhat longer, if that is the wish of the people of Grenada. I believe, too, that there may be a bigger role for the Commonwealth when we begin—I hope in the not-too-distant future—to set the scene for free elections in that country. It is clear, too, that there will be a role for the Governor-General in that election.
Finally, if the events of yesterday lead to the restoration of democracy in Grenada, some good will have come from this affair.
6.24 pm
Mr. Allan Roberts: In some respects Grenada is similar to Bootle. Give or take a couple of thousand, Grenada has roughly the same population and 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the people are practising Roman Catholics. The rest are Protestants, most of whom go to church. Before the curfews and the murder of Bishop, Whiteman and the other Ministers, one could see children wearing their church school uniforms going to church at 8 am or 8.30 am. The traditions of the Catholic church were introduced from Britain, and the traditions of the Church of England were safeguarded in Grenada under the Bishop regime. Thus, to say that there are similarities between Bootle and Grenada in the size of the population and in its attitude — despite the fact that the Grenadians are black and my constituents are of Irish descent—is not that far from the truth.
The subject of this debate is Grenada, but a parallel has already been drawn with Afghanistan. I am one of the few hon. Members to have visited both countries. Before any misconceptions about my attitude towards Afghanistan at the time of my visit and afterwards are thrown at me, I should like to quote from the press release that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Litherland) issued within two days of our return from that fact-finding visit:
"Our visit to Afghanistan has further reinforced our strongly held view that social change, social reforms and Socialism cannot be carried through or implemented by the gun and tank but only by consent and democratic processes through the ballot box. We call on the Soviet Government to withdraw its troops immediately from Afghanistan."
Social change, social reforms and Socialism cannot be implemented by the gun and the tank, nor can democracy be imposed on an independent sovereign country by a foreign country using the gun and the tank. That is exactly what is being attempted now, and it has its exact parallel in the Soviet position in Afghanistan. If the Foreign Secretary condemns one — just as I condemned Afghanistan after my visit—he must condemn the other.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that the one occupation is as bad as the other, he should take into account the nature of that occupation. The Americans — in my opinion, quite wrongly — seek to impose Western democracy on another country. However, only yesterday the press reported that the occupiers of Afghanistan had slaughtered hundreds of men and women and had bayoneted about 12 innocent children. Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the two forms of occupation are not in any way comparable?
Mr. Roberts: I also read that story in the The Guardian, which came from a rebel source and was not confirmed by other diplomatic sources. Therefore, we must put on one side the question whether there is any veracity in that report. If the stories are true, they are to
326
be condemned. However, I believe that democracy will not be restored and that there will not be an election in the foreseeable future in Grenada as a result of this invasion. I have visited Grenada and have traversed the terrain. It is just as it has been described by other Opposition Members, and it is very suitable for guerrilla activity. If troops go in with the gun and the tank to impose democracy, particularly given that small island's recent history, they are unlikely to succeed. Such action will probably result in a superimposed regime that is a puppet of the United States of America.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. JohnStevas) criticised my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) for making party political capital out of this issue. I thought that that was what the Americans were claiming they were trying to do in Grenada—create an environment in which there was an opposition that could make party political capital without which there is no democracy. I make no excuse for making party political capital out of this issue.
The right hon. Member for Chelmsford asked what we expect the Foreign Secretary to do. I believe that the Government and the Foreign Secretary should do three things. First, the Foreign Secretary should make the statement that was made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. The idea that because a person is in government he cannot speak the truth denigrates politics. If, as the right hon. Member for Chelmsford said, the Americans acted wrongly, the Foreign Secretary should say so.
Secondly, the Foreign Secretary should tell us that the British Government will condemn the American action and vote for a resolution along those lines in the United Nations. The Foreign Secretary should also tell the Americans to keep their cruise missiles, because we know now that we shall not be consulted before they are used.
Many myths have been presented about Grenada. When I was there, I told members of the Government — Maurice Bishop and Whiteman—that they should hold elections. I had no doubt when travelling the country as a tourist, not just as a parliamentarian, that it was a popular Government. If the Government had held an election, they would have won. We do not know why they did not.
I condemn the coup d'etat and the murders of Bishop, Whiteman and the others that led to the excuse for the American invasion. I am sure that the coup d'etat would not have occurred but for the destabilisation of Grenada and its economy by the American and British Governments. I have no doubt that the airport, which was planned when Grenada was a Commonwealth country under Sir Eric Gairy, would have been built by the Americans and the British if we had responded to Bishop's request. Bishop was forced to go to the Cubans because we cut off all assistance. Cubans are stationed there, but so are Canadians. Canada is one country that did not cut off aid. It has sent advisers there to reconstitute the cocoa crop. I believe that there are more Canadians than Cubans on Grenada. Bishop and his Government went anywhere they could to get help.
6.32 pm
Sir Anthony Kershaw: I hope that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Roberts) will forgive me if I do not follow his thoughts in the few minutes that I have. The interests and advantages of the state are what should inspire foreign policy. We must also allow the United

327
States that way of making up its mind. The United States was faced with the creation of a military airfield in a strategically sensitive part of the world. I do not go for the excuse that the Americans were rescuing their citizens because, like my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I do not believe that they were in danger. Nor do I go for the idea that we must divide the world into goodies and baddies. We must deal with goodies as well as baddies, and we must make our own policy.
The military airfield was important. It was provocative for Grenada and its backers to place that airport there and to dedicate it to an obvious use. This was bound to make the United States react. I suppose that Grenada and its backers thought that they could have it both ways. If the United States did nothing, it was threatened by a military airfield; if the United States reacted, Grenada had a good propaganda point. The United States had a good propaganda point, but it has had to pay a price for what it has done. It reasonably decided that its safety depended upon that action.
It is natural that there should be some difference between the policies of the British and the United States' Governments in that part of the world. We are much further away from Grenada than the United States and we have less influence, except historically and linguistically than we used to. A small proportion of our trade is with that part of the world. We must face the fact that our natural interests in that region are different from those of the United States.
It is not true to say that because our advice has been rejected on this occasion by the United States we cannot rely upon it ever to take our advice about cruise. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) said, the arrangements for cruise are entirely different. In that matter our interests are the same, whereas in Grenada our interests are different from those of the United States.
If we can remember after this crisis that fundamentally we and the United States and the safety of us both depend upon our understanding each other and on co-operation then this setback will not have been entirely bad.
6.35 pm
Mr. Healey: The House must agree that this has been a worthwhile debate, although it has brought little comfort to the Government, who were described by a senior Conservative Back Bencher with Foreign Office experience as being guilty of a pallid abdication of duty. That is a reasonable description of the Government's behaviour.
We heard a thoughtful maiden speech from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) which was informed by his great experience of foreign affairs. We look forward to hearing him again.
From the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) we had his familiar impersonation of General de Gaulle, and there was an equally familiar performance from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) as Obadiah Slope.
I am afraid that the Foreign Secretary did little this afternoon to redeem his reputation. He made it clear that there was imminent risk of military intervention by the United States in Grenada since the United States was issued with the formal invitation by the east Caribbean
328
Commonwealth countries at their meeting in Barbados. Barbados was obviously involved in it, although not a member of the organisation.
It is a reasonable belief that the invitation to the United States Government was formal, unlike the invitation to the British Government, according to the Foreign Secretary, because the United States had put these countries up to it. It had organised the invitation.
The Government have made it clear—or have they? Yes, they have—in the past three days that they thought the United State's planned course of action was disastrously mistaken, but when the imminence of possible invasion was apparent to everyone except the Foreign Secretary the Government did nothing about it for three whole days.
It is not surprising, therefore, that President Reagan was able to tell American Senators on Monday that the British Government were in support of his course of action. The Government should have recognised the danger. There were many courses open to them. They could have mobilised opposition from Commonwealth countries, not just in the Caribbean, such as Trinidad and Belize, but from Canada, which has strongly condemned the action in the past 24 hours, and from friendly countries in the area outside the Commonwealth, such as Mexico, which has been compelled, at some risk to its position, to condemn the action in the Security Council debate.
The real charge against the Government is that they had formed a view of the circumstances. They believed that the Americans were wrong, that the Americans might be invading an independent state in the Commonwealth, but they did absolutely nothing to prevent it. In other words, they have replaced megaphone diplomacy with doormat diplomacy.
No one who has listened to the Foreign Secretary during the past three days can fail to reach the conclusion that throughout the whole miserable affair the Government have shown themselves lacking in grip, fibre and resolution and, like the pusillanimous pussyfooting of the Foreign Secretary in trying to explain how he did not really agree with the Americans, but did not think it proper to say so, their behaviour must be profoundly distasteful to anyone who cares for the dignity of Great Britain in world affairs.
Unless the Foreign Secretary can assure us when he replies that the Government, who will be called upon to express a view at the end of the Security Council debate which is now under way, are prepared to express their opposition to American policy and to call for the immediate withdrawal of the invading forces, as they did under similar circumstances over the Falklands 18 months ago, I shall ask the House to vote against the motion.
6.39 pm
Sir Geoffrey Howe: By leave of the House, Mr. Speaker, I begin my reply to the debate by joining the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) in welcoming my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) and congratulating him on his contribution to our debate. I endorse what the right hon. Gentleman said—that my hon. Friend made a distinguished, well-informed contribution to a debate on a subject about which he knows a great deal, and we look forward to hearing him again.
I must tell the House about the circumstances that have arisen in Grenada during the course of the day. We have heard from the high commission in Barbados that it is once

329
again possible for civilians to go safely to Grenada. The first such civilians that we shall be sending will be a consular team to determine the whereabouts and circumstances of British citizens on the island and to explore the possibilities of bringing out those who may wish to leave. That news in itself is a promising development.
During the debate, the wisdom of the action of the United States Government and of our own position has been investigated and questioned from a number of different points of view. It is no part of my intention today to defend each and every attitude of the United States Government, but I shall address myself to the questions raised about the actions of Her Majesty's Government.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), in his thoughtful analysis, suggested that all questions of this kind should be considered by reference to one criterion—whether the action being taken or not taken serves the ultimate outcome of the great ideological conflict, which he says prevails in the world. He said that there was room in this matter for only one view. It must be said that in the conflict that is taking place between the democracies of the West and of the Soviet Union and her allies, judgments must also he made about the proper place and position of independent states and of the interests of those independent states, including, for example, those in the Caribbean which do not agree with the action of the United States.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) drew attention to the fact that there were special reasons for the United States to take a different view, together with some of the other Caribbean states, on what ought to be done in this case. We did not agree with that, and clearly expressed a different position. My right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion—in the phrase that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East sought to mobilise in his speech about a "pallid abdication of duty" —suggested that once we had formed a view different from that of the United States we should have expressed our dissent more loudly and vigorously. I understand those who take that view.
However, I do not believe that it would have served my right hon. Friend's purpose, or this country's, or the common interests of ourselves and of the United States, for us to have amplified and magnified our views. We could not have done more to make our position clear. There was no need to do more in the way that is suggested.
Mr. Amery: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will understand that when I said that there were two courses open all that I was anxious to do was to prevent him falling between two stools.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: No such preventative was necessary. We made our position clear.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) put his argument in the simple analysis with which he urged the Government, on the one hand, to avoid undue fondness and, on the other, to avoid undue loathing. It should be clear from the way in which we have approached this affair that we were not following either position. Our view was not the same as that of the Americans, as we made clear to them. There was no question of undue fondness unfluencing our judgment in that respect.
Those who have spoken from the Opposition Benches include the leader of the Liberal party. The right hon.
330
Gentleman showed some understanding of the difficulties of the decision that faced the United States and the Caribbean countries to intervene in Grenada, but he questioned the wisdom of their action and its legal justification. In reply, it must be said that it is primarily for those who have carried out the operation, not Her Majesty's Government, to undertake a detailed justification of their action.
Taking account of all the legal and practical considerations, and of the interests of our citizens and their safety in these circumstances, we came to a different conclusion, as I explained to the House. We would not dispute that a state has the right in international law to take appropriate action to safeguard the lives of its citizens where there has been a breakdown of law and order, nor that there is any provision in the charter of the United States that makes it unlawful to take such action. Those are the considerations that no doubt the United States and those acting with it must have had in mind. We took a different view of all the circumstances that apply in this case.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East also asked about the attitude that we should be adopting towards action in the United Nations. In his first speech he offered a prescription for the kind of action that we should have taken, and he reinforced that in his second contribution. He argued that we should plainly condemn the action that has been taken and call for the withdrawal of United States forces. That is not a position that her Majesty's Government find it appropriate to adopt.
This action has now been taken by a number of countries which are our allies. It has been taken for reasons which it is for them to explain, but, above all, to initiate and carry through a process for restoring the prospect of democracy in a Commonwealth country. As I said earlier., the forces of a number of Commonwealth countries, as well as those of the United States, are now engaged in action to achieve that end. It would not serve the prospect of restoring democracy in Grenada if we were now to urge the withdrawal of forces engaged in that process.
The final form of the resolution that will be discussed in the United Nations has not become clear. All that we have seen so far is the first draft of the first resolution to be tabled. I make it plain that we shall not be supporting that resolution. When we see the final shape of the resolution, I shall be in a position to form the view of Her Majesty's Government, and the House of Commons will be able to judge that then.
Mr. Robert Hughes rose——
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Apart from those who have questioned the positon in that way, there are those on the Labour Benches, and the right hon. Member for Leeds, East is one, who have paid scant regard to the way in which what is now taking place will affect the prospects for democracy and constitutional rule in Grenada and little attention to the interests and legitimate concern expressed by other Commonwealth countries. Grenada's neighbours are concerned about the way in which the island was being and would be run in the light of the latest coup. Labour Members who have concentrated on attacking the United States and its President are wrong. Such attacks are of no service to the interests of this country or of any other country.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Find somebody else for the job.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: In our assessment of our reaction to this decision there is no question of our taking any blind view of fidelity to the United States. We have formed our judgment of the prospects, we have expressed our view that the action should not have been undertaken and we have not initiated action to support it. It could only be a matter for regret that Labour Members have relished the deployment of an anti-American case for its own sake.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East said that it was not anti-American to suggest that President Reagan had broken the whole post-war tradition of acting on the basis of co-operation and consensus with the allies. He argued, in an absurd phrase, that the President of the United States is following a unilateralist policy which is creating danger for the world. It must be clear that the right hon. Gentleman has been delighted, to his shame, to use this debate as an occasion for pandering to anti-American sentiments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Indeed, in his speech the right hon. Gentleman seemed more concerned to attack the United States Administration than to discuss Grenada.
As for the claim that President Reagan has broken with the whole post-war tradition of acting in concert with the allies, that is, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, an entirely facile and unworthy proposition. As has been said in this debate, there have been differences in the past between the views taken by the allies, and there have been differences between the views taken by the United States and Great Britain. There have been such differences, and there will be such differences again, because they are inevitable in any alliance. It is an inevitable feature, because the North Atlantic Alliance is one of free states committed, among other things, to defend their right to disagree with one another. Would that such a right were defended by the Warsaw pact, where dissent is crushed by tanks before a day or two have passed. If there were such a change in the position within the North Atlantic Alliance, we should acquire the characteristics of the Warsaw pact. That might suit some Opposition Members, but it must be said that it does not serve the interests of the British people.
The suggestion that the American Administration are following a unilateralist policy — which Opposition Members normally support and which on this occasion crept into the speech of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East — is absolute rubbish. The close consultation between the members of the Alliance—[Interruption]—remains still an essential purpose of the Alliance.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, East also talked about servility. That, too, is utter nonsense. It is demonstrated by the fact that we disagreed with the view of the United States on this occasion and did not participate in the intervention. We formed our own conclusions. There is no trace of servility there.
I invite the House to reject the motion.
Hon. Members: "Resign."
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 336.
Question accordingly negatived.

Civil Defence
7.5 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that it will be convenient to discuss also the following:
The draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983.
The draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1983.
The draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 1983.
Mr. Hurd: Before I deal with the regulations, I shall describe briefly the civil defence policy into which they fit. It is a great pity that discussion of civil defence should be too often distorted by polemics which really belong elsewhere. Because of the horrors involved in any outbreak of war people are naturally reluctant to think clearly about civil defence. This makes it an easy subject for vague political emotion and a difficult subject for rational debate. If we could drain some of the politics out of the discussion on civil defence, which is our aim, we could see it for what it is — a humanitarian and commonsense effort to reduce suffering and loss of life in the unlikely event of a conventional or nuclear attack upon this country.
The first duty of a Government is, of course, to keep the peace. This Government believe that their policies for defence and for multilateral disarmament are well calculated to keep the peace. They have done so and will continue to do so. This is not the place to argue those policies so I shall simply add one point. Ours is not a policy of piling up armaments for their own sake. Tomorrow my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be speaking to the first committee of the General Assembly of the United Nations about our concept of multilateral disarmament. Having held his position until a few months ago, I believe that there is a reasonable chance of agreement on multilateral disarmament in the medium term provided that we do not lose our nerve and begin to dismantle our defences without a satisfactory agreement with the Soviet Union.
But whatever defence policy was adopted by the Government, there would be some risk that it might break down. We in Britain believe that we are safest with a deterrent and with full membership of the Atlantic Alliance. Sweden and Switzerland believe that they are safest without nuclear weapons and with a neutral status. We have a civil defence programme. The Swedes and Swiss have a civil defence programme. In rational debate about this uncertain world there should be no argument about the need for civil defence in case defence policy were to break down. But if there is to be civil defence it might as well be effective, and that is the aim of these draft regulations.
Under the 1948 Act, civil defence deals with armed attack. During the lifetime of this Parliament we shall change the legislation to carry out the undertaking in our election manifesto
"to enable civil defence funds to be used in safeguarding peacetime emergencies as well as against hostile attacks".
Obviously this change cannot be made through regulations. It must wait for a Bill in future Sessions of this

337
Parliament. It nevertheless remains as a firm statement of intent designed to underpin our argument that civil defence is essentially a humanitarian policy.
If, against our expectation, the deterrent were to break down there would be a wide range of possible actions by the enemy who attacked us. There might be a period of conventional warfare, at the end of which diplomacy would stop the war. There might be a strike, as a demonstration, by a single nuclear weapon and such a weapon might be either small or big. Such a strike might be directed against a city or a military target. If hostilities went beyond a single strike a number of nuclear weapons might then be used, big or small, but no one can be sure which targets the enemy would choose.
Mr. Reg Freeson: What does the Minister mean by referring to the use of a small nuclear weapon? Will he define that a little more closely?
Mr. Hurd: For example, the SS20—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise the thinking on this matter. We are now faced with the possibility of smaller, more accurate weapons. All these are mights. Civil defence must cope with a wide range of possibilities.
Mr. Ioan Evans: In the parlance of nuclear weapons, which are now a thousand times more destructive than the one dropped on Hiroshima, is not that bomb referred to as a small nuclear weapon?
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is Missing the point. There is a wide range of possibilities, beginning with conventional warfare and stretching to a massive nuclear attack. Civil defence must deal with that range.
We are sometimes asked to be more precise in making assumptions about the expected scale and direction of attack. Of course it would be convenient in debate and planning if we could do so but the targets chosen and the methods used would depend not on us but on the political and military strategy of the enemy. In drawing up our plans we must provide the best information available to us so that planners can do their work effectively. But the range of possibilities in the unlikely event of attack is so wide that it would be wrong to start making up lists of targets or guiding the planners with arbitrary sets of assumptions.
It will in practice be necessary for every community and every major service to have a civil defence capacity. Areas which do not suffer the direct effects of attack may need to prepare against the indirect effects. Areas which suffer no effects will want to give support to those that are affected. So, although it would be convenient to be more precise, it would also in our judgment be intellectually dishonest.
Critics of civil defence often home in on the worst option as if it were the only one. But of course it is not. I cannot understand the logic of people who say—they have been saying it again in the past few days—that, because the consequences of a massive nuclear attack would be horrific, there is no point in planning, through civil defence, to deal with conventional warfare or a single nuclear strike. Civil defence would be justified for those purposes alone, even if it were true that there was nothing to be done by anybody in the event of a massive nuclear attack.
In fact, that is not true. In any nuclear attack there would be great destruction, enormous casualties and
338
unspeakable suffering. I need to say that obvious thing because the Government are sometimes accused of using civil defence to make nuclear warfare acceptable, as something that could be contemplated without horror. That is rubbish. Any form of modern warfare, particularly nuclear warfare, would be so terrible that it must be the first job of a Government to prevent it. I entirely agree with a sentence in a recent report of the Royal College of Nursing, which said that the prevention of the use of nuclear weapons is infinitely preferable to planning for the aftermath of their use. But the two thoughts are not contradictory—prevention of use and planning for the aftermath of use. The two thoughts go together.
However great the casualties in a nuclear attack, there would be millions of survivors. The ultimate survival and well-being of those millions would depend in large part on peacetime planning and training. That is what civil defence is about.
Mr. Alex Carlile: If the right hon. Gentleman is so much in favour of civil defence for the protection of the public, will he explain why, in the general local authority functions regulations, there is no provision for a single new structure for the protection of the public? Indeed, paragraph 4 of schedule 2 merely provides for the protection of the public, as opposed to the officials, by the utilisation of existing buildings and structures.
Mr. Hurd: I shall deal with that point when I come to the regulations themselves.
I should like to add a further few words about casualty estimates, because there has been a good deal of recent discussion on this matter. All estimates are bound to be uncertain and no one should claim a monopoly of wisdom. Much of the research and evidence comes from the United States and should be examined in the light of British conditions — for example, British houses tend to be somewhat more solid than American houses. [Interruption.] Why the giggles? Let us try to deal with facts.
The Home Office is carrying out further research, both into blast effects and radiation, and we hope to publish our findings on both during 1984. Others have been active in this work—for example, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Nursing.
I wish to refer at this point to the recent BMA report because of an episode connected with its publication. The reasons that I have already given about the range of risks show that we do not accept all the assumptions about the nature of an attack which are made in the BMA report. However, I was sad and sorry that a letter sent from the Home Office in April was taken by the authors of the BMA report as reflecting on their professional integrity. That was not the intention and I am indeed sorry that it should have had that effect.
Last week my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security and I had a very useful discussion with the BMA at which this point was raised. We asked the BMA to co-operate in planning to improve our medical preparedness in case of war, and the BMA agreed. I am glad to say that detailed discussions will now go ahead. We held a separate and similar meeting with the Royal College of Nursing and it, too, is to help in elaborating our medical plans. That is all good news.
Civil defence must be a partnership between central and local government, and local authorities have a vital role,

339
because theirs is the local knowledge and theirs are the resources that would have to be used and built upon in crises and in war. The existing civil defence planning regulations of 1974 and the 1975 Scottish equivalent put direct responsibility for civil defence on county, Scottish regional authorities and the Greater London council, while requiring districts to provide any information for which counties and the GLC ask in helping them to make plans.
As a result of the home defence review, the Government provided in 1980 for a substantial increase in expenditure and effort in civil defence. A number of authorities have since done as much as has been required of them and I should like to thank and congratulate them on their efforts. Others, unfortunately, have decided to pay no more than lip-service to civil defence, with the result that in many areas planning, training and exercises have been neglected.
We had hoped that encouragement, persuasion, advice and the allocation of more money to civil defence would lead to greater effort by these councils, but in several areas of the country this has not happened. Despite our efforts there are local authorities where plans are not kept in a state which would allow them quickly to be put into practice, where headquarters are not identified and equipped, where little or no training or exercising takes place and where little progress has been made in establishing community and voluntary organisations.
We believe that the Government have a responsibility to the country as a whole to bring about an acceptable level of civil defence everywhere. That is why we have introduced these draft regulations, which will place new, stronger and more precise obligations on all authorities.
The local authority associations and the Greater London council were consulted in drafting these regulations. A consultative paper was circulated to them. A draft followed and the Government received deputations representing each of the bodies we consulted. We listened and where we felt it right we made changes — in particular, a controversial requirement for local authority staff to perform civil defence duties has been dropped.
If Parliament approves the draft regulations we will issue an explanatory circular of guidance. This will need to be in the hands of local authorities as soon as the regulations come into effect, but I am proposing meanwhile to meet the GLC and local authority associations during November to consider the circular.
The draft regulations, of course, deal with local authorities as they now exist and will continue to exist for some time to come. The Government have this month published their White Paper "Streamlining the Cities" in which they propose among other things that boroughs and district councils should take over the present civil defence duties of the GLC and metropolitan counties and should be required to consult each other. Obviously there needs to be much further discussion of this and it will be some time before these proposals are in effect. We would not have been justified in holding up the present draft regulations on civil defence further. The work which the GLC and metropolitan counties will be required to do under these draft regulations can be bequeathed in good order to the authorities which will take over their civil defence functions.
The House is considering this evening two sets of regulations to cover England and Wales, the first setting
340
out civil defence functions, the second dealing with grant. Two other sets of regulations make similar provision for Scotland.
Sir Peter Emery: My right hon. Friend talked about a partnership between local and central Government, but should there not be a triumvirate between local government, central Government and the massive pool of volunteers who would come forward to assist if civil defence were properly organised? Will he look particularly at what has happened with the Devon emergency volunteers? There, more than 5,000 people, with very little aid from the local authority, have come forward to try to train themselves for emergencies of this nature.
Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right and I shall be dealing with the role of volunteers. It is vital to underline that the whole enterprise, now and in the future, will depend to a large extent on volunteers, and it is highly satisfactory and a commentary on some of the artificial argument that goes on that so many thousands of people are willing to come forward as volunteers for civil defence.
The differences between these draft regulations and the 1974 regulations which they replace are that the 1974 regulations require local authorities only to make contingency plans, whereas the new regulations require them to keep their plans up to date. The importance of this is obvious. Old plans gathering dust in a filing cabinet are not likely to be much use. The activities for which plans are required are listed in schedule 2 and follow fairly closely the 1974 list.
There are, however, three new activities for which plans are to be prepared. Councils are asked to plan for using existing buildings as civil defence shelters for the public. That is new. They are asked to plan for a rescue service, and they are asked to plan for the participation of voluntary organisations and volunteers. A working party is now considering how the training of volunteers across the country can be made more uniform than it is at present, and Sir Leslie Mayor is in charge of that co-ordination.
Local authorities will also be required to provide emergency centres properly equipped with communications and other equipment. They will have a duty to train and exercise staff and to organise, train and exercise volunteers.
The Government are not thinking of, and have never thought of, any form of conscription of local government staff for civil defence. It is for the local authorities themselves, as employers, to decide how best to meet the requirements of the regulations, so the regulations deliberately place no specific obligation on individual staff members.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I understood the Minister to say that there was no compulsion on local authorities. I had the impression that local authority chief executives would take on the role of civil defence agents in an emergency. Who will provide the training for the trainers if the obligation is placed on them to provide training?
Mr. Hurd: I said that there was no obligation on individual local authority staff members. There are, of course, obligations on local authorities. That is what the draft regulations are about. The civil defence college at

341
Easingwold, near York, is the place where a wide range of courses and training is carried out, including that for the chief executives who might have to become controllers in the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman has in mind.
Powers exist in case a local authority fails or refuses to discharge any functions conferred on it. These powers derive from section 2(2)(c) of the Civil Defence Act 1948, of the post-war Labour Government. In those circumstances the Minister can either himself discharge the civil defence functions which have been neglected or authorise some other authority or person, for example a comissioner, to do so. In both cases this would be at the expense of the defaulting authority.
The powers exist, and if it becomes absolutely necessary we shall use them rather than see citizens of this country deprived of civil defence. But I wish to make it absolutely clear that we have no appetite for using these powers. We are not spoiling for a fight. We want to use reason and persuasion to achieve effective civil defence for this country. Because this is essentially a humanitarian policy, it can be separated from polemics on other matters. It should not be a matter of political colour. We hope that all responsible local authorities, whatever their political views, can co-operate in civil defence. We shall allow fair and reasonable time for this to be accomplished and at every stage we shall consult and remain open to suggestions.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Am I correct in saying that it is the chief executive who is in charge and that no elected representative is in charge of local civil defence but that they are all paid officials?
Mr. Hurd: I think that my hon. Friend is talking about the final stage of an attack when power is devolved to the controllers, and the elected representatives would act in an advisory capacity at that stage.
I must add a word about money, because much of the recent argument has revolved round that subject. The grant regulations before the House change existing grant regulations by extending the area of activity entitled to a 100 per cent. grant-aid compared with the present 75 per cent. The increased grant-aid of 100 per cent. will apply to communications and directly related equipment, the training and exercising of staff and the expenses of volunteers. Other civil defence activities remain entitled to grant-aid at 75 per cent. In addition, I can say that the Government will exempt additonal expenditure on civil defence by local authorities in 1983–84 from grant holdback which might otherwise be incurred.
Total central and local government spending on civil defence this year is expected to be about £69 million, of which about £15 million will be spent by local authorities. Additional public spending as a result of these new regulations is not expected to be more than about £2 million, more than three-quarters of which will be met by Home Office grant. Given the provisions which I have just explained, it cannot, I think, be argued that these requirements add in any significant way to the financial difficulties which local authorities may now face.
Mr. Stuart Holland rose—
Mr. Hurd: I suspect that I am about to cover the point the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise.
I know that some local authorities are anxious that the new regulations will require them to build, at huge cost,
342
emergency centres. That is not the case. Local authorities are required by the draft regulations simply to designate existing premises which can offer enough protection against the effects of attack to enable essential local civil defence services to be continued. The Home Office will continue its present practice of approving for grant-aid schemes of reasonable cost for the adaptation, strengthening and equipping of such premises. That is what the requirement in the draft regulations has in mind. The costs of this work, as the experience of the authorities which have already been undertaking it shows, will be tens rather than hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister seems proud of the fact that a sum of about £2 million will not add significantly to costs. Does he realise that it will not add significantly to civil defence? The British Medical Association has estimated that it will cost £180 billion, about two thirds of total national income, to blast-proof accommodation for the nation as a whole. He must realise that. by the same token that the sum is insignificant, the defence is non-existent.
Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman is missing the point. We are not requiring local authorities to spend millions or billions of pounds on new resources. We are requiring them to plan effectively for the use of the resources which they already have, and buildings are an obvious example. We want them to plan so that, for example, buildings can be used to save lives and protect people while services are maintained in time of war. We are not asking for new expenditure on infrastructure. We are looking for intelligent and co-ordinated planning for the use of present resources. That is the basis of our civil defence policy and I think that it is a reasonable one.
Mr. Ioan Evans rose—
Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have given way to him already.
I have set out the responsibilities which we propose central and local government should assume for the better protection of those whom we represent. The proposals are modest in scope and I accept that it would be possible to do more, as some of my hon. Friends will doubtless urge. There is no lack of good ideas for using extra resources on civil defence and I look forward with interest to suggestions in this debate. However, as my hon. Friends know, we have to balance the preparations that we make and the money that we spend against the present low risk of war, and we do not believe that that risk is increasing.
We judge that the balance is about right. The concentration of our policy is on persuading and requiring the authorities concerned to plan intelligently for the use in wartime of the resources they already possess.
I suggest that this will be regarded as a policy of common sense and humanity by those who think clearly about it. That seems to be accepted by many thousands of citizens who volunteer already for various civil defence duties. For example, two weekends ago nearly 900 posts of the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation were manned for an exercise by volunteers of the Royal Observer Corps. They tested the equipment and the procedures which would warn us of attack and which would be used to calculate its impact. Nearly 9,000 volunteers gave up most of their Saturday night to this exercise throughout the country. I visited some of the posts

343
and they seemed a far cry from the heated arguments which have crippled so much public discussion on civil defence. The exercise was just an acceptd fact of service to the community for those who took part in it and who take part month in and month out in this voluntary activity.
If the worst were to come to the worst, of course everyone would help—
Mr. Ioan Evans: We would all be dead.
Mr. Hurd: It would not matter to the survivors how they had voted, what their professional bodies had said, or whether their local authority had called their town or village a nuclear-free zone. If the worst came to the worst, all that would be irrelevant. In those circumstances the survivors would turn out and help. As that is so, there is surely everything to be said for planning and training which would make that help not haphazard but effective. That is the purpose of civil defence and of the draft regulations, which I commend to the House.
7.36 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: The most memorable sentence used by the Minister of State in commending the regulations to the House was the poignant assurance that the Government are not spoiling for a fight with local authorities over civil defence regulations. That raised in the minds of my hon. Friends and myself the thought that, as the Government are spoiling for a fight with local authorities over everything else, it is surprising that they have decided to exempt them in this particular.
I agree with the Minister on one issue to which he addressed himself at the beginning of his speech. It is entirely undesirable that the preparation of civil defence and the promulgation of civil defence regulations should be used as a vehicle for arguments about defence and disarmament. I know that the Government have claimed, and I knew that the Minister would claim, that much of the opposition to these regulations and to the regulations which preceded them, about which the Minister gave a less than concise and clear description, has been whipped up by the campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament. I know that the Minister believes, and that the previous Secretary of State for the Home Department, Viscount Whitelaw, used to claim, that opponents of nuclear defence seized the opportunity of Operation Hardrock to demonstrate their influence and power, thereby setting in train a series and sequence of events which have led to the regulations.
As I have said on many occasions during the past three months, I am not a believer in what is called unilateral nuclear disarmament. I am not a supporter or member of CND. However, if civil defence has been politicised, it has not been because of the actions of those who take the unilateral nuclear disarmers' view. When the preceding regulations were promulgated two years ago, the Government regarded the civil defence debate as part of their campaign for Britain's defence, the Alliance of which Britain is a member, and their attack on some forms of local government autonomy and independence.
The Minister will recall that the Minister of State who was answerable to Viscount Whitelaw said, as recently as 7 August, that our civil defence policy is part of our defence strategy. If Ministers who are responsible for these matters are to argue in those terms, the Minister of
344
State must not be surprised when those who take a different view want to argue their case. They do not want to argue it in terms of compassion, protection, defending or looking after those who might be at the periphery of some unintentional nuclear horror; they want to address themselves to the general strategic considerations that the Minister and his colleagues have introduced into the debate. The right hon. Gentleman must not be surprised if the process started by the Government is emphasised and accepted by local authorities as a propaganda rather than a civil defence effort, especially when those local authorities judge that what the Government propose is by all standards unrealistic and unobtainable.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: How can the right hon. Gentleman say with any degree of sincerity that the Government are politicising the debate when Labour-controlled councils have declared themselves nuclear-free zones?
Mr. Hattersley: I remind the hon. Gentleman, who I am sure is an expert on these matters, of the preceding regulations. They required massive preparations to be made for evacuating major cities. They also required an arbitrary insertion into every local authority employee's contract—whatever their terms of service—of a legal obligation to carry out civil defence duties. Who would be surprised if the Greater London council, if the hon. Gentleman will excuse the expression, considered a proposal which required it to evacuate the population of London into the home counties and said, "Surely the Government cannot be stupid enough to believe that this is practical; they must be doing this for reasons of propaganda"?
Mr. Hurd: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House where such a proposal appeared?
Mr. Hattersley: It appeared in the original regulations. The Minister must know that perfectly well.
I congratulate the Minister on bringing about two changes which I very much welcome—the removal of any sort of evacuation and the removal of the coercion of local authority employees. It is not only the unilateral nuclear disarmers among local councillors who believe that the Government are engaged in an exercise of propaganda. The practical men and women who run county halls and town halls have said that the Government's proposals are not feasible. I shall allow the Minister to receive confirmation from his predecessor, the Solicitor-General, that my reference to the previous regulations is correct. When he has done so, I shall gladly give way to him again. If he does not wish to intervene now, I have no doubt that he will deal with the matter when he replies.
The Minister of State cannot be surprised if practical men and women in local government say that this cannot be a real proposal and that it is concerned with argument rather than with protection. The regulations that we are debating today, barely less than those that have been abandoned, lack the reality that would make them an instrument of compassion and humanitarian policy as distinct from the propaganda that I believe they are. When the new obligations are examined, it is difficult not to believe that the revision and the proposals were put forward by the Government as part of a general argument about defence. I shall deal with that point initially.

345
The Minister of State complains that those who reject the regulations insist on arguing about what he describes as the worst case, but his colleagues who advocated them have also argued in terms that Opposition Members, whether we believe in unilateral or multilateral disarmament, find unreasonable as well as terrifying. They are based on the concept of surviving and possibly even winning a nuclear war. My commitment to collective security within NATO is no less than that of the Minister of State, but it is based on the belief that our strategy is intended to prevent, not to win, a war. It is based on the belief that our strategy is intended to talk not about survival after the holocaust, but surviving the holocaust. It is difficult for us to support the theory of a deterrent unless we are confident that the deterrent deters, yet the basis of the regulations is on a different principle and a different plane.
Mr. Keith Best: Can the right hon. Gentleman not see that the concept of deterrence has two areas? The first is the threat of imposing unacceptable losses—the pugnacious nature of deterrence. The second is demonstrating that any attack by a potential aggressor would not inflict the damage that the aggressor thinks it might. Therefore, civil defence is as much a part of the concept of deterrence as any offensive posture might be.
Mr. Hattersley: I understand that theory, but that is not the most persuasive argument that I have heard about the possession of nuclear weapons. Their possession may result in 50 million or 60 million dead and 500 million or 600 million mortally wounded. The argument is that as long as the other side realise that the damage is containable, perhaps it will not attack. That is not the most persuasive argument that I have ever heard. I urge Lady Olga Maitland not to include it in her armoury in favour of NATO and collective security.
More important than that is the offence caused to practical men and women in local government who believe that they are required to become an arm of a Government publicity machine. Not only elected Labour councillors hold that view. I shall quote the opinion of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives. The Minister of State will confirm my opinion that the chief executives of local authorities are not notorious for their revolutionary tendencies. On this occasion, they were meeting under the chairmanship of the chief executive of the Isle of Wight. They came to this conclusion about the Government's civil defence regulations:
"While the risk of war between nations continues to exist it is logical to maintain an appropriate degree of Civil Defence at home for the population."
We all agree with that. The chief executives continue:
"We consider current levels of civil defence in this country and expenditure upon it to be inadequate, particularly in relation to defence expenditure as a whole. We complain of the approach which over-emphasises the deterrent aspects of Civil Defence and,in the local government context, fails to stress it as a humanitarian service provided by local authorities for the community."
The chief executives of the local authorities complained of the relationship that the Government are creating between civil defence and deterrence. The county councils, in which the Labour party is barely represented, said:
"The Association is equally concerned over the damaging impact of new regulations upon public opinion which could be seen as misleading them on the work to be done when the reality of the achievement is so small."
346
This package is concerned with the Government's philosophy rather than the principle on which the regulations should be based.
I hope that the Minister of State will say more about the evacuation proposals. Is he saying that no mass movement of people out of our large cities was intended? Was not that one of the things that prejudiced the people and local authorities? Is he saying that while the shelters that were considered are being abandoned, which is another welcome change, we are required, if the regulations are passed, to provide structures that the local government associations and members of all parties represented in local government regard as an impractical absurdity? During his speech, perhaps provoked by an intervention, the Minister of State said that all that the councils were required to do, when the regulations were passed, was to convert existing buildings into emergency control centres of some sort. I understand that if the regulations are passed the Greater London council will be required to produce five, the county councils two each and the boroughs one each. In the contentious language that the debate has adopted, some of the local authorities described those centres as "bunkers". That may be an inappropriate description. The Minister of State described them as emergency centres. He should tell us a little about what they are in reality.
An emergency centre may be a room in a primary school, which those of us who are old enough can remember from 1945, at the end of the war. A bunker seems to be a more expensive operation. I am told that if the regulations are passed, the law will require the provision of centres at considerable cost. The Minister of State will tell me if I am wrong, but I am advised that the borough of Southport—progressive, I am sure, in every particular—has anticipated the regulations and produced something like that. It cost £200,000. Does he want that to happen in every borough, with five in the GLC area and two each for the county councils? What is the expected cost of those centres?
What is more, what is the purpose of those centres? If a centre is no more than a place where individuals congregate, what is the practical effect when atomic and nuclear weapons have exploded in the United Kingdom? What is the reality of the proposals? That is what we are talking about.
The British Medical Association gave a judgment of what might happen if a nuclear war convulsed the United Kingdom. It said that the National Health Service could not deal with the casualties that might be expected following the detonation of one megaton weapon over the United Kingdom. It follows that multiple nuclear explosions over several—possibly many—cities would force a breakdown in medical services.
What will be the operation of the centres? What is their real purpose? What is their practical value? How will they be constructed? What are they supposed to do? Unless practical answers are given to those questions, no one will believe that the Minister of State is proposing something for practical compassion. No one will believe it unless the Minister gives reassuring and rational answers about how the money is to be provided for all those services.
The regulations allow 100 per cent. grants for only a limited number of the new obligations, such as maintaining communications equipment, training and the expense of the volunteers. Following amendment of the original proposals, those centres are the nub of the new

347
regulations. I am not sure whether money will be available for them. They are the big change and the new item that has been inserted. They are the thing of substance. No one believes that the change has been brought about because the local authorities failed to keep their contingency plans up to date.
I am advised by lawyers—I am not a lawyer—that if the principal concern of the Government is that the local authorities that constructed civil defence plans 10 years ago are not revising them in the light of the new circumstances, then they could have been obliged by the existing regulations to revise them and bring them up to date.
How much will the centres cost and who will be responsible for each part of the costs incurred? We have been told that there is no money available for acquiring land or for building emergency centres. Is money available for the subsidiary costs involved in the training of volunteers? I say "subsidiary costs" because I understand perfectly well that if a person wishes to abandon his normal local authority duties to attend a civil defence training course, the costs of the course will be met by the Government. What happens back in the town or county hall? Who looks after the job of the person who has gone on the training course? The local authority associations asked the Minister's predecessor how such a cost was to be met, but they have received no reply.
Nor did they receive an answer to the practical question, which I emphasise again, of who contributes to the judgment of whether the Government were after something which helped the dead and the dying or whether they were concerned with making a political point.
Mr. Bill Walker: The right hon. Gentleman asked who would pay the costs occurring from people being away from work. Would he consider those who are territorials and volunteer reservists who leave their employment and undertake other duties? How are their employers recompensed?
Mr. Hattersley: There is no obligation on local authorities to provide a territorial battalion in each town hall. If each council were required to raise a yeomanry regiment and to give men and women time off to do whatever those regiments do, such a question would be proper and germane. Since that is not the case, the hon. Gentleman's question is irrelevant. Councils are required to give time off to volunteers to provide them with the training that they need. Somebody must meet that bill.
The Minister also said that the money spent by local authorities would not be reduced or taken off any grant they might receive from the Government. The Minister must give an unequivocal assurance that the spending of local authorities on civil defence matters, if these regulations come into operation, will not be used in the calculations which might at the end of the year designate an individual council as an overspender, and therefore penalise the council for spending more than the Government regard as appropriate.
The Secretary of State for the Environment is urging councils to spend less and threatening them with dire penalties if they do not. The position would be intolerable if the Home Office were placing new statutory obligations on councils without providing compensatory funds and
348
using the new money they require to spend as part of the calculation which might result in their eventual penalisation.
The Opposition will not be convinced of the practical necessity of the scheme unless the Government make radical revisions in what they have done and make radical alterations to the way in which they have advocated the civil defence programme.
I offer the Government a sensible course in relation to civil defence. I assure the Minister of State, with the same frankness as I told him that my views on nuclear defence were not those of the unilateralist movement, that I am not opposed to civil defence per se.
Mr. Robert Banks: Is that right?
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman sounds astounded. It seems that some hon. Gentlemen are astounded very easily, although after the past 24 hours I am surprised that they have any astonishment left. Not only am I not opposed to civil defence as a means of preparation against civil emergencies; I am not opposed to it because we might be on the fringe of being involved in some form of hostility—war—which requires the assistance of small numbers to protect the civil population.
I am wholly opposed to a propaganda exercise that involves the promise and pretence that a nuclear war can be survived and won. In the light of that, I suggest that the sensible course is for the Minister to abandon these regulations and to start again. He should start by redefining the purposes of civil defence and produce a definition which includes both civil emergencies and the consequences of some form of warlike action, but the prospects for remedying those consequences must be practical. Most of us believe that an all-out nuclear war would not produce enough survivors to justify what the Minister said.
The Minister must put forward a practical proposition for what is realistic in terms of civil defence and how local authorities and others can discharge their functions. I say "local authorities and others", because this task may be wholly unsuited for local authorities to discharge. The responsibility is one for central Government. County councils and borough councils throughout the country do not regard this as an appropriate responsibility to be placed upon them. I am delighted that at least some Conservative Members are nodding assent.
When the Minister of State has explained what he means by practical civil defence, when he has determined what can be done and paid for, he should then decide how the task should properly be shared between local and central Government. If the Minister took my advice, the responsibility would fall on the shoulders of central Government. If the Minister produces something like the sensible recommendations that I have put forward, it may well be that the Opposition would support them. While he continues with an unconvincing propaganda exercise, the Opposition will vote against the regulations.
7.57 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: The House has been treated to the third or fourth example of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) standing on his head when referring to the policies which he used to advocate when in office. If one looks back to some of the reasoning which led the party

349
which used to be called the Labour party to support NATO and the Alliance, it is clear that one did not merely stop at calling NATO an Alliance which might be a deterrent. If one recognised that that might not work, one was then in a position of having to pick up the pieces.
What, in effect, the right hon. Gentleman has said is that he is happy to pay an insurance premium on his home but if the fire strikes he will do nothing about it. I suggest that that is not the way in which the ordinary people of this country want civil defence treated. The right hon. Gentleman may not remember, as was shown from his remarks, that civil defence was very well run by local authorities under the name of ARP and in conjunction with local government committees during the last war. I see no reason why the situation should be taken over and run by central Government on this occasion.
There has certainly been politicisation from the Labour party. I will deal not only with CND, but with some of the "nuclear-free" authorities.
I will listen with the greatest respect to the BMA when it tells me what prescription I shall require to fight pneumonia or influenza or what level of consultant staffing is needed for a hospital. I will not listen to the BMA when it tries to predicate the number of bombs which are likely to fall on this country. The BMA report came to the following conclusion:
"We remain strongly of the view that the medical profession has a responsibility to involve itself in contingency planning to meet a wide variety of major disasters. Some elements of this experience might then benefit some survivors in some areas following a nuclear attack."
I suggest that that line should be followed by local authorities. I will deal with that matter later.
I start from the premise that the regulations are needed and I say gently to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that they are somewhat overdue. I hope that he will not mind my saying that he is listening too much to his civil servants if he really believes that allowing consultation to go on for a long time will influence the GLC or the Lambeths, Camdens, and Sheffields of this world. They are laughing behind his back. I suggest that there should be a short, sharp burst of consultation, so that we can get the regulations off the ground. Some of us have seen how easy it can be to spin out Government decisions and I urge my right hon. Friend not to let that happen in this case.
The regulations are practical and sensible and I do not believe that any normal person could call them political regulations. Any preparation that may save lives or alleviate suffering deserves the support of intelligent people.
All hon. Members have been bombarded—I use that word deliberately—by a mass of political propaganda, much of it produced at ratepayers' expense. It is wholly political and it might have been better if it had come directly from Labour party headquarters.
That is one reason why rate-capping is necessary to curb the excesses of local authorities. I say to my friends in local government on the Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils that they should realise that ratepayers outside Sussex and the Test valley demand that local authority bodies support the rate-capping proposals that are to be put before the House.
The Association of Nuclear-Free Local Authorities asks us not to pass the regulations. The concept of nuclear-free zones is a load of nonsense. Does anyone really imagine
350
that they will make an iota of difference? Visualise the scene in the Kremlin. A meeting of the central committee is called, Marshal Ustinov and Marshal Ogarkov say, "Comrade Andropov, we fear we shall have to use a nuclear weapon." Comrade Andropov replies, "If that is your decision, so be it. But do remember, you must not drop it on London because nice Mr. Livingstone has called that a nuclear-free city." Of course, Barnet or Westminster, which have been more sensible and practical, might have been potential targets, but they are within the nuclear-free zone.
Authorities that declare themselves nuclear-free zones are deliberately fooling the public and wasting their money. It is noticeable that when the public had an opportunity to take action, they showed by their votes in the election what they thought of the nonsense of nuclear-free zones. We should ignore those authorities. They are playing politics at the expense of their citizens.
Mr. Barry Porter: I am addressing my mind to this attack on local authorities which, for one reason or another, are apparently not fit to determine their own transport expenditure or other spending. We are contemplating the remote possibility of something more horrific than spending too much on transport or other matters and it seems that we Conservative Members ought to consider whether local authorities are the appropriate bodies to have such responsibility. It seems to me that the Army, central Government or another overall national body should have that major responsibility.
Mr. Finsberg: My hon. Friend points out the dilemma which has faced the Government since they came into power. The problem is that local government has changed out of all recognition in the past few years. It used to be accepted by local authorities that they had specific functions to perform—refuse collection, the letting of houses, employing public health inspectors, and so on. They did not try to set themselves up as experts on nuclear weapons. If local authorities do not intend to follow the constitutional lines that they used to follow and powers are consequently taken from them, they will have brought that on themselves.
Mr. Bill Walker: It is important that my hon. Friend should be told that, before the 1939 war, some local authorities in this country refused to build Anderson shelters. If I am called to speak in the debate I shall draw attention to that fact, because the effect of their decisions was horrendous.
Mr. Finsberg: I hope to listen to my hon. Friend with rapt attention.
I believe that most of my hon. Friends and most members of the public attach as much credence to nuclear-free zones as we do to organisations such as Babies against the Bomb. The nonsense that such organisations are putting forward is diverting the public from the importance of civil defence. It is not diverting the volunteer workers, but there is a danger that such bodies will begin to believe their own propaganda.
A mass of legal arguments have been presented by lawyers commissioned by, among others, the GLC. I shall leave my legal friends to deal with such nit-picking, but I wish to deal with one part of the document that we all received from the GLC.

351
I wonder how the council's lobby of the House will go tomorrow, since we will not be debating civil defence then. The document said under the heading "Compulsory War Games":
"The requirement that the Greater London Council has to `participate in any training exercise' is not as happily phrased as it could be. The GLC, being an incorporated entity, is unable to take part itself in any training exercise."
Next comes the example of politicking:
"The GLC objects strongly to becoming, under duress, an outpost of NATO."
The GLC is entitled to rely on counsel's opinion and say that it does not believe that it should take part in training exercises, but by saying that it objects to becoming an outpost of NATO it is clearly making a political argument. I say in passing that most of us think that the GLC is more likely to become an outpost of the Warsaw pact than of NATO.
All of us are against war, with or without the bomb. However, one factor that is frequently overlooked is the possibility or probability —I use both words, because without access to the Warsaw pact's war plans we cannot be sure — of bombs falling in various parts of the country. It is easy to talk about 200 megatons and to base all one's arguments on that assumption. However, the people who do so forget that the bombs may all be dropped on one spot. It is assumed that they will be neatly dotted all around the country. But even then, there will be survivors who will need help. Help from trained people will be better than help from others. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that when trouble came everyone would flock forward, but it is obvious that the most valuable help will come from those who are trained.
We know what value to place on the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook's comment that if the Government made some changes he might vote differently or advise his colleagues to vote differently. We know that the Labour party's attitude is to assume the worst and to plan on that basis. Therefore, it says that the Government's proposals are nonsense.
The regulations will help local authorities and the general public to cope with civil disaster, conventional and nuclear war. It is not foolish to plan on the basis of possible escalation because that is one scenario which we cannot afford to ignore.
There is no question of conscientious objection. I respect genuine pacifists such as Quakers and those with ideals, but in the last war they were prepared to carry stretchers and do other civil defence work, such as air raid precautions, because they did not believe that it would contribute to war but would protect the sufferers. Conscience does not enter into this at all. I have read of some community physicians saying that they will not undertake the task of civil defence planning. They are employees of health authorities and if they will not do the job for which they are paid they should resign and not continue to draw money under false pretences. Matters of conscience do not arise in such cases.
I said that the Government ought not to allow too long to elapse before consultation takes place. A timetable which allows five weeks at each stage for consultation is more than sufficient for local authorities and their associations. Not all local authority associations have come out against the regulations. The Association of County Councils has taken a responsible attitude. It said:
352
"We support the general intentions underlying the new civil defence regulations but in welcoming them as evidence of the Government's determination we are bound to point out that we do so with reservations which are outlined in this document."
That is precisely what the Government expect of local authority associations. They have always accepted the principles that Governments have set out because Governments derive their authority from Parliament. Local authorities have specific tasks and their responsibility is to fit those tasks into the jobs that Government and Parliament have given them. I live in hope, but not much expectation, that local authorities which are presently being obstructive and which, in the event of catastrophe, will have condemned their fellow citizens to unnecessary suffering may change their minds.
8.13 pm
Mr. Reg Freeson: I listened with great interest to the non-political approach of the Minister and of the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg). I make no complaint about that. In fact, I shall follow suit. I have no objection to—indeed, I welcome —the sponsorship of a more effective organisation for dealing with civil disasters and for community service of a physical nature throughout Britain.
I have no objection, in principle or practice, to genuine efforts at civil defence. However, the regulations before us are not concerned with creating services in the wake of civil disasters, with community service, with physical jobs that are required in our community or with civil defence. The debates of the past two years since the regulations were first promulgated have not been about genuine civil defence, and I take that as my starting point.
As we have seen tonight, and on many occasions, the Government are attempting to persuade us that we could and should deal with the aftermath of a hostile nuclear attack. That has been at the centre of the argument and the debate, both in the House and outside, by Ministers and others over the past two years or more.
The Government's case that we could mount an effective response is fundamentally unsound. There is not one professional expert organisation of which I know outside the Home Office which believes the Government's case. That is not to say that any of them objects to civil defence as such, either in principle or practice.
Just one bomb of the power used at Hiroshima—"a small bomb" to quote the Minister's phrase—which we used to our everlasting shame in the last world war would, if dropped over a major city in Britain, produce so many people needing hospital treatment as to overwhelm medical services in the locality. Multiply that beyond the Hiroshima experience, and the imagination boggles. Yet the world now contains nuclear weapons with the power of 1 million Hiroshima bombs, capable of killing 100,000 million humans—and we are nowhere near such a world population yet—as well as destroying countless other forms of life. They are the so-called tactical nuclear bombs, referred to sickeningly by the Prime Minister and others as theatre nuclear weapons. Each so-called tactical bomb can kill 100,000 people or more—more than the population of my constituency.
Civil defence has two main alternative bases of action, either evacuation, and all that goes with it, or protection at home, and they are both mutually contradictory. They cannot operate as one policy, but are alternative approaches. The evacuation of the populations of our

353
massive conurbations, in a country the size of the United Kingdom, seems hardly possible. The Government themselves have now dropped that proposition. In any case, no place would be safe from the effects of nuclear attack. I understand that the scientific research and development branch of the Home Office recently made a feasibility study of evacuation. One wonders why the study has not been published. We are entitled to call upon the Government to publish it. When he was Home Secretary, Viscount Whitelaw said:
"The public has a right to knowledge of these matters."—[Official Report, 7 August 1980, Vol. 990, c. 793.]
He was referring to civil defence, and we would all agree with him. Why has that study been kept secret?
It is now well established that the advice in the Government pamphlet "Protect and Survive" is nonsense. The pamphlet has not been referred to tonight, but it is still in many people's minds. Indeed, it is still available. Do the Government really believe that my two young children, for instance, will survive if they hide under a table? Do they really think that we ought to explode nuclear bombs over Moscow if the Russian army came to Calais, giving me five minutes to whitewash my windows while my children hid under the table?
That is an amusing picture, but it is the meaning of the Government's official advice, and so we have to ask these rhetorical questions. Official publications—not some silly comic strip—are advising the general public that their children will survive if they hide under the table. Would my children be helped if, during the five minutes between the time when the decision was taken and the bomb arrived, I put a supply of food and some toothbrushes under the table with them? That is another official suggestion.
Whether or not we agree with the local authorities and the GLC over the policy of nuclear-free zones, let us be non-party for a moment. Who is trying to fool whom—those who use the device of the nuclear-free zone to try to awaken public awareness, or those who, on behalf of the Government, put out documents such as that?
Whether or not they intend it to be so, the Government's advice is callous. The Government are advising people to stay at home simply because they have no plans to provide adequate civil defence. They have no plans for adequate shelters or supplies for the millions of people in this country. It has been estimated that simply to protect all our people against blast would cost about £180 billion. The Government are telling us to fend for ourselves, because they are not prepared to follow the logic of their own case and make resources and organisation available, whether through local or central Government agencies. The effect, if not the intention, of their policy is callous. They are trying to fool people into thinking that they intend to provide genuine civil defence.
Dr. Glyn: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. One of the objections that he seems to be making—rightly, in my view—is that there is no central organisation to shift resources, for instance, from one area to another. There seems to be no overall control such as there would, or should, be in a military campaign.
Mr. Freeson: That may or may not be the case, but that is not the point that I was making. Whether civil defence is organised through local or through central Government agencies, if the Government are not prepared to devote massive resources to such a policy, they can have no
354
intention of providing genuine civil defence. The resources required would be enormous, and the Government are not prepared to make them available.
The Government are advising us to rely on ourselves. Let us set aside the phoney nonsense of the regulations, the organisation and the planning. I find the constant use of the word "planning" somewhat sickening. Planning for what? All this talk about planning does not alter the fact that the Government mean that we must fend for ourselves. They are not prepared to put the resources where, on their own logic, they are required. If we had to fend for ourselves, what would happen to the disabled, the elderly, the children and those living in high rise blocks of flats? What about the poor and deprived who cannot buy the nuclear fallout shelters now being pushed on the market so profitably in certain quarters of our country?
If the Government were sincere in wishing to protect our people, they would not be spending only a potential £15 million a year on local authority civil defence services or on so-called civil defence planning, while spending £8,000 million on Trident, which increases the likelihood of nuclear war. For years, Government circulars and advice started from the premise that nuclear attack should concern us, but recently the emphasis seems to have shifted, as we heard again this evening. It has shifted towards the need for civil defence to defend us against conventional attack. Is that shift in emphasis an attempt to deflect public awareness and concern away front the issues of nuclear war that are now giving rise to so much concern throughout Britain and elsewhere?
The planning needs for dealing with conventional and nuclear attacks are, of course, quite different. Indeed, they are opposed in certain important respects. For example, there is a need to concentrate resources when dealing with conventional warfare, but to disperse them when dealing with nuclear warfare. Protection at home or evacuation have already been mentioned. What are the Government advising the public to do?
In reply to criticisms the Government often refer to the potential effectiveness of comprehensive civil defence preparations in certain other countries. Sweden and Switzerland are often cited. However, that overlooks the fact that neither of those countries is a nuclear power or a member of a nuclear alliance, and that they spend different proportions of their resources in different ways on military and civil defence.
However limited a nuclear war may be, it is impossible to argue that there can be any effective defence. In addition to the effects of blast and burns, there is radiation. At Hiroshima, everybody within 1,000 yards of the centre of the explosion died. Those who escaped suffered, and died later from burns, injuries and then radiation. It has been estimated that, in addition to the 100,000 people killed outright, another 100,000 died not long afterwards.
Mr. Banks: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is making the case for civil defence. Those people on the perimeter who survived but suffered from the effects of the explosion would have been spared them had there been civil defence arrangements. If the right hon. Gentleman visited Hiroshima today he would find a modern thriving city on that site.
Mr. Freeson: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. We have only two examples, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of the explosion of an atomic or

355
nuclear bomb. To say the least, it does not follow that that is what we would experience in any future war. Expert medical opinion does not hold that we can plan to survive such a nuclear war. I do not need to quote medical opinion, because we have all had an opportunity to read the opinions and reports published on behalf of the medical profession.
There are no defences against the lethal effects of nuclear weapons or treatment for those who might initially survive such explosions. The Government are deceiving the people into believing that they might survive. The Government may not intend to do that, but they are doing so with a little whitewash here and there in our so-called "intellectually honest exchanges" — I quote the phrase that was used by the Minister at the start of the debate.
Evacuation being out of the question, the essential issue, which has implications beyond civil defence, is control. We can organise civil defence by controlling what happens in our area, not by protecting people from the effects of nuclear war. This is causing much concern. We should not spend our resources on phoney activities. It would be far better if we used them to remove the conditions that can give rise to the conflict — power-mongering and war. That is one reason why it is important to switch resources on a massive scale to world development particularly in the areas where we find the forces that might bring the world to the type of war that we all fear.
We are caught up in what can only be described as obscene madness. At its mildest, it is the reductio ad absurdum of war which has little to do with defence, but a great deal to do with social, military and economic power complexes of enormous drive, power and influence, involving millions of people in those countries which have gone nuclear. We are becoming incapable of standing back and rationally assessing and changing the giant processes in which we are caught up. We must do so, and we do not need to wait for someone else to act. Our priority must be to move towards non-nuclear defence policies.
The Government's myth-making on civil defence reinforces the urgent need to move towards such non-nuclear defence policies. There are risks in any defence policy. Security cannot be guaranteed, but so-called defence, based on nuclear weapons, must mean catastrophe if ever it is tested. We risk total destruction by the so-called nuclear defence, which cannot by its nature provide civil defence. It is about time that the House came to that conclusion and acted accordingly.
8.35 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: One of the most remarkable things about this debate is that the level of attendance is one of the best that we have had during a civil defence debate.
The Government deserve great credit for having transformed what was a bleak and hollow picture when they came into office in 1979. Civil defence has been lifted from obscurity and placed in the correct position. I welcome these regulations, although I regret that it has been necessary to bring them in.
There was some discussion about whether we should refer to civil defence as such or as home defence. There was a feeling that by calling it civil defence we were harping back to the last world war when civil defence
356
played a vital part. I think it is right that we have returned to the term "civil defence" as it is one that everyone understands. If people appreciated its value during the last world war they will understand how important it is in the nuclear age.
I regret that civil defence has become a target for criticism by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. To declare a nuclear-free zone is one thing; to declare that we have no civil defence is another. The next thing that it will be doing is declaring an epidemic-free zone. That means absolutely nothing. It is its usefulness as protection against conventional attack that so many people seem to denigrate and which I think is an error. Any war that developed—heaven forbid that it ever should—might start with a conventional attack, and that is where we need civil defence to protect people.
If it grew to a nuclear war, who is to know what sort of nuclear war it would be? Critics, of course, like to assume that it would be an all-out nuclear attack which would destroy everything and everyone. I do not believe that that is possible, likely or feasible. I believe that many people on the perimeter of any nuclear explosion would desperately need protection, and it is our duty to provide them with that protection to minimise loss of life.
Mr. Stuart Holland: The hon. Gentleman has claimed that a conventional attack might precede a nuclear one. Has he any opinion about the time that might be involved? If he is recommending that in a conventional attack we should employ civil defence forces — ambulances, fire brigades and so on—they would be caught on the ground during a nuclear attack. Rather than aiding defence, it would weaken civil defence.
Mr. Banks: The parity of forces between NATO and the Warsaw pact is our best insurance against a nuclear war. In the last war there was no chemical attack from either side, because Germany and Great Britain had sufficient stocks of chemical weapons so that it was known that if one side used them, the other would. They were never used. That is my belief. There is no question of trying to decide the time scale that one would adopt.
Mr. Stuart Holland: In that case, the hon. Gentleman is changing the ground of his argument. He is saying that deterrence will work. If he is so confident of that, why does he interest himself in civil defence? He cannot have it both ways. It is an example of the double thinking that we have from the Conservative Benches in the debate on this issue.
Mr. Banks: I base my arguments strongly on the need to protect people from conventional attack, but as a double insurance it is better to escalate that protection to include nuclear attack.
We need long-term planning. Those who criticise "Protect and Survive" as a leaflet are justified in their criticisms because it was designed originally to be used during a period of extreme tension and crisis and gave advice to householders on what measures they could take with the material that they had to hand.
We are now talking about long-term planning. I hope that the Government will produce more leaflets and advice so that the population can be given advice as to what reasonable precautions can be taken in the buildings in which they live, and where underground structures exist they can be adapted to provide sensible accommodation.

357
There is one important aspect of these regulations— the harnessing of voluntary help. I have always believed that there is a huge reservoir of people who are willing, qualified and able to give voluntary help. We have no better example than the Royal Observer Corps which for many years, against a great deal of opposition to civil defence measures, has maintained its numbers and done a remarkably good job. [Interruption.] Its members give their time for virtually no pay. They attend exercises and are always on call. I do not think anyone should ever criticise the national assistance that they will always give if called upon to do so.
In north Yorkshire we have the home defence community adviser programme. I think that there is a problem in determining the role of the volunteers. Are they to give advice to communities and parish councils alone or do something more? We need to declare clearly what the role of the volunteer is to be. I should like to see it expanded into taking positive steps in the organisation of civil defence, and in particular to play a major role, if not the major role, in the survey of buildings to determine where underground structures exist — for instance, cellars in pubs and underground car parks.
Volunteers should also play a part in co-ordinating voluntary bodies and involving people in industry, who have employees and have the plant that could be of value in an emergency. They should also bring in the police, the fire brigade, doctors and so on in a voluntary capacity to work out how best certain areas can deal with the obligations to be put upon them. It will be important to give this new body an identity. Some people may smirk about the old civil defence corps but there is no doubt that it did a marvellous job and saved many lives. We should come down to the idea of giving a badge of authority to those who are playing a part in civil defence.
More especially, the regulations require that we have a civil defence comissioner, who, with an inspectorate, will have the responsibility of giving information direct to the Minister as to the state of civil defence among the various local authorities. These inspectors could go round the country to the various authorities, not to oversee but to look through the range of activities that are taking place and advise and apprise the Minister of the arrangements that are in hand.
The argument in all this centres on survival. I do not share the view that there is no case for anybody surviving, even in an all-out nuclear war. It is possible for people to survive where they are in certain areas, but more especially when they have the insurance of knowing that there are means by which they can get protection and take protection themselves if necessary. Therefore, I heartily commend the regulations, the Government's attitude towards civil defence and what they are doing to get something moving on it.
8.42 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: Unlike the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) who represents a rural area, I represent —
Mr. Robert Banks: Harrogate is hardly a rural area.
Mr. Deakins: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman represents a small town in a rural area. I have a rather different perspective, that of those who live in the largest metropolis, and, if my remarks are geared rather towards
358
those who live in large urban areas such as London, I hope that the hon. Member for Harrogate and others who have a different perspective on this matter will forgive me.
The Government are keen that we should, as in these regulations, take appropriate civil defence precautions everywhere. We in London recognise that, whatever else may happen, London is the nation's capital and the administrative centre. It will be the main target and, therefore, issues of defence and civil defence are matters for all Londoners and all London local authorities. We shall be involved whether we like it or not.
Local government in London, both the GLC and the 32 London boroughs, is being required to act by these regulations, but there is a lack of Government information. The Minister made some attempt to meet these points, but he did not do so sufficiently well to allow the Government to get away with the lack of information at the moment. For example, what is to be the likely warning period? What is to be the likely scale of attack or of destruction? What are likely to be the problems in the aftermath of a nuclear attack? All these problems will have to he faced in London.
The Minister's predecessor said in a parliamentary answer:
"We advise those working in the field of civil defence to plan for a range of possible attacks, including conventional bombing, a nuclear attack confined to military targets, and a full-scale nuclear attack aimed at destroying both military installations and major cities." — [Official Report, 4 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 67.]
Any local authority faced with that advice has no real alternative other than to plan for all three. Any planning for all three must mean planning for the largest attack, and that would encompass plans for a conventional attack, That raises problems for local authorities, especially those in urban areas such as London.
The Government have not made clear their policy on what the population should do in the event of a full-scale nuclear attack. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that at one stage the Government were advocating an evacuation policy. However, the Minister of State did not refer to that in his speech. I hope that the Minister who will reply to the debate will comment. Are the Government now advising people and local authorities — which must do the planning for civil defence during the next few years—to stay put? Is that the advice this evening from the Government to the people, especially those in London?
There is a conflict of advice available to local authorities about the scale of likely destruction. The Government claim that millions will survive, but many of us are sceptical about that. Local authorities planning for a nuclear attack must ask how long the survivors can be expected to survive and what conditions they will face. In what condition will the survivors be? Will there not be epidemics, starvation and, for a considerable period, contamination of water and food supplies? What is to happen to medical services? Without some guidance on those issues, it is a footling exercise to expect local authorities to plan properly for the aftermath of a full-scale nuclear attack.
The British Medical Association has given advice that the Minister and some of his colleagues have tended to dismiss. However, it is clear from the BMA report that in the event of a full-scale nuclear attack there will be an

359
almost complete collapse of medical services, especially in major urban areas such as London. That must be taken into account by local authorities when planning for civil defence.
We have the result of an exercise undertaken in 1980, code named Square Leg. It was based on five one-megaton bombs being dropped around the periphery of London. That showed that 5 million people in London would die within the first two months after the initial explosion from blast and radiation. In addition, there would be deaths from burns. The medical services could not cope with all the burns. There would also be death from disease. If local authorities were to take advice from the 1980 exercise, I wonder how many of the 7 million Londoners would survive. It would not be millions. It might be hundreds of thousands or tens of thousands, but it would not be many.
It is clear from the debate that no Government action is contemplated in the regulations to protect the people of London and other major areas against attack. The concern shown during the lead up to the regulations by such organisations as the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives is that the Government are concerned solely with the survival of bureaucrats who will be invested with total power—ruling rather like demented Hitlers from their bunkers over a nuclear wasteland. If the Government do not provide shelters for the public, and if there is a major nuclear attack, the only people likely to survive unscathed for a time are those with their own official, classified protected bunkers, no doubt built at great public expense. I do not envy them because there will be little for them to rule over after such an attack.
Another issue of interest to Londoners, especially in my constituency in the borough of Waltham Forest, is local authority staff. The Minister, in his opening remarks, said that the Government had made a change in policy and that there would be no need for any conscience clause because there would be no obligation on individual members of staff. It would be left to local authorities to pick and choose. I wonder about that, because paragraph 4(1)(d) in the regulation dealing with general local authority functions says that one of the functions of the Greater London council and the London boroughs is
"to arrange for the attendance at any training course…of any member of their staff…who is within a category of persons of any description specified by that Minister as being persons for whom that course or other form of training is provided".
It seems to me that the Government are taking the power to say to local authorities, including the GLC and the London boroughs, "There is a certain category of people in your employment, and people in that category must attend training courses." I regard that as compulsion and in my opinion that warrants having a conscience clause. Of course, there is no conscience clause because most people in local government and elsewhere are fairly sensible and have no confidence in the deceitful civil defence charade that is being paraded before us tonight. In my view, this is a new attack on civil liberties.
Then there is the matter of the abolition of the GLC which the Minister, to do him justice, mentioned in his opening remarks. He said that we have to plan for local authorities as they are now. If the GLC is abolished—if the Government get their way, which I hope they will not — those functions will be handed to the 32 greater London boroughs. I ask the House to consider this: if the
360
civil defence work of the GLC is to be bequeathed, in the Minister's words, to the London boroughs, surely that is a recipe for confusion. Furthermore, are the Government really saying that smaller civil defence units are preferable to larger units, because that will be the effect of the abolition of the GLC and handing over its civil defence functions to the London boroughs? The abolition of the GLC will weaken the civil defence effort in London, because there will no longer be a co-ordinating authority. Of course, that is not an argument for resisting the abolition of the GLC. Many powerful arguments are being advanced elsewhere, but, on the Minister's own terms tonight, he is undermining his case.
There is another important issue in London and other large centres at present, and that involves hospital closures and staff cuts in the National Health Service. That will lead to a concentration of hospital services in fewer hospitals in the greater London area. That, in turn, will mean greater vulnerability of those hospital services to a full-scale nuclear attack, even a partial nuclear attack. I wonder whether the Home Office talks to the DHSS about these matters. Certainly the lack of liaison between the two Departments—one going one way, and one advising local authorities to go the other way—suggests that the Government are not really concerned about what will happen to the health of the people of London in the aftermath of a nuclear attack.
There is another issue of great concern to Londoners. No money is being made available in these civil defence regulations for civil defence in industry or public utilities providing power. It means that local authorities, if they survive the initial nuclear attack, will not be able to count on having adequate medical and power supplies at their disposal to carry out their functions. How could any surviving hospital, let alone local authority, function without adequate medical supplies and power? Again, has there been any planning in this respect? I think that the answer is no, because the Minister did not mention that aspect in his opening remarks. Again, I wonder whether the DHSS has been asked to give an opinion about what might be needed in the aftermath of a nuclear attack.
Civil defence preparations and these regulations are trying to get the British people to think the unthinkable. If deterrence works—as long as that is the policy of this country, we must all hope that it does work—there is no necessity for civil defence, because deterrence will prevent a war and therefore we shall not need civil defence. The emphasis now — the new emphasis, I stress, since 1971 on civil defence in these regulations means that the Government appear to be losing confidence in their own deterrence policy. I wonder whether the Ministry of Defence is aware of that. The Government may laugh at this, but I believe that it is a matter of pure logic: if one believes in deterrence, one does not need a civil defence policy and one certainly does not need regulations of the kind that have been put before the House tonight. I ask the Minister and the House: is it a coincidence that the regulations that we are debating tonight come to the House within a few weeks of cruisemissiles being installed in this country? Perhaps the Government believe that those missiles will increase the threat of nuclear war and that we should, therefore, start to take the failure of our defence policy more seriously.
From the debate this evening it seems that civil defence is merely a public relations exercise by the Government. Ministers do not believe in its effectiveness because no

361
other Department, except perhaps the Defence Ministry, is planning for the aftermath of a nuclear attack. We have heard examples of other Departments going their own way to make the civil defence task after a nuclear attack more difficult instead of easier. If the Ministries do not believe in the efficacy of civil defence, why should London Members, London local authorities or the British public believe in it? That is why I hope that we shall throw out the regulations.
8.55 pm
Mr. Michael Latham: Labour supporters have three basic attitudes to the issue. Some, like the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), do not believe in civil defence at all and prefer to declare nuclear-free zones. Some, like the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), say that they believe in civil defence but are not prepared to give examples of what type of civil defence they believe in. The third type, from whom we shall not hear tonight, personify the millions of Labour party supporters throughout the country who not only support civil defence but are involved in it, as members of the British Legion, for example. We all know that they are there, and we see them each day.
Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Latham: I have only just begun my speech, so the hon. Gentleman can wait. He has already intervened in other speeches.
Some of us on the Government Benches think that the regulations do not go far enough. Local authority chief executives, in a report which includes the signature of the chief executive of Leicestershire, roundly declare that the law is being broken by local authorities and that the Government are also falling down on their job. Although the regulations will go some way to improving the present unsatisfactory state of civil defence planning, they ignore the key weakness at the heart of the present system. It is that no one is centrally co-ordinating the activities of the 70 autonomous local authorities and civil defence units in the United Kingdom, or even monitoring them effectively.
Each of the 70 authorities has its own emergency planning team which is left to its own devices to write its own plans. There is no check by the Home Office to ensure that the plans are adequate. No monitoring of progress takes place. There is no standardisation or attempt to ensure that the proposed plans are practical. Some local authorities have made big efforts; some have done little or nothing. I see little in the new regulations to convince me that the situation is likely to change much.
There is a case for effective civil defence, there is a case —although I do not agree with it—for no civil defence, but there is no case at all for ineffective or chaotic civil defence, with no central scrutiny and no real Home Office commitment to practical action.
We need three further steps now. First, we need a proper civil defence inspectorate in the Home Office. At regional level, and based upon the home defence regional government offices, we should have a regional emergency planning co-ordinator as part of the civil administration of government, whose job it is to assist local authorities in the formulation of their individual plans. That job is not being done by department F6 at the Home Office.
362
My right hon. Friend, in an answer to me on 19 July, denied that the Home Office had received any representations from county emergency planning officers asking for such regional structure, but the vice-president of the Society of Emergency Planning Officers wrote to Mr. Howard of F6 on 27 July showing that that was not a fair or accurate reply. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has since written a courteous letter to me to explain.
Secondly, it is time that local emergency planning staff were selected, appointed and paid for 100 per cent. by the Home Office and seconded to local government. In that regard, I support the throwaway line by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook towards the end of his speech. It is scandalous that local authority employees, 75 per cent. of whose salaries are paid for by the taxpayer, are effectively prevented from carrying out their legal duties by the political activities of their local authorities.
Thirdly, a realistic deadline must be set for local authorities to carry out their duties. The new regulations will impose a considerable extra workload on councils. The Home Office will need to ensure that the duties are carried out with energy and speed. Local authorities must be told what practical steps they are supposed to take. The advice will need to be regularly updated. At present, some of the emergency planning circulars are 10 years old. There must also be a requirement on other important bodies such as the police, the Health Service, the fire service and the nationalised industries to prepare civil defence plans. Is this being done at present? If so, who is monitoring it and how?
The truth of the matter is that this whole business has been neglected for decades and only now is it being taken seriously. No one expects war and I believe that deterrence will prevent it, but the time has come for the Government to say loud and clear that the present position is unsatisfactory. It is an insult to those who are trying to work it seriously and a new attitude of determination and central direction is needed if civil defence is to be taken seriously by the people.
9 pm
Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is a great pleasure to follow immediately what was without question the most constructive speech that has been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) put forward serious propositions that the Government should not only think about but respond to at the conclusion of the debate.
I had some sympathy with the Minister of State in opening the debate when he expressed the hope that civil defence might be treated in a non-partisan way in future, but I do not suppose that he had any genuine expectation of his hopes being realised either in the House tonight or in those politicised local authorities which are using this issue to pursue arguments about national nuclear defence policy. Certainly the response from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was as partisan as one would have expected it to be. It was notable that he did not at any point in the first 19 minutes of his speech say whether he supports the concept of civil defence. The right hon. Gentleman threw away in three suggestions at the end of his speech the idea that, if other regulations were brought forward, he might be prepared to consider them. For the deputy leader of the Labour party to give no more view as to what type of civil defence

363
would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Official Opposition appeared to me to be falling rather short of the obligations of his new position.
The Minister of State's hope of obtaining a new climate in which civil defence could be discussed rationally was never likely to be achieved in the light of the history of the past two years of this debate. Not only has there been a background of local authorities declaring nuclear-free zones and using that as an argument against civil defence, but there has been apparent the most incompetent handling of this issue by the Home Office and the most appalling lack of communication between local authorities, which are supposed to be participating in civil defence, and central Government.
This was brought out dispassionately and forcefully by the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives in its trenchant criticism of the Home Office for its lack of appreciation of the financial difficulties of local government and its lack of guidance on the duties expected of local authorities. So vast has been the gap of communication between local authorities and central Government that it appears that the Home Office was taken by surprise when operation Hard Rock could not be mounted.
If the Home Office had been in possession of the understanding which informed the Solace report of the degree of unpreparedness of local authorities and the virtual total nonconformity with the obligations imposed under the 1948 Act and the dependent subsequent regulations, operation Hard Rock would never have been called for. It is clear that the Home Office was ignorant of the fact that local authorities were not even beginning to comply with the limited obligations imposed on them by the 1974 regulations.
Where should we go from here? I do not see how anyone can seriously argue that there is no case for civil defence. The arguments advanced by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) are flawed in that he makes the assumption, as have others on the Opposition Benches, that the catastrophe of nuclear war renders all civil aid to the community worthless.
No one would deny — the Minister did not, and I would not—that the catastrophe of nuclear war on the minimum scale imaginable would not wreak the kind of unimaginable horrors of which we in this country have no direct experience. But that does not discharge any Government from the responsibility to do whatever may be done by forward thinking and planning to minimise by however small an amount the harm which such a war would cause.
The regulations which we are debating are defective in that they do not carry forward the appreciation of the sort of plans that can realistically be made by the authorities which are to be responsible for civil defence and which would have a beneficial effect in the range of circumstances which they are intended to meet.
There is no doubt that the Government have been too hasty in promulgating the regulations — without doing the necessary homework and without the necessary communication with local authorities about what their job would be—because it is not good enough simply to impose new responsibilities on local authorities without a strong co-ordinating hand from central Government.
364
It is arguable that in the sphere of civil defence the main responsibility should be a central Government one, with local authorities simply acting as agents in interpreting and giving effect on the ground to the duties imposed on them by central Government, who are able to make the kind of appraisals about the consequences of various types of outbreak of hostility which local government cannot make.
Following that line of reasoning, it must be the case that local authorities should not be expected to finance the function of civil defence. It should be 100 per cent. grant-aided by central Government, and that is another defect of these regulations. The expenditure on salaries and the associated costs of the planning staff and headquarters will continue to be grant-aided at only 75 per cent. That is bound to lead at a time of financial stringency for local authorities to the greatest scepticism about their role and some reluctance to meet their obligations under the regulations. The Government say that only a small amount of money is involved. I accept that it is, and that seems to be all the more reason for the Government to make the money available by means of general taxation.
The Minister has said that there will be an explanatory circular of guidance issued after the regulations have been passed by the House. This is a somewhat odd procedure to adopt. It would have been better if the Government had preceded the regulations with a full explanation of how they would be implemented and the basic assumptions which were being made by the Government about what should be done by local authorities in providing civil defence. There has been far too little communication between the Government and local authorities on this issue. I do not argue that a vast consultative process is needed. I am not arguing for unnecessary delay, but I am asking for a great deal more clarity from the Government on what they want to be done.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook about the opacity of the provisions on the centres that have to be provided by the local authorities under the regulations. It is far from clear whether they are to be bunkers or, as the right hon. Gentleman put it, primary schools, which some of us remember from 1945. We have not been enlightened about that even in the course of the debate.
The Minister has talked about the utilisation of existing resources. That will not narrow the choice in the minds of local authorities and it does not reveal what the Government have in mind. Much of the politicisation of which the Minister complains flows from the lack of clarity of the Government's objectives and their requirements of local authorities. The reason for this may be that the Government recognise that with the expenditure which they have in mind and which they project, running at about £60 million per annum, they do not see a way in which they can answer the criticism that civil defence will be a pretty meaningless effort in the circumstances of any war which can be conceived. They may prefer instead to take refuge in exhortation without having to answer detailed questions. If that is so, that rather vitiates their position. It suggests that their case is flawed and is not being advanced in wholly good faith.
I prefer to think that is not the reason for the Government's lack of clarity, lack of specific guidance and lack of proper instruction to local authorities. I think that the answer is that they have not turned their mind to these issues for a long time. It is only since the Hard Rock

365
experience blew up in their face that they have become aware that local authorities are not carrying out their responsibilities under current legislation.
Civil defence is a necessary national function in protecting the people from the failure of defence policy. We do not believe that defence policy will fail but it is imprudent not to plan for that possibility. That being so, I make it perfectly clear that the Social Democrats want effective civil defence. The speech by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) was a good starting point. It is a pity that it came two and a half hours after the debate started. I hope that the Minister of State will take his points on board and that the Minister who replies will give the Government's firm views on those points.
9.15 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) speak in favour of civil defence. The hon. Gentleman made some valid, critical points. I trust that what he said carries the support of his entire party in the House. If so, that is a good sign.
I must express my wholehearted support for the introduction of the regulations. I deplore only the necessity for the Government these days to dot every "i" and to cross every "t" before some local authorities will agree to cooperate in spheres that are clearly for the public good.
As chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence, I meet many local emergency planning officers who wish to serve the public in a typically selfless way, but who are being frustrated by misguided local politicians at every turn, except when their services are called upon to help in a civil emergency, when they suddenly become popular. My criticism does not rest entirely on those who are refusing to co-operate with the minimal requirements placed on them.
Mr. Roland Boyes: Why does the hon. Gentleman assume that locally elected representatives are misguided but that nationally elected representatives have all the answers?
Mr. Thorne: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall come to that point later.
All Governments since the second world war, particularly those in power during the past 15 years, have let the civil population down badly in civil defence. I cannot understand how those who shout the loudest about survival and unilateral nuclear disarmament are blind to the basic humanitarian need to protect the population against every eventuality. No one I have ever met claims that there would be no survivors, even in a nuclear conflict. Civil defence is designed to cater not only for nuclear conflict. If that is so, surely it is every human being's obligation to offer help and assistance.
The saddest factor in civil defence is the lack of all-party agreement. The National Council for Civil Defence has supporters in all parties, but how I wish that we could all work towards the achievements in civil defence of countries such as Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland, West Germany and. for that matter, China and the Soviet Union.
The Government spend enormous resources on defence without considering deeply enough the effects on the morale of our fighting forces. I had the honour to serve in the territorial forces for many years. During my service it was necessary for me to take part in exercises involving
366
nuclear possibilities. When taking part in those exercises, I frequently found that the soldiers also participating, particularly sergeants, were concerned about what would happen to their families if they were ever called upon to serve their country, especially abroad. The Government have to consider most seriously the question of what protection is to be provided to ensure that our soldiers can go off to protect the nation, confident in the knowledge that the Government are providing adequately for their families. It is unsatisfactory to expect them to leave their families to fend for themselves.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State mentioned the need for direction, as the last resort. I am sorry that that was questioned by Labour Members. It is essential that we have a minimum level of civil defence throughout the country. If some authorities are careful in the civil defence that they provide and others provide little or nothing, we may find that, if the worst comes to pass, those living in areas that have made no civil defence preparation will realise the error of their ways and try to move into areas that have been prudent and provided for their ratepayers. It would be wrong to expect such authorities to have to take vast numbers of people from areas that had no adequate provision. There could then indeed be civil conflict if the Government do not ensure a basic minimurn service throughout the country. They have no alternative but to do so.
I ask the Government to spend more time and trouble on civil defence. If the man in the street were as keen on civil defence as I am, the Government would be persuaded to increase civil defence expenditure considerably.
Immediately after the war, when the atomic explosions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in everyone's minds, there was a requirement that the underground space in new buildings, whether used for car parking or storage. should have a civil defence capability. That was certainly the case with buildings in central London, but I do not know how long that requirement lasted, whether for two or three years or well into the 1950s. We may find out as a result of the new regulations that will require local authorities to carry out surveys.
Surely the Government should be thinking of today's new buildings. What civil defence capability are developers required to provide? What provision is there for an underground shelter here in the Palace of Westminster? I am not thinking for the benefit of hon. Members because, if an emergency were likely to occur, Members would probably depart for their constituencies fairly quickly. That seems particularly likely in the light of some remarks that I have heard today.
However, there would be a great need to have our underground car park available for such a purpose. Have the Government considered that? Was the construction of the car park such as to make the provision of shelter facilities simple and easy, or will we be in a panic and have to provide air conditioning plant, fresh water storage, and so on, under great pressure? Surely we should plan ahead so that we can make the necessary provision. I am sure that many people who work in this area would be grateful to know that they have been provided for.
The Government should also think about what they could do to encourage adequate civil defence facilities in older buildings. There are many things that they could do. For example, they could offer rate relief to those who make adequate provision. I would expect domestic shelters to be exempt from rates, and there are strong arguments

367
for allowing 50 per cent. rate relief on parts of commercial buildings that could be used as shelters in times of need. That would allow the owners or occupiers of the buildings to use the space for the time being whether for car parking or for storage under those beneficial arrangements.
Ms. Harriet Harman: As the hon. Gentleman is chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence, can he tell the House how much notice hon. Members will have to return to their constituencies in the event of a nuclear emergency? Will only hon. Members such as myself—or even hon. Members such as myself — be able to reach their constituencies? How much warning will be given to enable us to join our constituents in a nuclear shelter?
Mr. Thorne: I am sorry that the hon. Lady has been present for so little time that she did not hear much of the previous debate. In a time of conflict varying lengths of time apply. In the second world war six months elapsed before any hostilities of any magnitude took place which affected the civilian population but — [Interruption.] Labour Members may have more information than I. They may know what the Kremlin has in mind while I do not.
Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that aerial attacks against the United Kingdom did not commence until many months after the war started and the main attacks took place in 1940?
Mr. Thorne: That is exactly the point that I was making. Labour Members seem to think that they will have only four minutes in which to make preparations. That is clearly not the case. The idea that there would be no adequate warning and that an attack would come entirely out of the blue confines one to believing that that could happen only if some madman were to have his finger on a nuclear button somewhere in the middle east causing a nuclear attack to descend upon us without prior warning so that there would be no preparation for conflict. If we expect the attack to come from some country in Europe, the warning period will be much greater than the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) seems to think.
Other countries in Europe which have given much care and attention to this matter over the years have made adequate preparations. We are a long way from doing that. In the past 10 years Switzerland has made adequate provision for no less than 90 per cent. of its population in shelters which include provision for hospital treatment and many other facilities. It is alleged that we do not have the same resources to devote to that because we have other defence commitments and to do so would therefore take us longer. My point is that if we had started in 1945 and continued over the next 35 years there is no doubt that we would have more adequate protection today.
Dr. John Marek: Is not one of the significant matters to be taken into consideration that a so-called civil defence policy would make the Government more likely to want to wage a nuclear war and to win it? I have rarely listened to such unadulterated rubbish as I have tonight. We are in the realms of fantasy. [Interruption.] The loony Right should keep quiet for a bit. We have listened to much rubbish tonight. The Government have fought one war already and I fear that
368
they will fight another. We are still waiting for an answer to the earlier question. Why is local government irresponsible while the Government are not?
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Gentleman has not been here long but he should have listened to what I have been saying. I was asked in what way local government was acting irresponsibly. Responsible local authorities, which make provision, cannot be expected to accommodate the people who would flood into their areas if the need arose. That is what I mean when I say that some local authorities are acting irresponsibly.
If the Government require local authorities to provide something—whether education or shelters—they must provide it, and everyone will then be provided for by Government requirement. It is clear that some local authorities, if they had their way, would make no provision whatsoever. That would be completely irresponsible from the point of view not only of their own population — the electors who, perhaps in hindsight irresponsibly, put them there—but of those who had made adequate provision for the safety of their population.
Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman has now made the same point twice. When he made it for the first time, I thought that he was joking. He says that we need universal provision so that people from areas of inadequate provision will not flood into areas with adequate civil defence. Will he tell us when this flooding will take place? At what stage in the emergency will people move from one area to another?
Mr. Thorne: People would move in whatever time was available after the outbreak of hostilities. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe, like his hon. Friends, that there would be only four minutes' warning? Does he believe that there would be no build-up and that a catastrophe would arrive out of the blue?
Mr. Hattersley indicated assent.
Mr. Thorne: I am astonished. The right hon. Gentleman's remarks earlier this evening suggested to me the faint hope that he felt some measure of sympathy for the idea of civil defence. I thought that, at the back of his mind, he believed in the right of people to try to survive in such an emergency. I am very disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman.
The Government must pay great attention to the training of civil defence volunteers. I welcome their present proposals.
The report of the board of science and education of the British Medical Association represents the views not of the BMA as a whole, but only of the board. I disagree with the board's views, but it made the valid point that the Government have not so far made adequate provision for civil defence. It would, however, be wrong to assume that the report represents a rejection of civil defence by the BMA at large.
I hope that there will be much more encouragement for civil defence research. There is room for much improvement in the interplay between various Departments. There should be co-operation between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence, which has very good training facilities in this area. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food also have an important role to play. I

369
hope that all those Departments will be encouraged to play a full part in civil defence planning and that the Home Office will not be left to get on with it.
In the past few months I have noticed that questions on civil defence matters have received rather disappointing replies from Departments other than the Home Office. Those Departments are in need of education by my right hon. Friend.
The rate support grant penalty is a short-sighted solution. I understand that the proposal now put forward is that those local authorities which will spend more on civil defence in the coming years than they have in the past will be allowed an exclusion from their penalty assessments. I think that it is wrong in principle to leave authorities, which have been playing the game and doing their part, to suffer when others which have not been doing their hit get off scot-free. Such a policy is not a very good example for the future.
I entirely support the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland and other hon. Members who requested a 100 per cent. funding for civil defence. I do not think that there is any alternative to that figure, for the simple reason that we are dealing with a national matter. I appreciate that the Government want to leave ultimate control in the hands of the local authorities as civil defence is locally organised, but I believe that such funding should be taken out of the local rate arena. There is of course no reason why a suitable adjustment should not be made in the rate support grant to take account of this extra Government expenditure.
I believe that those who do not support the survival of the population in the most humanitarian way possible are entirely neglecting their responsibility to the population at large. I also believe that politicians must ensure that this matter is put right, and to do this they must make up for a great deal of lost ground during the past 20 years.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this debate ends at 11.30, and a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. There must also be time for the winding-up speeches.
9.37 pm
Mr. Bill Michie: Much of what needs to be said has already been said by Opposition Members. Much information is available from the various organisations which have distributed good facts and figures about the effects of a nuclear war, and the irrelevance of some of the civil defence measures which are intended to be brought in. I do not intend to deal with the logical, technical or practical side of this matter. Most Opposition hon. Members understand what the practical difficulties are. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was right when he pointed out that the Opposition are not against civil defence per se, but we are protesting about using civil defence as a con trick to persuade the general public to feel a sense of security. The false sense of security is the underlying lie, irrespective of whether the Government put in all the regulations in the world.
From listening to some Conservative hon. Members, on this subject they believe that if their house is on fire they must put it out. They seem to think at that level when talking about defence in a nuclear age. They seem to have a total misconception of what nuclear war means.
370
The Opposition accept that we must have civil defence. The Government say that they want to help people, but they have returned to the period of tin hats and red crosses. I am surprised that in their shopping list they did not have a Vera Lynn record. That shows how far the Conservative party has progressed.
I do not know how many hon. Members know much about nuclear weapons. Perhaps none of us knows a lot, but we all know a little. I know my little hit, as I was in the Royal Air Force—[Interruption.] I had the dubious pleasure of training for a nuclear war. It convinced me that no form of civil defence could save us from such an attack. In the name of truth the Government should tell the people what nuclear war is about. In a nuclear war the first essential point is to look after the armed forces so that they can make the first strike back. The second step is to look after the military forces on the ground. The last step is to see to the villages and homes. There is no civil defence. The important thing is to protect enough people to enable the country to strike back and to create as much devastation as possible in that other country. People do not seem to understand that. I think that it was the chairman of the National Council for Civil Defence who spoke about a warning beforehand, but—
Mr. Boyes: Six months.
Mr. Michie: A six-month warning is worse than the second-class post.
Mr. Neil Thorne rose—
Mr. Michie: I shall not give way. I did not get tip when the hon. Gentleman was speaking.
Mr. Thorne rose—
Mr. Michie: Many other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall make my point briefly.
Some people say that we have the right to decide about waging war. We in this Chamber may feel that we have the right—although that is debatable—to say that there should be a conventional war that could kill thousands of our fellow citizens. Perhaps we have that power and right, but no one on God's earth has the right to declare a nuclear war, which would decide the future of unborn children and of the rest of the world. No one has that right, not even Parliament.
9.41 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I welcome the regulations as an essential first step by the Government in forcing local authorities to make effective plans for civil defence. Tonight Opposition Members have said that civil defence does not make any sense. If that is so, why does virtually every country in the world— from neutral Switzerland to the Soviet Union—have civil defence? The answer is that no one can foretell what horrors war will bring or whether we shall have to face a conventional or a nuclear attack. Every country in the world accepts that, on the perimeter of a conventional or nuclear attack, effective civil defence plans could save millions of lives. That is why Conservative Members believe that it is the humanitarian duty of Government to make those plans in the first place.
My criticism of the Government is that there is no point in laying down such regulations if Home Office officials are not prepared to enforce them. I refer to the question asked by the Earl of Kimberley in the other place about

371
south Yorkshire. South Yorkshire has, of course, decided to abolish civil defence. In reply to the noble Lord, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Elton, said:
"My Lords, the South Yorkshire County Council has passed a resolution which includes continued compliance with the Civil Defence (Planning) Regulations 1974." — [Official Report, House of Lords, 9 March 1983; Vol. 440, c. 230.]
That answer was misleading, because although it is true that on 28 October 1981 south Yorkshire county council instructed its emergency sub-committee and officers to refuse to co-operate with all but the legal minimum under the civil defence legislation, at the same time it decided —and unlike the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) it is the authentic voice of the Labour party — to accept in total the Labour party's "Nine points on Civil Defence". I have a copy of it with me.
Paragraph 7 states:
"We believe that the war planning role of Emergency Planning Officers should be discarded".
Legislation would be needed. However, south Yorkshire took it upon itself to discard civil defence. The Sunday Times said on 24 January 1982 that the county council had
"told its emergency planning officers to stop work on plans for survival in a nuclear war".
A confidential document from the county council says:
"As from October 1981 we have made no attempt to draft any further sections of our war plan. At this point seven sections had been drafted, approved and distributed; of the ten further plans which we envisaged drafting three are in the initial stages covering (1) Water, (2) Radiac Reporting and Release Scheme, (3) Communications. For some months now no work has been attempted to complete these drafts."
It is interesting that the document ended by saying:
"It is no secret that the Home Office does not currently seek confrontation with dissenting local authorities on the level of civil defence preparations."
In other words, south Yorkshire is successfully cocking a snook at the government.
These regulations have been brought in today because the GLC employed David Turner Samuels, QC, to discover legal loopholes through which the GLC could wriggle out of its humanitarian duties to civil defence. Even that silk conceded that even under the existing legislation there was a clear duty to make plans which covered the matter specified in regulation 4(a) of the 1974 regulations and that such plans must bear a "reasonable relationship" to the problems with which they were intended to cope.
The GLC complied with that opinion, but south Yorkshire did not. It is misleading for the Home Office to say that the Government should not intervene because the south Yorkshire county council puts up a smoke screen and says that it will comply with the minimum legal requirements.
I believe that I have established that south Yorkshire has effectively abolished civil defence. I shall not argue the why's and wherefore's of civil defence. We are wasting our time tonight in promoting new regulations when the officials in the Home Office have not been prepared to enforce the old regulations.
9.37 pm
Mr. Gavin Strang: The Government's attitude to civil defence is integral to its
372
policy on nuclear weapons. The Home Secretary in a previous Conservative Government, in a statement to the House of Commons in August 1980, said:
"a review of civil preparedness for home defence was set in train so that this important element of our defence strategy could be considered as part of the improvement of our general defence effort.—[Official Report, 7 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 790.]
More recently, United States Vice President Bush stated:
"You have the survivability of command and control, a survivability of industrial potential, protection of your citizens and you have the capacity that inflicts more damage on the opposition than it inflicts on you. That's the way to come out on top in a nuclear war."
Fundamental to our opposition to these regulations is the belief that they condition the British people to believe that a nuclear war is survivable. It is disturbing that these regulations and this approach to civil defence has been pushed forward when the new generation of counter force nuclear weapons is being deployed. These are first strike weapons which undermine the policy of deterrence and mutually assured destruction. They are weapons to fight wars.
There is no defence from nuclear weapons. The British Medical Association provided the most authoritative report in this country on the likely effect of a nuclear attack on the British population. The Minister of State referred to it when he opened the debate. The report stated:
"Civilised life as we know it, and the human values and the ethical standards upon which the practice of medicine is based would cease to exist in vast areas of these islands."
The Minister sought to undo some of the damage done by that notorious letter sent by the Home Office scientific research and development branch to the regional civil defence scientific advisers. He will have to do better than he did this evening. If the Minister looks at the letter which was printed in The Guardian he will see what it said about the BMA report:
"The style of this presentation, and the arbitrary conclusions in favour of the SANA figures"—
that is Scientists Against Nuclear Arms—
"where they were deemed by the inquiry to conflict with Home Office figures, reflected a high degree of bias towards the CND case, and lack of cogent argument or analysis. The report"—
it was released on 3 March—
"must be regarded as strongly influenced by CND — type propaganda; it cannot be regarded as an objective, scientific document."
When the Minister replies he had better make it clear that the Government dissociate themselves from that smear on the integrity of the BMA's document. I hope also that the Minister will address himself at greater length to the Home Office estimate of the likely number of casualties following a nuclear attack. The Home Office estimates, of course, are much lower than those of the BMA. The BMA conclusion was based to a large extent on evidence given by Scientists Against Nuclear Arms who were relying heavily on the American work that has been done.
The Home Office is currently reviewing its estimate of the likely number of casualties following nuclear attack. Last July, I asked the Minister, in a written question, whether he would meet the independent SANA experts who are scientists with a great deal of knowledge of these matters. The Home Office scientists should meet those scientists to see whether they can start to reach some understanding on the basis of the estimates which should be made in calculating the figures.

373
I hope that I shall receive a better answer from the Minister when he replies. In the written answer on 20 July, the Minister of State said:
"We shall consider this when the revised calculations on nuclear weapon effects are complete."—[Official Report, 20 July 1983; Vol. 46, c. 141.]
A great deal has been said about the likely number of casualties and survivors following a nuclear attack. I should like to quote from a letter that I received from the Minister with responsibility for Home Affairs and the Environment at the Scottish Office. It said:
"Even if we did nothing to protect ourselves, both as a nation and as individuals, millions would survive any kind of nuclear attack which may realistically be envisaged, and would go on surviving."
That approach is totally at variance with the objective conclusions of the BMA report. There is no meaningful defence against nuclear weapons. Those who deceive the British people into believing that there is are irresponsible and should be condemned by the House.
Mr. Robert Litherland: On the point of deception, does my hon. Friend believe that the debate is ludicrous because it has given people a false sense of security and credence to the evils of the Arms race which is the Government policy?
Mr. Strang: The overriding anxiety of Opposition Members is that the threat of nuclear war is increasing because of the dangerous escalation of nuclear weapons. The philosophy of imbuing the British public with the idea that somehow they might survive a nuclear war and to compare nuclear war with the conventional second world war is grotesque.
For someone to say that we are likely to get six months' warning of a nuclear attack is ridiculous. If the Minister believes that, it is no wonder that he believes in these civil defence regulations.
The Government's civil defence policy is fundamentally flawed and it is not surprising that so many professionals outside the Government machine who are supposed to be involved in that work have no belief in the Government's approach.
Let me give one or two examples. There is the Government's document "Protect and Survive". No Government publication has ever been subjected to as much justified ridicule as that one. The idea that people will survive by spending 48 hours under the table in the kitchen is ridiculous. The Government's approach to evacuation has been one of vacillation as to its desirability. I hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government will publish the Home Office internal report on evacuation.
The Government are pretending that somehow these civil defence measures do not have be be justified in terms of a nuclear attack but can be defended in terms of a conventional attack. Does anybody believe that if conventional war breaks out between NATO and the Warsaw pact this will not lead to nuclear war? Will that not be because NATO is prepared to use nuclear weapons first? Is it not the case that if there were any validity in these supposed civil defence measures, clearly, immediately war broke out, conventional or otherwise, the
374
Government would have to set about putting these civil defence measures into operation? Thus, we cannot draw a distinction between civil defence for nuclear or conventional attacks.
It is despicable for the Government, as a last ploy, to pretend to local authorities that the regulations should be supported because they are not only about nuclear or conventional war but about civil emergencies such as an aeroplane disaster. The Government know that that is not the issue, and they have brought that red herring forward only to undermine the support for those brave local authorities that have stood out against these measures and have sought to explain to their people that there is no defence against nuclear war and no way of surviving or winning a nuclear war. It is because the Labour party stands four square with these local authorities that we are opposed to the regulations, and that is why the House should reject them.
9.57 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: I am glad to have been called at this stage in the debate. I have listened with great interest to the speeches and in particular I wish to take up points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh).
I listened to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) and I do not challenge the sincerity of his rhetoric. He fairly expressed the view that many other Labour Members are making. I am aware that the great divide between his point of view and ours is that in any event we believe that some measures of civil defence are better than no measures. However, we are not talking just about "some measures" but are insisting on a central plan for the immediate aftermath of the holocaust. Time and again, Labour Members challenge us with the charge of deceit. My counter-challenge is that they are guilty of the greater crime: irresponsibility.
I welcome the appearance of these regulations. I understand that as recently as March the House turned its attention to civil defence. I note from my reading of Hansard that on that occasion Labour Members chose to make no contribution to the debate. I note also in that debate many expressions of concern about the provisions of civil defence. It is because I share this concern that I particularly welcome these regulations.
The level of preparation and the general state of preparedness are now worse than they were 45 years ago. The potential threat to our towns, cities, villages and countryside is now much greater. That disparity is unacceptable to a responsible Government.
As so many speakers have said, there is a quite unacceptable inconsistency in the level of planning and provision provided by the many local district authorities.
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Ways and Means may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Sainsbury.]

Civil Defence
Question again proposed.
Mr. Hunter rose—
Mr. Boyes: I earlier commented on the absolute contempt for local democracy and local government shown by Conservative Members. If people feel that there is inadequate provision for civil defence in a certain area, they will replace those running the council. That is what democracy means. Every Conservative speaker tonight has implied that elected representatives of local authorities are irresponsible and that Conservative Members are responsible. Secondly—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This is becoming a rather long intervention. The hon. Gentleman must end with his second point.
Mr. Boyes: I am sorry to take so long, Mr. Speaker. Could the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) define what he understands to be the meaning of local democracy?
Mr. Hunter: By a strange coincidence, the hon. Gentleman gives the cue to my next point. I was about to refer to the article that we all received from the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives, which acknowledges that
"in the wide range of local government services we know of no other significant statutory duty upon local government which has not been complied with".
That is my point. A statutory duty has been imposed on local government that is not being fulfilled and observed. That is our quarrel—
Mr. Boyes: It is not a very good quarrel.
Mr. Hunter: With the advantage of hindsight and from the experience of last year's Hard Rock exercise, it is obvious that successive Governments of both parties have let matters slide. I therefore welcome the statutory instruments. I quarrel with nothing in them. They are a laudable attempt by central Government to regain control of a deteriorating position.
The word that I would use to describe the statutory instruments is the same word as that demanded by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)— "realistic". The statutory instruments are realistic and entirely practical. They do not impose excessive demands on regions or districts in manpower, time and resources. Indeed, they allocate more resources to local authorities.
The statutory instruments steer the middle course between twin absurdities. I mentioned one absurdity—the unsatisfactory conditions now prevailing. The other is in seeking to allocate too much of our finite and limited national resources to civil defence. I acknowledge that that is an equal absurdity.
Although there is nothing in the statutory instruments with which I quarrel, we must not delude ourselves that they provide all the answers. They do not. In all my travels, discussions, reading research and conversation connected with civil defence, I have come across one overriding criticism which has not been touched by the regulations. It is the argument that our civil defence measures are blighted by a lack of standardisation and that that chronically impairs efficiency.
First and foremost, there is lack of standardisation in communications equipment. Within the sub-regions that
376
make up the south-east zone in which the county of Hampshire falls, the counties can communicate with the sub-region headquarters, but lateral communication between counties across the zone, between districts and from regions down to parishes is imperfect, simply because there is a lack of harmonisation in the equipment that is used. We must move rapidly towards central Home Office procurement of communications equipment, which is totally harmonised.
The lack of standardisation can also be seen in the related recruiting and training of volunteers. At present, there is no national syllabus for instructing volunteers. That is much to be lamented. At present, someone who gains knowledge, expertise or proficiency in one part of the country might find himself totally unqualified and untrained if he were to volunteer his services in another part of the country. Of course, that does not apply to the upper echelons of the emergency services, because the civil defence college at Easingwold provides uniformity at that level.
I should like to make one suggestion about volunteers. In my view, there is scope within the existing youth organisations and movements, especially in the cadet forces of the armed services, to include civil defence training. I do not say that those organisations should take on civil defence in a major way. Rather, I suggest that there is here a potential pool of recruitment for volunteers. I urge that due attention be paid to the possibility of civil defence being an option in the training programme of those organisations.
Some of my comments and other comments that have raised questions from the Opposition Benches have been detrimental to local authorities. Of course, there is another side to the coin. The Society of Local Authority Chief Executives has said:
"Civil Defence is uniquely a significant duty imposed by law, which local government does not carry out. Nor, it should be added, is that duty adequately performed by the Government Departments and other agencies equally concerned."
I endorse that. I know from the contact that I have had with civil defence officers that there is a lack of confidence in the Home Office, particularly in the F6 department.
I welcome these draft regulations.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Front Bench Speakers are hoping to catch my eye at 10.50 pm, so brevity would be appreciated on all sides.
10.8 pm
Mr. Alex Carlile: Those of us who are convinced of the need for a comprehensive system of civil defence to cope with all forms of disaster are disturbed that the Government have failed to grasp the nettle of this problem in putting forward these regulations.
The Minister of State is still trapped by the 1948 Act with its terms of reference restricted to hostile attack. Liberal Members believe that the regulations are unacceptable because they are a half-hearted attempt at a little bit of civil defence, and impose the obligations to carry it out and pay for it in the wrong places. Such is the half-hearted nature of the regulations that I fear that the Minister of State has not read the regulations properly. I refer in particular to regulation 4(1)(b) of the general

377
functions regulations. I had the impression that the Solicitor-General had indeed read the regulations, because when the Minister of State was explaining that regulation he left the Chamber.
The regulations are objectionable on three principal grounds. First, they create a clumsy framework which imposes a multiplicity of obligations on a multiplicity of local authorities to do a multiplicity of things. The general functions regulations require neighbouring county councils to draw up plans to deal with the same problems in neighbouring areas with similar types of population and similar geographical characteristics. It is important to ensure that such regulations secure the future of democracy in local areas; but it is nonsense to duplicate functions and not provide a national framework to ensure that planning is done reliably.
One hears terrible stories. I think of the well-known and often-quoted incident of an emergency exercise in an area where there was only one keyholder for the emergency centre. The man left the key at home and had to return in his car to collect it. In another example, the local authority failed to provide adequate air conditioning. During an exercise it was discovered that anyone who went into the emergency centre would suffocate more quickly than he would perish as a result of a nuclear explosion. Central planning is essential. Central direction is needed, not for what happens inside an emergency centre, but for organising and equipping it.
Secondly, we oppose the regulations because the financial burden upon local authorities is an unacceptable imposition. The Minister of State said that regulation 4(1) (b) will merely involve increased expenditure of £2 million. I urge Government Members to read that regulation, because it does not provide merely for the expenditure of a couple of million pounds. It requires a local authority:
"to establish, equip and maintain, in premises at each of the places specified in paragraph (3) below in relation to them, an emergency centre in which to control and co-ordinate action to be taken by them in the event of hostile attack or a threat of hostile attack".
An emergency centre cannot be in a school or village hall or in the local football stadium directors' offices. It must be located where it can survive not just the threat of hostile attack but hostile attack itself. That involves enormous expenditure.
I am even more disturbed about the fact that the grant regulations remove any reimbursement for the expenditure involved in establishing, equipping and maintaining emergency centres. They remove grant-aid and place the entire burden on the local authority. There is at present a 100 per cent. grant for the establishment, equipping and maintaining of these centres. If the draft regulations are passed, there will be no grant. It will be cut from 100 per cent. to zero. The result will be that 513 emergency centres will have to be built at a cost of about £102 million. Those are the estimates put forward at a time when central Government's total civil defence budget is a mere £69 million. It is intolerable for local authorities to have to look to the ratepayers for what must be enormous capital expenditure. If it was intended that the regulations should do only what the right hon. Gentleman says that in effect they will do, they should have been drafted in that way. If that is what he intends, that is not what he has got. He has in the regulations a power to impose much greater obligations on local authorities.
378
Our third reason for opposing the regulations is that civil defence provision is completely inadequate. "Protect and Survive" has been mauled to pieces on all sides and that includes some Conservative Members. We should compare regulation 4(1)(b), which sets up the emergency centres, with what is proposed in schedule 2 for the ordinary population — the ordinary people of Montgomeryshire whom I represent and the constituents of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. What is being done to safeguard the ordinary population? Where are they to go? Is any start being made? I know that it would be a long job, but is any start being made to provide somewhere for them to be protected against nuclear explosions other than under their dining room tables or under the stairs? I suppose that a start is being made, but what a start!
Schedule 2, paragraph 4, provides for the utilisation of existing buildings only. Not one building is to be erected, not one structure is to be provided afresh for the protection of ordinary members of the public. That is an undeniable interpretation of the regulations and one which the right hon. Gentleman would not seek to deny. We say that there is no commitment in the regulations for the protection of the public and we have heard nothing today to change our view that the Government have not grasped the nettle and are not prepared to give a commitment for the protection of the public as a whole.
Mr. Hurd: I have followed the hon. Gentleman carefully and I still think that he is wrong about the emergency centres. We are not seeking a power to force local authorities to build new centres at the cost he imagines. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will develop that point. I think that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the draft regulations mark a step forward for the protection of the general public in as much as local authorities are for the first time required to survey existing buildings or natural features to identify those which could be used in an emergency as shelters for the general public. That is a step forward.
Mr. Carlile: I shall deal with the right hon. Gentleman's two points in the order in which he made them. I cannot agree with his interpretation of regulation 4(1)(b). I ask him to read it again and take appropriate advice on what it means. It does not mean what he says. On his second point, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there is a step forward, but it is a small and inadequate step without the necessary commitment. The right hon. Gentleman is hamstrung and trapped by the Civil Defence Act 1948. That Act sets out two grounds on which the Minister can act: first, to take such steps as are "necessary" for civil defence, and secondly to take such steps as are "expedient". We have the feeling that he is prepared only to take such steps which he considers to be necessary but unfortunately is ignoring those which are expedient.
A Home Office pamphlet entitled "Civil Defence: The Basic Facts" issued in recent days stated on the first page:
"We must therefore maintain a level of civil defence activity which is proportionate to the degree of risk and which provides a firm base for rapid expansion should the danger of war increase."
My party is committed to civil defence. We believe that the regulations fall so dismally short of providing anything approaching a level of civil defence activity which is proportionate to the degree of risk that we must oppose them.
10.21 pm
Mr. Keith Best: I listened with care to the hon. Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile). I appreciate his party taking the view that it believes in civil defence — an honourable view to take, but one which unfortunately is not shared by Her Majesty's Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has the grace to accept that it is a step forward, as my right hon. Friend pointed out to him in an intervention, to have local authorities look at buildings which could be used as shelters. Although he and I may agree that the provision which is being made is not a panacea for all ills and is not the ultimate, nevertheless it is a step in the right direction.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is not in his place—I appreciate that he may be taking a cup of tea—because as he spoke I was reminded of the story of the young cavalry officer who proposed a suicidal attack until restrained by his sergeant major with the words, "The aim, sir, is to surprise the enemy, not amaze them." The right hon. Gentleman put forward the most extraordinary proposition that, while he is not personally against civil defence, he is against it in the nuclear war context. However, he did not try—I suspect that he would not be able to do so—to explain how one could have civil defence in one form of military or civil emergency but not in another.
In that respect there is no distinction between the concept of a conventional or a nuclear war in civil defence terms; the object is to try to preserve as many lives as possible. That is true of whatever form of aggression is visited on our people and it is illogical for the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters to try to suggest otherwise. Indeed, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said that there was no way to distinguish one from the other. I suggest that he sorts out with his right hon. Friend exactly what the Labour party is saying.
The benefit of these regulations is their concentration on training, spreading the message of how people can have greater confidence in the future by enabling them to look after themselves. I hope that the Minister will extend that principle into other spheres; if local authorities are to undertake the training message, should we not look at, say, schools and other institutions where training along these lines could take place?
Let no Labour Member be under any illusion about the enforcement of the law. Local authorities which refuse to carry out the civil defence regulations will be in breach of the law of the land. If they do not like the law, they can seek to have it changed in this place. They cannot change it unilaterally by deciding to abrogate their responsibilities and place the populations in their charge in greater jeopardy in the event of conflict breaking out. It is so much better if those local authorities can co-operate with the Government in what is a joint exercise, which I believe should remain so. The last time that comissioners went into local authorities was in the 1950s. They went to Coventry and St. Pancras and the operation was not especially successful. It is to be hoped that we can continue to keep a measure of agreement.
I am sure that you will understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I speak with some smugness. I am a happy man, just as the hon. Member for Montgomery should be a happy man. Both he and I live in nuclear-free Wales. That means that if there is to be a conflict involving
380
nuclear weapons, he and I and other hon. Members who have the privilige and distinction to represent the fair Principality will be exempt from the holocaust. I can only sympathise with those of my colleagues who have the misfortune to represent English constituencies.
Does any one believe that a nuclear-free zone can exempt us from the effects of a nuclear war? I fear that the proposition is being advanced seriously by the authorities that have declared these zones. In so doing, they are deluding the British population. What nonsense it is! My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) posed a scenario in the Kremlin in which Mr. Andropov might have said, "Leave the GLC alone. Leave London alone, because it has declared itself to be a nuclear-free zone." Most of the local authorities in Wales have not even bothered to tell the Kremlin that they have declared nuclear-free zones. Mr. Andropov will not have the benefit of that knowledge. What nonsense this is—
Mr. Boyes: Absolutely.
Mr. Best: The concept of deterrence is twofold. The major factor is to pose to a potential aggressor the capacity to inflict upon him unacceptable damage. A corollary to that aggressive posture and that form of deterrence is to convince the potential aggressor that one has the ability to survive the form of attack that might be visited on Britain and, more importantly, the will demonstrably to survive such an attack. The events that are taking place in nuclear-free zone authorities are manifestations of the absence of will to survive in the event of an attack.
Opposition Members are saying that civil defence is no good and that there is no point in having any civil defence regulations because in the event of war we shall all die. Unfortunately, many of them will be mightily surprised when they find themselves still alive at the end of it and having to deal with the problems—
Mr. Boyes rose—
Mr. Best: I regret that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to do so, but the shortness of time makes it impossible for me to allow him to intervene. I shall not give way to him out of respect to other hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate before the Front Bench replies commence.
In a pamphlet that we have all received, the nuclear-free zone authorities put forward an extraordinary dichotomy. They say that there is no point in having civil defence regulations because in the event of war we shall all die. They are assuming that there will be an all-out nuclear war with a blanket attack on the entire United Kingdom so that, effectively, the British Isles will sink beneath the waves. That is not realistic. Even if it is realistic, how can the same authorities come to the conclusion in the same document that expenditure on civil defence is insufficient? They cannot have it both ways. Either the entire concept of nuclear defence is a wicked deception on the British people—
Mr. Boyes: Exactly; I agree.
Mr. Best: —which is not the case, or we are not spending sufficient money on civil defence.
Dr. Marek rose—
Mr. Best: The civil defence regulations may not be the last word in sophistication, but they are better than

381
nothing. Anything, in this respect, is better than nothing. It is a foolish and genuinely gross deception of the British people for Opposition Members to seek to put across the message that, in the event of a war, whether nuclear or conventional weapons are used, there will be no survivors. That is patent nonsense; it is a wicked message for Opposition Members to put across. If they ponder the nonsense of that argument they will realise that one must plan for survivors. In that event, the duty rests fairly and squarely on the House and local authorities, which have a statutory duty, to protect the lives of the citizens whom we and they have the privilege to represent.
10.31 pm
Mr. Ken Eastham: This has been an amazing debate. Tory Members lacked conviction. I only wish that tomorrow the newspapers would report in full some of the statements by Tory Members so that the British people understand the muddled thinking within Government ranks.
The Minister amazed me when he commenced by saying that he thought that we should take politics out of civil defence. I wonder how anyone can take politics out of such a serious subject when invariably we are talking about war and weaponry. I think that it is a highly political issue. I am sure that all the British people think so, too.
Reference has been made to Hiroshima. The weaponry used at Hiroshima was like a peashooter compared with the weaponry now at large in various European countries and pointed at this nation. We are living in fool's paradise if we try to convince ourselves, as we have done on several occasions tonight, that civil defence will be like the old air raid precautions of 1939. That is more or less what Tory Members said. In 1939 they said that the war would be fought like the 1914 war. They never learn from the mistakes that they have made consistently.
The regulations represent an act of cruel Government deception. They are trying to fool the people about nuclear weaponry. The debate is not about civil defence, but nuclear warfare, and nothing less. We should not allow the Government to try to kid the people that they are interested solely in civil defence. Most authorities already operate forms of civil defence. When there is an air disaster, the fire and ambulance services and emergency forces are used readily, so we have to dispose of that argument, and face what the debate is about. It is solely about nuclear warfare. The Government are trying to lull the British people into believing that there is defence and that the bombs can be sent back into the sky and will not explode. We have been listening to such nonsensical things in the debate.
The Government have been trying to deceive the people. We have read authoritative reports by the British Medical Association and heard eminent scientists and even military leaders firmly saying that there is no defence against nuclear weapons. Even Lord Louis Mountbatten was in those ranks. He said that it was all futile.
Mr. Best: Read his speech.
Mr. Eastham: We have read his speech. It is most embarrassing to many Tory Members. I notice that that speech is rarely quoted.
Mr. Boyes: I notice that Tory Members have gone quiet now that my hon. Friend has said that.
Mr. Eastham: The Association of Metropolitan Authorities is on record as having denounced what the Government are trying to do and said that civil defence is being provided.
I wish to refer to a pamphlet entitled "Emergency Planning Team", which was introduced in 1981 by the then Conservative-controlled Greater Manchester council. The document, which was not written by Labour politicians, refers to nuclear war, not civil defence, air disasters and such matters. The document on the front page states:
"Scientific advice says that 60 per cent. of population would survive serious nuclear attack on this country if action similar to that suggested in this booklet is taken".
The document also makes the following priceless remark:
"Price rises of food items, crop failures and commodity shortages have reinforced the advantages of a housewife's well-stocked store cupboard."
It seems that the wealthy can make their way to their well-stocked and deep hunkers, but the poor, the unemployed and the pensioners will not be in that position.
Appendix B to the pamphlet refers to some of the items that a family should have in stock:
"A cooker (camping gas type) with spare container or kerosene type with 5 gallons of paraffin, lighting (camping gas) candles and matches, buckets, garden water can, basins, shovel and spade, axe or hatchet, clock (not mains electric model), spare underwear, drip-dry clothing, rubber gloves, lice and flea powder, rodent poison, change of outer garments, boots and strong shoes, books, games, paper and pencils, a whistle or gong, radio, torch, saw, screwdriver and a hammer.
Domestic pieces such as mugs, plates, soup bowls, jugs, teapot, tupperware containers, cake tins, water—2 pints per person per day for 7 days. Food: Milk, baby food, coffee, tea sugar syrup, treacle or honey, Marmite, Oxo, soups, oatmeal, fruit, vegetables, rice — tinned, butter, margarine, meat, biscuits, sweets, vitamin tablets and pet food."
Mr. Stuart Holland: All under the stairs!
Mr. Eastham: All those goods are expected to fit under the stairs.
The document shows a sketch of a door leaning against a wall with sandbags on the top. An entire family are meant to crawl into that small space with the 97 gallons of water, the pet food and everything else. This document shows the absurdity of the whole situation facing us.
Let us face facts. People living in modern accommodation do not have cellars. Often, they live in high-rise flats. The document makes no mention of what would happen to them. It summarises the barmy thinking in Government circles about advising people how to make themselves safe.
A clergyman friend of mine told me recently that he has said to his parishioners that, if the sirens sound for a nuclear attack, he will open the doors of his parish church and they will all go inside and die together.
10.41 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: I will not follow the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Eastham) into his church. I will leave him to it.
I welcome the regulations, two sets of which apply to Scotland. I see them as part of a continuing process of improving the nation's civil defence capability. If I have any argument—and one always does — it is that the regulations do not go far enough quickly enough. However, I regard them as a positive step.
An enemy attacking the United Kingdom would have to attack Scotland. Our strategic position would make that

383
inevitable. For example, the civilian radar installations and communications network would have to be knocked out by an aggressor if it intended an airborne or seaborne attack against the United Kingdom from the north, the west or the east.
I regard death from a bayonet as being just as unacceptable as death from a nuclear device or any other modern fiendish weapon. I also cannot accept the view that injury from a bayonet or a nuclear device is acceptable, but I argue that if a potential enemy has such weapons it is wise and prudent to plan against their possible use against the citizens of this country. That is why I have always advocated that we should have a viable civil defence organisation, complete with viable civil defence plans. We must plan before we can organise. I welcome the regulations, because they are a positive step towards the planning stage.
Anyone listening to the debate would think that all that we are concerned about in this ghastly world is nuclear attacks. I remind the House that more people died at Stalingrad than at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Yet people talk about fighting a conventional war in Europe as if it were acceptable. One rarely sees demonstrations by the so-called peace movement against a conventional war in Europe, but it could be nothing but ghastly and horrendous. The casualties would certainly exceed those at Stalingrad, and that cannot be acceptable to anyone who wants peace.
Deterrence has worked both ways. Each side has deterred the other and has believed that it has deterred the other. We have enjoyed peace in Europe for nearly 40 years.
Soviet policy, especially its military policy, was fashioned by the horrors of the Hitler war. After all, the Soviet Union had a non-aggression pact with Hitler and it is not surprising that the Soviets do not trust the West. I would not do so if I were in the Politburo. We must remember that when trying to negotiate with the Soviet military. Twice in recent times they have seen their land invaded by foreign armies that have reached the gates of Moscow. That has conditioned their attitude.
However, can we be certain that in 10 or 20 years, when the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—that massive conglomeration in which the Russions are a minority—faces demands for more civil freedoms and more consumer expenditure and, with a failed harvest, confronts unrest such as that now seen in Poland and other satellite countries, the men in the Politburo at that time might not be tempted into risky military adventures against the West?
That is the possibility about which we must think and against which we must plan. That is the possibility against which we must adequately prepare ourselves. Deterrence has worked. There is evidence that it has worked. Can we be sure, however, that, if the Soviets perceived any weakening in our determination to deter, they might not be tempted? Sane and rational people who want serious negotiations and Arms reductions recognise that they must go hand in hand with sensible policies of deterrence and civil defence.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is, I understand, in agreement with those local authorities that do not accept the law or the edicts of central Government. He said, in effect, that he supported
384
them, and he gave his reasons for doing so. At their invitation, I have participated in debates in the council chambers of two authorities in Scotland that have declared themselves to be nuclear-free zones: Dundee City and Stirling district. The cases presented by the controlling Labour groups in those debates did not follow, not even remotely, the lines of the right hon. Gentleman's argument this evening. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends will be able to tell him whether he or those local authorities are out of step.
Declaring a city, an area or a district to be a nuclear-free zone is about as effective as calling one's own home a burglar-free zone. It is one of the great nonsenses of our time. In an intervention earlier this evening, I mentioned that it was not unknown for local authorities in this country to refuse to accept the edicts of central Government. Before the 1939–45 war, the Clydebank council in Scotland refused to build Anderson shelters. As a result, many people died unnecessarily in the Clydebank blitz. That is a lesson that we should never forget. Clydebank council genuinely believed that Hitler would never attack Clydebank, but it forgot to tell him so. Clydebank was attacked, and many hundreds died.
Surely we can all agree on the need for peacetime planning, peacetime training and sensible precautions. People try to draw distinctions between nuclear and conventional war, but civil defence means no more than the defence of the civil population against possible events. Anyone who looks at the world we live in and rejects such things as impossible is not being realistic. We must take a realistic view of what may happen, although no one wants it to happen, and make our plans accordingly. If we plan sensibly and prudently, and do not pretend to be doing anything else, there is every possibility that we will be given the necessary co-operation. The public will see that we are being sensible. They will accept that no one, either in the Kremlin or in Downing Street, intends to fight a nuclear war and that we are simply planning properly for what may happen.
I have sat through the whole debate, and it has been most useful and interesting. If Opposition Members can find anything in my speech to suggest that I am a warmonger, they must be taking it out of context. I am a man of peace, but not a member of the peace movement. I believe that the best way to keep the peace is to do what we are doing.
10.49 pm
Mr. Bruce Millan: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, we oppose these regulations, not because we are against civil defence as such, but because we believe that we are dealing not with a genuine attempt at a credible civil defence policy, but with an exercise in dishonesty and deceit.
The Minister of State complained that the debate about civil defence had been politicised, as though that had happened without regard to the Government's actions in the past four years. But of course it is the Government who have politicised the subject and who have turned this issue into an acute political debate. Indeed, the Minister made a very political speech this evening. We also heard a very political speech from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). Other highly political speeches relating civil defence to the Government's defence policy have been made repeatedly by Conservative Members.

385
Of course, an example of the way in which the debate has been politicised is the Government's attempt to pretend that we could survive a nuclear war in a reasonable and civilised way if we took a few sensible, simple precautions. We simply do not believe that. The process started with that infamous document "Protect and Survive", published in 1980. When my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackely (Mr. Eastham) read out a list of the items that one is supposed to take into the little home shelter in the event of a nuclear war, he was doing no more than reading out details from that pamphlet. It has been comprehensively derided and ridiculed ever since its publication.
The Government's attempt to pretend that we could survive a nuclear war in some sort of reasonable order is not unconnected of course with the whole of the Government's defence policy. It is humbug for the Minister to say tonight that the Government are concerned only about humanitarianism, and that this issue has nothing to do with defence policy. Several quotations have already been given, but I shall give a few more. The present Home Secretary once said:
"Civil preparedness should be adequate if the credibility of the military deterrent strategy is to be maintained."
The former Home Secretary said:
"Civil defence…this important element of our defence strategy…an expanded civil defence programme is both prudent and necessary to achieve an appropriate balance in our defence capability."
These regulations, and the Government's whole attitude towards civil defence are very much bound up with the Government's overall defence policy. That is the first reason why the whole question has become an acute political issue. The second reason is that the
Government have not followed the logic of their argument that it is possible, with suitable civil defence arrangements, to provide a civilised form of life after a nuclear war, by then providing the considerable sums necessary to make that policy a reality.
The Government estimate that the civil defence policy for this country will cost between £60 million and £70 million a year. However, we spend £16,000 million a year on defence as a whole. It is impossible to take the Government seriously on the logic of their own argument when that is the sum of money that they are providing. I looked at the rate support grant figures for Scotland and at what is provided by way of specific grant in 1983–84 in Scotland by this Government, who are so dedicated to a credible civil defence policy. The sum is £l·2 million for the whole of Scotland in the current year. That makes nonsense of all the Government's protestations about the adequacy of their civil defence policy.
Let us look at the "intellectually honest" approach of the Government—to borrow a phrase from the Minister. It is revealing to look at the original draft of the civil defence regulations which was sent to local authorities and to compare it with what we have before us tonight. On the subject of evacuation, for example, the Minister of State challenged my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook when he mentioned the original evacuation proposal. The Minister, who is presumably in charge of civil defence, incredibly was not aware that the original regulations contained proposals for evacuation. I have the original draft regulations, and as my right hon. Friend said, local authorities were asked to plan for transferring members of the civil population from one area to another in the event of hostile attack. That is evacuation.
386
That proposal has been dropped. Why has it been dropped over the past year? Have the Government made some new assessment of its necessity? Has there been some significant change in the nuclear threat which makes evacuation no longer the right response in the event of hostile attack, or would it cost significantly more for local authorities to plan meaningfully for evacuation than the Government are willing to make available for civil defence?
What about shelters for the public? That was another matter mentioned tonight which has been dropped from the regulations. The original draft said that local authorities were to provide public civil defence shelters. One must note the phrase that followed:
"whether or not priority of admission is accorded to specific persons or classes of person."
Local authorities were originally supposed to categorise members of the community into those who were to have priority for shelter and those who were not. That requirement has been dropped from the regulations. If the Government were serious about protecting the population and believed that there could be some genuine survival after a nuclear attack they should be asking local authorities to provide public shelters on a considerable scale, but they are not.
What about control centres? My right hon. Friend asked the Government about them because, under the original regulations the control centres were meant to be suitable for the period after the hostile attack. In other words, if one is going to run any community after a nuclear war there has to be a control centre which will be operational after nuclear attack. That also has been dropped from the regulations.
The local authorities simply have to provide control centres, but if they are not properly protected they will go when the balloon goes up just the same as everything else. That makes a farce of all the talk about central planning and so on that we have heard from the Government.
The Government have lost all credibility with the general public, and not just CND supporters, on their civil defence policy. Many members of the public who are not CND supporters believe in nuclear deterrence but do not believe that we have a credible civil defence policy from the Government. Any responsible body which looks at the subject comes inevitably to that conclusion.
We have had quotations from the BMA study and, as the Minister acknowledged when it was published originally the Government tried to smear it and say that it had been subject to undue CND influence. I am glad that the Government have at least had the good grace to withdraw that disgraceful allegation.
I want to quote one matter from the BMA report. It is not about taking a view as doctors and non-experts on the subject of nuclear warfare, but about the scale of possible attack on this country in the event of a nuclear war. Here is what it says about the casualty figures that might be expected following the detonation of a single, 1-megaton weapon over the United Kingdom:
"The explosion of a single nuclear bomb of the size used at Hiroshima over a major city in the United Kingdom is likely to produce so many cases of trauma and burns requiring hospital treatment that the remaining medical services in the United Kingdom would be completely overwhelmed."
That is the reality that we face from a single bomb of the size used at Hiroshima if it were exploded here. If there were a nuclear war, we should not be expecting anything as simple as that to deal with—we should be expecting

387
bombing thousands of times more serious than what happened at Hiroshima. That is what makes it so disgraceful for the Government to pretend that, if we all take simple, sensible steps, somehow civilisation can go on much as before.
The Royal College of Nursing is another organisation that the Government like to quote to us, when there are troubles in the NHS, as a highly respectable and responsible organisation. Its working party report, produced the other day, said this about "Protect and Survive":
"The Home Office booklet 'Protect and Survive' is, in our view, a naive and misleading misrepresentation of the effectiveness of the measures recommended as a means of protection in anticipation of a nuclear attack."
All the Government's civil defence policy is a misleading representation of the real problems that we should face in the event of a nuclear war. The Government have not persuaded the BMA, the RCN or any expert or professional body outside the Home Office, as my hon. Friends have said, on the credibility of their civil defence policy.
Mr. Hurd: We have persuaded the BMA and the RCN that they should join us in carrying out our plan. Will the right hon. Gentleman, following that example, persuade local authorities to do the same?
Mr. Milian: I am coming to the local authorities, but what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the BMA and the RCN is misleading.
Mr. Hurd: Why?
Mr. Milian: I was coming to the local authorities because it is principally with local authorities that we are dealing tonight. The Government have not persuaded the local authorities of the sense or purpose of these regulations. That is not unconnected with the fact that there has been a breakdown in relationships between the Government and local authorities over the past four years. What can the Government expect when they have dictated to and bullied local authorities unmercifully over the past four years? The Government have tried to determine rate levels, are penalising authorities over levels of expenditure, and have forced up local authority rates and the rest.
As a result of this breakdown, the Government would have been lucky, even if they had produced credible arrangements, to have had local authority co-operation. However, they do not have that, and the Government are deluding themselves if they believe that passing these regulations will mean that they suddenly have local authority co-operation when they have dragooned local authorities into doing their bidding simply by passing the regulations. There is no question of breaking the law, as some Conservative Members have suggested. I am not advocating that any local authority should break the law, and I hope that none of them will do so. However, there is a vast difference between breaking the law and cooperating enthusiastically. There is a large area in between those two, and the very most that the Government can expect from local authorities, and not only Labour-controlled ones, is a reluctant acquiescence in the regulations, if they are passed.
If the Government believe in the importance of civil defence, do they really want the regulations and
388
organisation to be carried out by reluctant local authorities that will drag their feet and not give the wholehearted cooperation essential for success? It is no use Conservative Members talking about Home Office officials rather than Home Office Ministers forcing local authorities to do something that they do not want to do; monitoring them, sending in comissioners and so on. Apart from the defects in merit, the regulations will not work because they will not receive the minimum level of co-operation to make them work. Local authorities do not believe in the regulations, and they are sensible to take that view.
Why does the Minister think that he will improve the position by trying to marry civil defence with the handling of civil emergencies? That will not solve the problem. Every local authority accepts responsibility for dealing with civil emergencies, but if the Government think that, because local authorities accept that responsibility they will willingly accept the responsibilities in the regulations, they are deluding themselves.
If the Government are to get themselves out of the mess they have made on civil defence, they will have to begin on an entirely different basis. They must admit what we all know to be true—that we cannot survive a nuclear attack in any civilised way. The idea that we can produce plans and regulations to enable us to survive is absolute nonsense and an absurdity. While the Government try to persuade local authorities and others of that, they will have no sensible civil defence policy. If the Government accept that—I do not believe that they will—it may be possible to talk sensibly to local authorities.
We have probably gone past that stage. There was the first glimmer of recognition of that fact in the speeches of hon. Members opposite tonight. All the talk about centralised control recognises that the Government will not achieve their objectives by leaving the matter with local authorities. If the Government believe that they have the right civil defence policy, they had better take over complete responsibility for it. They will not get the job done by local authorities, either willingly or unwillingly.
The attitude taken by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, without dissent from Conservative members —the regulations are anathema to local authorities—is that if the Government want this civil defence policy they had better organise it themselves and not pretend that they can do it with the co-operation of local authorities.
The Government have brought this chaos and disaster upon themselves. The regulations will make an already chaotic position even worse. If the Government had any sense they would withdraw them, even now at this last minute, and think again.
11.9 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): We have had what I am sure all hon. Members agree is a comprehensive debate on civil defence —the first of its kind for some time. On occasions, we have perhaps strayed beyond the exact limits of the regulations into the wider sphere of nuclear weapons and national defence. That is not surprising. However, I want to concentrate mainly on the case for civil defence, which I believe stands on its own.
The case, essentially and simply—and I believe that it should be restated — is that no Government can guarantee that this country will never again be involved or caught up in war, directly or indirectly. Even if we were to give up our nuclear deterrent, abandon our NATO allies

389
and be prepared to submit unconditionally to any military threat, there could still be no assurance that this country would not be subject to some form of attack in war, and no assurance that we could wholly escape the effects of any nuclear conflict between other nations. The facts of geography—inescapable as they are—make this plain. So, even if we took those extreme steps, we should still need civil defence. If we cannot be sure that we shall never again be involved or caught up in any kind of warfare, nuclear or conventional, we have a duty to do what we can to protect our people from its effects, were it to happen.
The Government understand the concern that is felt by many caring and honest people about the possession of nuclear weapons. We share that concern and we share their desire for peace. That is why we maintain our strenuous diplomatic efforts to promote disarmament and make the world a safer place. However, the world would not be a safer place if we denied ourselves our capability to deter aggressors, and the need for civil defence measures would not disappear if we disarmed. Every country must undertake civil defence measures to protect its people. Any Government who do not do so are ignoring their basic responsibilities.
Essential services in Britain are provided through a complex division of duties between central and local government. That division can operate effectively only if there is good will and a responsible attitude on each side. When we came into government in 1979, we found a need to invest greater effort and resources in civil defence. We made it clear that the former partnership with local authorities should continue so that we could achieve the necessary improvement in our national civil defence planning. We identified with the local authorities as our main partners because they have the relevant experience, resources and knowledge of the particular needs within their own areas. Regrettably, although there have been notable exceptions, by and large authorities did not respond adequately to the lead we provided in 1980. My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) illustrated that fact remarkably well. It has left the population in large areas of the country without adequate arrangements for their welfare and protection in the event of war. What is perhaps more important, it has disrupted the preparations of many other responsible authorities.
Mr. Deakins rose—
Mr. Ancram: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but, in view of the time, I shall not give way very much during my speech.
Mr. Deakins: I thank the Minister for giving way. Will he say something about the role of public utilities in providing essential services and how they fit into this pattern of central and local government co-operation?
Mr. Ancram: I shall come to that matter when I answer the questions that have been asked during the debate.
Clearly, the situation that the Government inherited could not continue. We in government have played our part by encouragement and exhortation and by making available our share of additional resources, but these have not been used, and authorities have been able to shelter behind the inadequacies of the earlier regulations. That is why the regulations for England, Wales and Scotland now
390
before the House are necessary. They are necessary to make sure that basic local preparedness is carried forward and to assist those authorities which are anxious to protect their people by strengthening, extending and setting out more clearly the duties of local authorities and by providing increased financial support for local expenditure. We seek to achieve those aims not by rejecting the policies followed by the Opposition when in government, but rather by adopting them, building on them and extending them only where necessary. Scottish Members who were in the House 10 years ago—some of them are here tonight—will find much that is familiar in these regulations if they compare them closely with those made in 1975 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, now Lord Ross of Marnock.
These regulations are in no sense warlike instruments. They merely provide a basis for local authorities to take simple precautions at minimal cost as an insurance premium against such an event happening. The then Labour Government's spokesman, the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), said:
"It is the sincere hope of all of us that the plans will never need to be implemented, but that is no reason for not attempting to make them".—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, 7 May 1975; c. 10]
What the hon. Gentleman said then holds true today. I hope that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and, more importantly, the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian), who was the Secretary of State for Scotland and responsible for civil defence in Scotland, will appreciate that when they were in government they took the view that they say we should not take tonight.
That is why I was surprised to hear Opposition Members suggest that some authorities will pay no heed to the regulations. I do not believe that this will be so. I am confident that no responsible local authority will fail to discharge statutory duties laid upon it by Parliament. But, even if I am wrong, I want to make it plain that the people of this country must and will receive adequate protection.
I remind my hon. Friends that the powers exist to ensure that the functions prescribed in the new regulations are carried out, and that it remains open to us to use these powers should any authority be so irresponsible as to disregard the fundamental interests of its citizens I hope that it will not be necessary to use those powers.
Many matters were raised, and I cannot deal with them all. The Opposition case seems to be divided into two parts. Some Opposition Members believe that civil defence is unnecessary and wrong because they happen to be against the nuclear deterrent. I find it more difficult to understand others, particularly on the Opposition Front Bench, who claim that their opposition is based solely on the Government's presentation of the civil defence proposals and that they are not against civil defence itself.
The right hon. Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Govan spoke about evacuation. The Government never made a decision to move to an evacuation policy —[Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Govan would listen for once, he would find out the truth. The first draft of the regulations required local authorities to prepare evacuation plans in case the Government decided in future that a national evacuation scheme was made necessary by an international crisis. We continually review that part of the policy. No decision has

391
been taken. In view of the misunderstandings among local authorities at the time, which were reflected in Opposition Members' speeches tonight, the proposal was dropped from the regulations.
Mr. Strang: If the Government want an objective debate on the evacuation issue, they should publish the internal Home Office report on evacuation.
Mr. Ancram: The hon. Gentleman should know that there is no such report within the Home Office. The matter is continually reviewed.
A number of hon. Members talked about emergency centres and the cost that they might impose upon local authorities. I should like to clear up the misunderstanding. Many centres already exist and cover counties in England and regions in Scotland. By and large they are modest schemes. The centres tend to be in the basements of large municipal buildings. The cost of repairing and converting is between £10,000 and £30,000. Therefore some of the figures that have been bandied about by Labour Members do not bear further consideration.
Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious to understand what it is that makes a room in a basement a control centre. How would we distinguish it from a different room in a different basement that was not a control centre?
Mr. Ancram: Apart from anything else, if the right hon. Gentleman had been studying the regulations, he would have found a communications system within that room. I do not know how many basements he visits in which he expects to find technology of that type, but certainly that is not my experience of basements generally.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Mr. Finsberg) asked my right hon. Friend to avoid delays. I can reassure him that the regulations come into effect 28 days after they are approved by Parliament, so there will be no delay.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I was able to read that. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State said that after the regulations come into force the process of consultation will be drawn out. That was what I wanted reassurance about.
Mr. Ancram: We will, of course, over a period, receive and discuss suggestions. It would be a strange system were we not able to do that. I can assure my hon. Friend that within 28 days of the regulations being approved they will become effective.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow made an important point about compulsory training. The regulations do not compel any individual local authority employee to take part in civil defence if he refuses to do so. That has been said categorically to the TUC and to the local authority associations. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be satisfied on that point.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) made several interesting points to which I listened with a good deal of attention. I cannot say at the moment whether the resources for the inspectorate or the regional structure would be justified, but I am sure that he will appreciate that that depends to a large extent on the manner in which local authorities discharge their functions after the regulations are passed. We will certainly keep such proposals in mind, but at present I do not consider that there is a case for them, until we see how the
392
regulations work in practice. My hon. Friend also asked about the staff in the Home Department. I should like to reassure him that the civil defence staff of the Home Office, of the Scottish Home and Health Departments and of the Civil Defence college have been substantially increased since 1980 and they will monitor the performance of local authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) suggested that a 100 per cent. grant for civil defence might be an appropriate way of dealing with this matter. Civil defence must necessarily be a local authority responsibility, because in an emergency it will be the responsibility of local people. It is therefore right that they should make a financial contribution to the cost of the service, although that contribution is being kept small. The combined effect of 75 per cent. grant and 100 per cent. grant on certain expenditure is that about 85 per cent. of local authority expenditure on civil defence is borne by central Government.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) asked about the casualty estimates. I suspect that he has been visited by the same man who has been to see me in my constituency, because I recognised some of the facts and figures that the hon. Gentleman produced. When the Home Office casualty assessment rules are revised, the results will be published, probably next year. I know that the Home Ofice expects that it will be possible to reach broad agreement on the ground rules within the scientific community for casualty assessments from particular levels of attack. I hope that those will be available as rules which may then be applied in a rather less divisive way than some of the assumptions which we have heard tonight.
Too many people incorrectly assume that if war came —we all hope that it will not—it would take a form that could be predicted either by the Government or by themselves. That is absurd. We can as readily predict the type, location, duration, intensity and casualties of natural disasters as we can of war. That is why we question the claim that any war would inevitably be fought with nuclear weapons and on such a scale and with such intensity that inevitably the whole population would be wiped out.
No one can know in advance what form a future conflict might take. It might involve, as some of my hon. Friends have said, no more than conventional bombing; it might stop at limited nuclear exchanges; it might extend to full-scale nuclear warfare. As the opponents of civil defence cannot know what would happen, they cannot properly claim that inevitably everyone in the country would be killed and that there is no point in laying plans to help the survivors.
What we face, in short, is the need to plan flexibly for circumstances which are unpredictable. The Government have never denied that any attack on this country involving nuclear weapons — no matter how few — would be horrendous and that the casualties would be appalling. Equally, it is wrong of those who disagree with the need for civil defence to deny that under any conceivable form of attack there would be many survivors, that their numbers would be increased if sensible protective measures were taken in advance and that their prospects for continued survival and recovery would be far greater if proper plans were formulated.
It is even more wrong to suggest that civil defence is a war-mongering activity. It is quite the opposite. It is, as my right hon. Friend said, a humanitarian endeavour intended to relieve potential human suffering. It is

393
paradoxical that those who claim to have the interests of their fellow citizens at heart at the same time seek to obstruct protective measures being taken on their behalf. These measures need not be elaborate. Those who claim that civil defence is useless because there is no defence against nuclear weapons are ignoring the realities.
The Government are committed to peace—a peace which we believe our defence policy will maintain and preserve. But we recognise, as we must, that no Government have control over our own destiny. In an imperfect world there must always be dangers and risks, and it is these dangers and risks which in all responsibility we must be prepared to reduce. We cannot completely eradicate them, and it is essentially foolish to suggest that we can, so we have a moral responsibility—both central and local government—to make contingency arrangements to alleviate the hardships which may result.
There is nothing inconsistent in preparing for eventualities which we hope and believe will not occur. The last Labour Government did so in terms of civil defence, and we are doing the same. It is the insurance which many of us take out to cover things which we hope and believe will not happen to us in our ordinary lives and yet which commonsense dictates we should make provision for.
That, in essence, is what civil defence is about. It is ensuring as best we can and within the realistic limits of our capabilities and our assessment of the risk the survival of people whose lives might otherwise be lost, and enhancing as best we can their continual survival and rehabilitation. That is why these new civil defence regulations have been laid before the House.
I find it difficult to understand the view of some hon. Members that we should not bother. I do not intend to discuss their motives. I will only say that they would have us believe that a threat is the less if we do not guard against it and that a risk is diminished if we do not provide for it. The lessons of history do not bear that out. However, they go further, for they seek to undermine the basic responsibility of the state, and that is to secure and protect the survival of its citizens. Any Government who ignore that responsibility forfeit their claim to the trust of the people. This Government will not shirk that responsibility. Nor, I believe, will the House. That is why I ask with confidence for the approval of these regulations tonight.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 335, Noes 195.

Division No. 51]

[11.30 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Benyon, William

Alexander, Richard

Berry, Sir Anthony

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Best, Keith

Amess, David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Ancram, Michael

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Arnold, Tom

Biggs-Davison, Sir John

Ashby, David

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Aspinwall, Jack

Body, Richard

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

Bottomley, Peter

Baker, Kenneth (Mole Valley)

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

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

Baldry, Anthony

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Batiste, Spencer

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Bright, Graham

Bellingham, Henry

Brinton, Tim

Bendall, Vivian

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Bennett, Sir Frederic (T'bay)

Brooke, Hon Peter

394

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Harvey, Robert

Browne, John

Haselhurst, Alan

Bruinvels, Peter

Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

Buck, Sir Antony

Hawksley, Warren

Budgen, Nick

Hayes, J.

Bulmer, Esmond

Hayhoe, Barney

Butcher, John

Hayward, Robert

Butler, Hon Adam

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Butterfill, John

Heddle, John

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Henderson, Barry

Carttiss, Michael

Hickmet, Richard

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Hicks, Robert

Chapman, Sydney

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Chope, Christopher

Hill, James

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

Hind, Kenneth

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Hirst, Michael

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Clegg, Sir Walter

Holt, Richard

Colvin, Michael

Hooson, Tom

Coombs, Simon

Howard, Michael

Cope, John

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

Cormack, Patrick

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Couchman, James

Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

Critchley, Julian

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Crouch, David

Hubbard-Miles, Peter

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Dickens, Geoffrey

Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

Dicks, T.

Hunter, Andrew

Dorrell, Stephen

Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Dover, Denshore

Jessel, Toby

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Johnson-Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Dunn, Robert

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Eggar, Tim

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Emery, Sir Peter

Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

Evennett, David

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Eyre, Reginald

Key, Robert

Fairbairn, Nicholas

King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

Fallon, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Farr, John

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Favell, Anthony

Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

Fenner, Mrs Peggy

Knowles, Michael

Finsberg, Geoffrey

Knox, David

Fletcher, Alexander

Lamont, Norman

Forman, Nigel

Lang, Ian

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Latham, Michael

Fox, Marcus

Lawler, Geoffrey

Franks, Cecil

Lawrence, Ivan

Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Lee, John (Pendle)

Freeman, Roger

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Fry, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Gale, Roger

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Galley, Roy

Lightbown, David

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Lilley, Peter

Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Lord, Michael

Glyn, Dr Alan

Lyell, Nicholas

Goodlad, Alastair

Macfarlane, Neil

Gorst, John

MacGregor, John

Gow, Ian

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Gower, Sir Raymond

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Grant, Sir Anthony

Maclean, David John.

Green way, Harry

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Gregory, Conal

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

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

Madel, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Major, John

Grist, Ian

Malins, Humfrey

Ground, Patrick

Malone, Gerald

Grylls, Michael

Maples, John

Gummer, John Selwyn

Marland, Paul

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Marlow, Antony

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Maude, Francis

Hampson, Dr Keith

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Hannam, John

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

395

Mellor, David

Sims, Roger

Merchant, Piers

Skeet, T. H. H.

Miller, Hal (B grove)

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Mills, Iain (Meriden)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Miscampbell, Norman

Speed, Keith

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Speller, Tony

Moate, Roger

Spence, John

Monro, Sir Hector

Spencer, D.

Montgomery, Fergus

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Moore, John

Squire, Robin

Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Stanley, John

Moynihan, Hon C.

Steen, Anthony

Murphy, Christopher

Stern, Michael

Neale, Gerrard

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

Needham, Richard

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Neubert, Michael

Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

Newton, Tony

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Nicholls, Patrick

Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

Norris, Steven

Stradling Thomas, J.

Onslow, Cranley

Sumberg, David

Oppenheim, Philip

Tapsell, Peter

Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Osborn, Sir John

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Ottaway, Richard

Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Parris, Matthew

Terlezki, Stefan

Patten, John (Oxford)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Pattie, Geoffrey

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Thornton, Malcolm

Pink, R. Bonner

Thurnham, Peter

Porter, Barry

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Powell, William (Corby)

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Powley, John

Tracey, Richard

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Twinn, Dr Ian

Price, Sir David

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Proctor, K. Harvey

Vaughan, Dr Gerard

Pym, Rt Hon Francis

Viggers, Peter

Raffan, Keith

Waddington, David

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Wakeham, Rt Hon John

Rathbone, Tim

Waldegrave, Hon William

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Walden, George

Renton, Tim

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Rhodes James, Robert

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Wall, Sir Patrick

Ridsdale, Sir Julian

Waller, Gary

Rifkind, Malcolm

Walters, Dennis

Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

Ward, John

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Watson, John

Roe, Mrs Marion

Watts, John

Rossi, Sir Hugh

Wells, John (Maidstone)

Rost, Peter

Wheeler, John

Rowe, Andrew

Whitfield, John

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Whitney, Raymond

Ryder, Richard

Wiggin, Jerry

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Winterton, Nicholas

St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

Wolfson, Mark

Sayeed, Jonathan

Wood, Timothy

Scott, Nicholas

Woodcock, Michael

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Yeo, Tim

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Mr. Carol Mather and Mr. Robert Boscawen.

Shersby, Michael

Silvester, Fred

NOES

Abse, Leo

Bagier, Gordon A. T.

Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Alton, David

Barron, Kevin

Anderson, Donald

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Beith, A. J.

Ashdown, Paddy

Bell, Stuart

Ashton, Joe

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

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Bermingham, Gerald

396

Blair, Anthony

Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

Boyes, Roland

Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

John, Brynmor

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Johnston, Russell

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

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Caborn, Richard

Kilroy-Silk, Robert

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

Campbell, Ian

Kirkwood, Archibald

Canavan, Dennis

Lambie, David

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Lamond, James

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Lead bitter, Ted

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Clarke, Thomas

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Clay, Robert

Litherland, Robert

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

Cohen, Harry

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Coleman, Donald

Loyden, Edward

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

McCartney, Hugh

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

McGuire, Michael

Corbett, Robin

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McTaggart, Robert

Craigen, J. M.

McWilliam, John

Crowther, Stan

Madden, Max

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Marek, Dr John

Cunningham, Dr John

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Dalyell, Tam

Martin, Michael

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)

Maxton, John

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

Maynard, Miss Joan

Deakins, Eric

Meacher, Michael

Dewar, Donald

Meadowcroft, Michael

Dixon, Donald

Michie, William

Dobson, Frank

Mikardo, Ian

Dormand, Jack

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Douglas, Dick

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Dubs, Alfred

Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Eadie, Alex

Nellist, David

Eastham, Ken

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Ellis, Raymond

O'Brien, William

Evans, loan (Cynon Valley)

O'Neill, Martin

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Ewing, Harry

Park, George

Fatchett, Derek

Parry, Robert

Faulds, Andrew

Pavitt, Laurie

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Pendry, Tom

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Penhaligon, David

Fisher, Mark

Pike, Peter

Flannery, Martin

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Prescott, John

Forrester, John

Radice, Giles

Foulkes, George

Randall, Stuart

Fraser, J. (Norwood)

Redmond, M.

Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

Richardson, Ms Jo

George, Bruce

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Godman, Dr Norman

Robertson, George

Golding, John

Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

Gould, Bryan

Rooker, J. W.

Gourlay, Harry

Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Rowlands, Ted

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Ryman, John

Hardy, Peter

Sedgemore, Brian

Harman, Ms Harriet

Sheerman, Barry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Heffer, Eric S.

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Skinner, Dennis

Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

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

Home Robertson, John

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

Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)

Snape, Peter

Howells, Geraint

Soley, Clive

Hoyle, Douglas

Spearing, Nigel

Hughes, Mark (Durham)

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Stott, Roger

397

Strang, Gavin

White, James

Straw, Jack

Wigley, Dafydd

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Williams, Rt Hon A.

Thomas, Dr R. (Carmarthen)

Wilson, Gordon

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Winnick, David

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Woodall, Alec

Tinn, James

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Warden, Gareth (Gower)

Mr. Harry Cowens and Mr. Ron Leighton.

Wareing, Robert

Welsh, Michael

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
Resolved,
That the draft Civil Defence (Grant) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
That the draft Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) (Scotland) Regulations 1983, which were laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.—[Mr. Ancram.]

Ways and Means

  OIL TAXATION
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That provision may be made for and in connection with—

  (a) varying the reliefs available for certain expenditure incurred (before as well as after the passing of this Resolution) in connection with assets used or to be used in connection with oil fields; and

  (b) bringing into charge to petroleum revenue tax certain sums received or receivable after 30th June 1982 in respect of—

  (i) assets used or to be used in connection with oil fields, and

  (ii) certain other assets situated in the United Kingdom, the territorial sea thereof or a designated area, within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and

  (c) the treatment of sums so received or receivable for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax.—[Mr. Moore.]

  11.43 pm
  Mr. Jack Straw: The resolution paves the way for those parts of the Finance Bill which were lost as a result of the Dissolution on 9 May.
  I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) on his appointment as Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I look forward to hearing his reply in due course.
  Hon. Members will have an opportunity to debate the clauses fully when the Bill returns to the House.
  Since the House previously discussed oil taxation on 28 April, yet another change has taken place in oil taxation, which was announced in the middle of September, when the Chancellor had to rush out a decision that he would be withdrawing petroleum revenue tax relief on abortive explorations and other aspects of farm-ins to protect revenue amounting to about £1,200 million.
  That is the twelfth major change in the oil taxation regime since the Government were elected in 1979 and it sits oddly with the pledge made in April 1979 by the present Secretary of State for Employment, then the Conservative spokesman on energy, that a Conservative Government would pursue
  "a steady policy designed to secure the fullest advantage to the nation as a whole."
  We accept that oil taxation is a difficult area, but I hope that the new Bill that the Financial Secretary will be introducing will bring more coherence and permanence into oil taxation.
  11.46 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. John Moore): I thank the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) for his kind remarks. He is right in saying that the resolution paves the way for the introduction of an oil taxation Bill, which will complete this year's Budget package on the oil industry.
  The Bill relates to the proposed changes to the rules for field expenditure relief. The technical provisions needed were far too complex to ask the House to pass in the short time available for either of this year's Finance Bills. Last summer, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that these changes, which had been dealt with in chapter 2, part IV, of the first Finance Bill, would be the subject of an oil taxation Bill to be introduced in the autumn. That is the Bill to which the resolution relates.

  399
  The hon. Member for Blackburn mentioned developments in September concerning the Forties field. I assure him that we shall be legislating in the Finance Bill. We want to make sure that the technical details are correct, having taken steps against the potential loss of tax.
  Mr. T. H. H. Skeet: Clauses 80 to 87 and schedules 13 to 16 were relinquished when the first Finance Bill went through the House. Will any additional matters be included in the new Bill? There have been long consultations between the industry and the Treasury. They have been meaningful, but does my hon. Friend propose to include any additional matters?
  Mr. Moore: My hon Friend has great experience and knowledge of the industry. He is right to say that there have been long and detailed consultations. They have produced further modest advances. In essence, the provisions were not complete at the time of the Finance Bill and the main change is that, as we announced in April, we have added an equivalent PRT charge on incidental receipts of foreign field owners of pipelines in our waters. They could otherwise have a competitive advantage over our own oil producers in attracting third party sharing.
  We have also changed the rules on associated assets and I am sure that that will lead to considerable discussion in Committee. More generally, the opportunity has been taken to improve the provisions that were included in the clauses and schedules to which my hon. Friend referred in his intervention.
  I should say a word about the background to the proposal mentioned by the hon. Member for Blackburn. The early pattern of development in the North sea was mainly of separate fields. Each had its own pipelines, treatment plants and other facilities or it was known from the outset that such facilities would be shared. The PRT system was well adapted to that.
  However, it has been increasingly clear that the pattern of new developments will include smaller fields relatively close to existing facilities. For these, the natural and possibly the only viable course is for them to pay to use spare capacity in existing assets, particularly pipelines for getting their oil and gas ashore.
  The existing PRT rules are not suitable for the new situation. They give relief to operators of mature fields
  400
  only to the extent that expenditure is incurred for their own fields. The prospect of shared use means that they should lose large amounts of the relief that they already have, and that relief for future expenditure would be restricted. That is no way to encourage the shared use that we need in order to develop the new generation of fields. We must rewrite the relief rules so that full relief is ensured even though assets are, or may be, shared with third parties.
  We all look forward to detailed and lengthy discussion of those critical matters, and I urge the House to support the resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for and in connection with—

  (a) varying the reliefs available for certain expenditure incurred (before as well as after the passing of this Resolution) in connection with assets used or to be used in connection with oil fields; and

  (b) bringing into charge to petroleum revenue tax certain sums received or receivable after 30th June 1982 in respect of—

  (i) assets used or to be used in connection with oil fields, and

  (ii) certain other assets situated in the United Kingdom, the territorial sea thereof or a designated area, within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and

  (c) the treatment of sums so received or receivable for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax.

  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Peter Rees, Mr. John Moore, Mr. Barney Hayhoe and Mr. Ian Stewart.

  OIL TAXATION
  Mr. John Moore accordingly presented a Bill to vary the reliefs available for certain expenditure incurred in connection with assets used or to be used in connection with oil fields; to bring into charge to petroleum revenue tax certain sums received or receivable in respect of such assets and of certain other assets situated in the United Kingdom, the territorial sea thereof or a designated area, within the meaning of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; to amend Part II of the Oil Taxation Act 1975 in relation to sums so received or receivable; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 45].

  Ground Consolidation (Glasgow)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. David Hunt.]
  11.51 pm
  Mr. Jim Craigen: Although it is nearly midnight, I am glad to have this opportunity to mention some of the difficulties that arise in respect of ground consolidation projects in Glasgow.
  Redevelopment in various parts of Glasgow has for some years been hampered by the legacy of mineral workings in the city. There are many parts of the city that are not designated as housing action areas where, nevertheless, ground settlement problems are experienced by property owners. However, the main burden of my remarks concerns the specific problems in housing action areas. Although the extent of mineral workings in the city is largely known, there are areas where they remain to be discovered, and where it is necessary to carry out test bores and other investigations so that property owners and the various statutory bodies are alerted to the need for necessary action.
  Mr. Ian Stevens, formerly an honorary research fellow at Strathclyde university department of mining and petoleum engineering, has for a number of years made a special study of this subject and prepared a series of maps. I have a map showing the extent of mineral workings within the Maryhill constituency, but other parts of the city are much more troubled. I cite, for example, Hillhead, Springburn, Shettleston and the Govanhill area where there has been a series of problems.
  I hope that the Minister will clarify the situation regarding funding the necessary investigation work. There can be a lengthy period while initial survey work is undertaken. Particular problems can arise if the mineral valuer has a suspicion about an area and decides that there might be a need for consolidation work to be done. Moreover, much time can be taken in undertaking the necessary researches and examination of the journals and other evidence of settlement problems.
  The Minister will be aware of the correspondence and of the questions that I have asked the Scottish Office and his predecessors for some time now. I refer to the problem that Springburn and Possilpark housing association has had with a corner property at Balmore Road and Saracen Street. The property could be saved and rehabilitated. The residents certainly want that. Glasgow district council put forward a grant opplication for urban aid support from the Scottish Ofice, but it was turned down. As a result, the possible early rehabilitation of that property has been delayed. That property is now in the Springburn constituency as a result of boundary changes and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) is anxious to pursue the matter.
  Not long ago, I wrote to the Minister about the problem facing the Queen's Cross housing association and its plans for the St. George's Cross area of the city. The Minister was asked to visit those tenement properties in Maryhill Road and St. George's Road. He has intimated to me that the Housing Corporation will follow up the matter. The building could be developed and rehabilitated. At present it is not only an eyesore, but it provides intolerable conditions for those who occupy it. As the Minister will know, St. George's Cross is a key area in Glasgow. It is a focal point which it is important to preserve.
  402
  For some years the Park community council has been concerned about the future of several tenement buildings in the East Woodlands area of the city because of some old mineral workings. Rehabilitation plans may well be put at risk in that prime inner city area unless the Government accept responsibility for the necessary consolidation work. I could cite several other examples. The point is that Glasgow has a sufficient number of gap sites without allowing the creation of more through inaction.
  The Government have been acting rather like Pontius Pilate in relation to the public sector. Several local authority properties may well have to be demolished because of soil stabilisation problems. The Scottish Office refuses to approve any urban aid applications that Glasgow district council submits to stabilise properties in the public sector. It is not always old coal mines that create the problems. In the Possilpark area some properties are at risk because they were built on black ash in the 1920s and 1930s. There are now settlement problems, which are making all sorts of difficulties for the tenants and the local authority.
  Sometimes it is difficult to draw the line between the public and private sectors. The old mine workings know no distinction between one side of the street and the other when it comes to the private, public or voluntary sectors.
  I understand that Govanhill housing association took legal advice some time ago about the responsibility of owner-occupiers. It was pointed out that it could be argued that private owners are not responsible for the mineral workings below them. I understand that this has not been tested in the courts, but it means that the Government should accept that they have some responsibility.
  Many small shopkeepers in tenement buildings are already having to struggle to keep their businesses going and to pay their share of common repairs to maintain the safety of residential properties above them. The Government's crass announcement last week on house improvement grants is a considerable blow to these people as it is to many owner-occupiers in the tenements above. It is a considerable betrayal of the owner-occupiers so soon after the June general election and the Conservative party manifesto. I know that the Minister, in his other capacity as chairman of the Conservative party in Scotland, will know what was in it off by heart. It stated:
  "Housing Improvement grants have been increased…and will continue to play an important role."
  Paradoxically, the action that the Government announced last week will force more owner-occupiers to sell their property so that some other body can undertake the remedial work. That will run counter to the Government's declared intention of extending home ownership.
  In addition to answering the question that I asked about the necessary preliminary work, I hope that the Minister will comment on the guidance note that the Housing Corporation is to issue to housing associations about procedures. It seems to me that it will merely clarify what we know about current procedures rather than resolve the problem of who pays for the ground consolidation.
  The Minister and his predecessor pointed out to me that section 29(2)(d) of the Housing Act 1974 contains provisions that could help. However, problems arise where the housing association does not have total ownership of the fiats. I suggest that, in the light of last week's discouragement over improvement grants, greater problems will face housing associations which have a minority, or even a majority, of the tenemental flats.

  403
  Who pays for the infilling costs where it is necessary to undertake ground consolidation is a political question. The response to that geological fact of life must come from the Government.
  I hope that the Government will act in one, two or more ways to atone for last week's announcement on improvement grants. It would be straightforward if the Scottish Office would agree to a more positive response to urban aid applications from Glasgow district council in respect of housing action areas.
  I believe that there is a happy precedent for Priesthill where, as a result of partnership between Glasgow district council and Barratt builders, part of the existing council stock will be rehabilitated and an open area developed with Barratt completing new houses and receiving urban aid assistance and improvement grants. That old helicopter gets around.
  Another approach would be if the Scottish Development Agency were permitted by the Scottish Office to help in ground consolidation in residential areas. As I understand it, the London dockland area is much assisted in that respect by the development corporation with 100 per cent. development grants. I believe that the Department of the Environment tends to work through local authorities in England because there is no equivalent to the Scottish Development Agency. I hope that the Scottish Office will make a positive response to this tremendous problem.
  It was interesting that just before the debate started we were considering aspects of North sea oil development. I suspect that the Minister has other responsibilities here and that in time we shall find that there are settlement problems on the sea bed as a result of oil exploration in the North sea that may well create future coastal erosion difficulties, but that is wide of the mark in tonight's debate.
  The Minister has a responsibility to help Glasgow overcome some of the physical problems created by coal mining in the last century, to minimise much of the red tape that has been created, and to resolve administrative and practical problems that arise where ground consolidation work is necessary.
  12.5 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) for raising tonight a question that is of practical significance to many residents of tenements scheduled for improvement. The thought of discussing the consolidation of oil wells in the North sea is one that fills me with dread, and I am glad that my responsibilities tonight extend only as far as the questions that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
  The general problem of ground affected by mineral workings became an issue in the Glasgow eastern area renewal project some two or three years ago. The officer level management group of GEAR discussed the relative advantages and disadvantages of developing ground affected by old workings and the extent to which ground consolidation measures were necessary. A paper prepared for the management group explored the options of dealing with such ground. This paper has now been made generally available because of its relevance in other parts of Scotland. The paper suggests that in areas where ground stability is affected by old mineral workings an appropriate
  404
  development strategy need not necessarily involve preventive measures, such as ground consolidation, as a matter of course, but could instead assess the risk of eventually losing a small percentage of investments and accept that economic risk where it is reasonable to suppose that the cost will, in the long run, be less than that of preventive measures. It notes that alternative measures to consolidation may represent a better investment in particular cases—for example, the insertion of jacking points in the foundations.
  I make no apology for stressing this apparently theoretical stance at the outset. It is all too easy for those involved in developments to presume an overwhelming public interest in ensuring that their particular site is developed according to their initial plan—regardless of ground conditions and the cost of dealing with them. Land is not in short supply in Glasgow, and we must not slavishly adhere to historic patterns of development if that involves a heavy price.
  We also need to be clear, I think, that the holes under Glasgow do not belong to the Scottish Office. There must be no presumption that it is the Secretary of State's duty to equalise the development costs of all sites in the city. Some sites are too expensive to develop, and it is better that everyone should accept that at the outset.
  The hon. Member has asked about the position on the funding of technical investigative work which is required to be carried out in connection with the possible need for site consolidation in regard to a particular scheme.
  Investigative work of this kind is part of the work which requires to be carried out by an association in assessing the viability of a project before capital expenditure, whether on the acquisition of unimproved properties or on development works, is committed. Where adequate information on undermining is not already in existence and available to the association, an up-to-date report may well be required and the cost of this may be met in a number of different ways. The district council may for example agree to fund the cost as part of the work that the housing association is performing as its agents in assessing the prospects of viable rehabilitation works being carried out in a given instance. Such help as this may be particularly necessary for the association that does not have funds of its own available for the purpose.
  Where further survey work requires to be carried out at a later stage in relation to a particular tenement block as part of the design of a detailed rehabilitation scheme, then the professional costs involved will count along with other consultants' fees, as part of the capital cost of that particular scheme. These arrangements apply to survey work carried out in connection with the planning of housing association projects where professional fees may be incurred and I have no indication that they are not adequate for the purpose of meeting consultants' costs which deal with engineering as opposed to constructional aspects of a scheme.
  Mr. Craigen rose—
  Mr. Ancram: If I can finish what I have to say, I may be able to answer the hon. Gentleman's point.
  If a detailed case for applying different arrangements is put to me I will certainly consider it, but I must make it clear that all capital costs in connection with consolidation works, including the costs of survey work, must be justifiable on the basis of the viability test applied

  405
  to rehabilitation schemes generally. The hon. Gentleman may feel on the basis of what I have said that he might like to write to me on the matter.
  Mr. Donald Dewar rose—
  Mr. Ancram: If I am to cover all the questions asked, I had better continue with my speech.
  In regard to sites occupied by residential buildings, the most obvious problem is as the hon. Gentleman said, that undermining of tenements is in many cases threatening their useful life for the future and raising problems both about the economics of remedial works and responsibility for funding them.
  The role of housing associations in carrying out comprehensive tenement rehabilitation schemes in Glasgow has been fully described in the hon. Gentleman's remarks I need not elaborate on that, except to pay my tribute to the great contribution that they, and other associations elsewhere in our urban communities, are making to the revitalisation of areas where otherwise people would be faced with loss of their homes through clearance or living in unsatisfactory circumstances until the inevitable occurred.
  That said, I should make the point clearly that the undermining of tenements is not something that has until now held back progress in comprehensive rehabilitation to any significant extent. Most of the Glasgow associations have been able to proceed with full programmes involving tenements that have not required ground consolidation or other remedial measures of that kind. The volume of current and recent spending by community-based housing associations in Glasgow speaks for itself. Since 1979 more than £120 million has been invested by them in rehabilitation in the city, and the Housing Corporation is planning to spend a further £40–£50 million for that purpose in the present financial year.
  Substantial budgets have thus been allocated to at least a score of community-based associations in Glasgow, in most cases as an increasing scale in recent years particularly. The result is that associations have now completed some 9,000 rehabilitation units in the city, more than half of those in the past four to five years. It would be quite wrong to claim that site consolidation problems had reduced the impetus of that remarkable programme, though there have, of course, been difficulties for individual associations, as I am well aware.
  Mr. Craigen: The Minister said that it is not a great problem. Is he saying that if there is a big problem we may have to write off substantial parts of the city on economic grounds because the Government will not lift the tar?
  Mr. Ancram: As I said earlier, we must study the economics of each case for remedial work.
  The hon. Gentleman raised a question about the urban aid programme and the SDA. Glasgow district has argued for some time that consolidation works should be financed through the urban programme, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always resisted that. The urban programme should not be deployed as a back-door housing grant. Any consolidation costs must form part of a single investment appraisal. One area where the programme does have an important contribution to make, however, is in assisting councils to dispose of land for private development. As the hon. Gentleman may be aware, Glasgow district already has urban programme approval to the carrying out of
  406
  consolidation works at a site in Priesthill. Ground consolidation is therefore not only a question of stabilising existing buildings. Indeed, I would say that it is equally a question of preparing derelict land for development, some of which may also be undermined.
  The SDA has powers under section 8 of the Scottish Development Agency Act 1975 to acquire derelict land and carry out works on it, to enable it to be brought into use or to improve its appearance. I understand that officials of Glasgow district and of the agency are having discussions about opportunities for the agency to exercise these powers—not simply to create public open space, but to enable development to take place on the land. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the agency discusses its proposed land renewal programmes with local authorities as a matter of course, to get a local view of the priorities for the limited resources available. Costs and returns need to be carefully assessed in each instance, of course, but in principle I can see much to be gained by the judicious use of the SDA's powers to prepare suitable brownfield sites for sale to private housebuilders. Indeed, the point has arisen in recent discussions between officials of SEPD and the SDA.
  Mr. Dewar rose—
  Mr. Ancram: I have a limited time in which to speak and there are a number of other matters which the hon. Gentleman raised and which I hope to cover. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member will allow me to continue.
  It is important to distinguish this sort of activity from the consolidation of ground on which housing already stands. As I have said already, site consolidation costs, where they arise as a legitimate cost for a housing association, have to be evaluated as an integral element of the whole rehabilitation project. There is no point in seeking to use the SDA as a new sort of housing improvement body. That is not desirable, as the agency's principal focus must continue to be as an economic development agency. Residential land is "in use" already, of course, and in any case I would certainly not want to see the agency acquiring tenemental properties. The housing corporation has, as I have said, full delegated power to approve housing association rehabilitation costs, and there is every merit in dealing with this issue through a single body.
  With schemes carried through by housing associations, costs require approval before tenders are accepted in order that grant may be paid once the work is completed. Before 1 October 1982, responsibility for cost approvals was discharged by my Department, with costs up to a certain limit being subject to approval by the corporation on the basis of delegation. Since that date, the corporation has had full delegated powers to approve costs, subject only to the need for them to comply with guidance of a general nature provided by my Department. The form and content of that guidance are critical to the future handling of this problem.
  The point which my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), tried to make plain in the answers that he provided to questions from the hon. Member earlier this year was that site consolidation costs, where they arise as a legitimate cost for a housing association, should be seen as part of the cost of the whole rehabilitation project. On that basis, there is no funding issue separate from that of general funding for

  407
  rehabilitation projects and no assessment of cost separate from the overall assessment of the viability of rehabilitation in the case of a given block, or wider scheme, which should precede any commitment of funds.
  The housing corporation needs a framework against which it can proceed to consider individual projects involving expenditure on consolidation. The end product of excessive recent consultation is a guidance note for housing associations which is designed to indicate in what circumstances consolidation costs will be accepted for the purpose of scheme approval and subsequent payment of grant. That is the other matter that the hon. Gentleman raised. This note is, I understand, on the point of being issued by the housing corporation. Meanwhile, it has been applying the principles agreed in consultation with my Department, and another scheme has been approved recently on this basis. One of the earlier approvals was in Firrhill Street, Maryhill, which is in the hon. Member's constituency.
  In the recent consideration there has been a need to consider legality, the payment of housing association grant. My Department has been able to confirm to the housing corporation that section 29 of the Housing Act 1974—the provision under which the purposes of the grant are defined — enables payment to be made to associations in respect of any necessary costs of a rehabilitation project, including non-recoverable costs in respect of properties not in the ownership of the association where owners decline to contribute to their share of the costs and cannot be forced to do so, either because of the housing action area resolution or otherwise. In such cases, however, it will clearly be necessary for the association to be fully satisfied that the work is necessary to secure the association's investment in the block. That is a precondition of the grant being payable at all.
  The questions that arise are not, however, limited to the legal powers to pay grant. It must be shown that the work to be carried out is necessary for the rehabilitation of the block, close or other group of houses.
  In projects where an association does not have full ownership, the guiding principle is that it should expect to
  408
  do no more than meet its own share of the costs, nothwithstanding any role it may have in co-ordinating the rehabilitation of the project area as a whole. It is recognised, however, that there may be cases where the association has a substantial holding in the property, short of full ownership, and there can be a case for approval of payment of other owners' costs for site consolidation to project the association's interest— for example, when part of a block where the association wishes to improve houses in its ownership has a number of other owners and the stability of both groups of houses is threatened. This approach would, of course, be less and less appropriate as the proportionate share held by an association diminished.
  Mr. Craigen: The Minister is encouraging housing associations to build more flats for sale.
  Mr. Ancram: I am aware of the demands that I am making through the Housing Corporation and housing associations. When I met the Federation of Housing Associations the other day I made it clear that the Government believe that the associations play an important role.
  Before that interruption, I was talking about the approach which will be less and less appropriate as the proportionate share held by an association diminished. In such a case it would be necessary for the association to produce evidence to show that the work involved is necessary to secure its own investment in the block and that the private owners who do not wish to join with the association on a voluntary basis cannot readily be shown to have legal liability to pay—either under the common law or arising from the requirements that they themselves have to meet in relation to conformity with the tolerable standard on account of the housing action area declaration.
  In the case where an association has no ownership in a block there will, of course, be no power to pay any grant on consolidation costs, and the appropriateness of paying grant—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour,MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at twenty-one minutes past Twelve o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Private Schools
  Private Schools
  Class Sizes
  Class Sizes
TRANSPORT
  M25 (Completion)
  M25 (Completion)
  Roads (Resurfacing Techniques)
  Roads (Resurfacing Techniques)
  M1 (Repairs)
  M1 (Repairs)
  Silverstone Race Track (Accidents)
  Silverstone Race Track (Accidents)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Waste Materials (Heat Recovery)
  Waste Materials (Heat Recovery)
  Manufacturing Output
  Manufacturing Output
  Regional Policy Review
  Regional Policy Review
  Regional Development Grants (Merseyside)
  Regional Development Grants (Merseyside)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Paid Envelopes
  Official Paid Envelopes
DEFENCE
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
  Marine Ketterick (Compensation)
  Marine Ketterick (Compensation)
  Foreign Service Personnel (Training)
  Foreign Service Personnel (Training)
EMPLOYMENT
  Government Training Schemes
  Government Training Schemes
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Industrial Cleaning Companies
  Industrial Cleaning Companies
  Trawlermen
  Trawlermen
SOCIAL SERVICES
  NHS (Unused Beds)
  NHS (Unused Beds)
  Newham District Health Authority (Audit)
  Newham District Health Authority (Audit)
  Dispensing Chemists (Remuneration)
  Dispensing Chemists (Remuneration)
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  ICC (Cleaning Services) Ltd.
  ICC (Cleaning Services) Ltd.
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  Barnsley and District General Hospital
  Barnsley and District General Hospital
  NHS Cuts (Trent and Barnsley)
  NHS Cuts (Trent and Barnsley)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Income and Taxation
  Income and Taxation
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Police Establishments
  Police Establishments
  Deportation (Advisory Panel)
  Deportation (Advisory Panel)
  Firearms
  Firearms
  European Assembly Elections (Boundaries)
  European Assembly Elections (Boundaries)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Fugitive Offenders Act 1967
  Fugitive Offenders Act 1967
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Police and Criminal Evidence Bill
  Independent Prosecution Service
  Independent Prosecution Service
ENERGY
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Domestic Heating
  Domestic Heating
  European Community (Coal Imports)
  European Community (Coal Imports)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFARIS
  Washington Embassy
  Washington Embassy
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  British Broadcasting Corporation
  Zimbabwe
  Zimbabwe
  United Nations Volunteer Fund for Torture Victims
  United Nations Volunteer Fund for Torture Victims
  Foreign Police Officers (Training)
  Foreign Police Officers (Training)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  William Wilberforce (Exhibition)
  William Wilberforce (Exhibition)
  Aid Programme
  Aid Programme
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Whirling Disease
  Whirling Disease
ENVIRONMENT
  Grant Levels
  Grant Levels
  Greater London Council
  Greater London Council
  Lead in Water
  Lead in Water
  Council Rents
  Council Rents
  Gipsy Sites
  Gipsy Sites
  Lambeth Council
  Lambeth Council
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Rating System
  Rating System
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  North of England
  North of England
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Local Authorities (Privatisation)
  Local Authorities (Privatisation)
  Rugby Union
  Rugby Union
  Right to Buy
  Right to Buy
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Islington
  Islington
  System Building
  System Building
  Low Cost Rented Accommodation
  Low Cost Rented Accommodation
  Council Officials (Political Activities)
  Council Officials (Political Activities)
  Local Government Manpower
  Local Government Manpower
  Rate Increases
  Rate Increases
  Metropolitan Counties (Expenditure)
  Metropolitan Counties (Expenditure)
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Priority Estates Project
  Priority Estates Project
  South Africa (Sporting Contacts)
  South Africa (Sporting Contacts)
  Berkshire (Structure Plan)
  Berkshire (Structure Plan)
  Rural Landscape
  Rural Landscape
  Home Improvement
  Home Improvement
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  National Parks
  National Parks
  Local Plans (Agricultural Land)
  Local Plans (Agricultural Land)
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Regional Water Authorities
  Regional Water Authorities
  Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool
  Adelphi Hotel, Liverpool
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Nuclear Waste (Disposal)
  Young Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  Young Homeless Persons (Accommodation)
  International Garden Festival, Liverpool
  International Garden Festival, Liverpool
  Local Authority Expenditure (Disregards)
  Local Authority Expenditure (Disregards)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
SCOTLAND
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  Bachelor of Education Degree
  School Entries
  School Entries
  Area Health Boards
  Area Health Boards
  Transport Expenditure
  Transport Expenditure
  Spanish (Teaching)
  Spanish (Teaching)
  Modern Languages
  Modern Languages
  Unemloyment (Dundee)
  Unemloyment (Dundee)
  Secondary Schools (Strathclyde)
  Secondary Schools (Strathclyde)
  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Teachers (In-service Training)
  Alcoholism (Tayside)
  Alcoholism (Tayside)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  ITEC Courses, Dundee
  ITEC Courses, Dundee
  NHS (Management Inquiry)
  NHS (Management Inquiry)
  Housing (Standards)
  Housing (Standards)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Sheltered Homes
  Sheltered Homes
  Elderly Persons (Homes)
  Elderly Persons (Homes)
  Homeless Young Persons (Accommodation)
  Homeless Young Persons (Accommodation)
  NHS (Private Audit Firms)
  NHS (Private Audit Firms)
  NHS (Internal Audit Staff)
  NHS (Internal Audit Staff)
  Conveyancing
  Conveyancing
  Manpower Services Commission (Chairman)
  Manpower Services Commission (Chairman)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
  Residential Social Workers (Dispute)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Report)
  North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board (Report)

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 Stoddart of Swindon
David Leonard Stoddart, Esquire, having been created Baron Stoddart of Swindon, of Reading in the Royal County of Berkshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Fisher of Rednal and the Lord Bishopston, and made the solemn Affirmation.

Lord Fitt
Gerard Fitt, Esquire, having been created Baron Fitt, of Bell's Hill in the County of Down, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Brockway and the Lord Scanlon.
The Lords following took and subscribed the Oath or made the solemn Affirmation:
Anthony Gerard Edward Earl of Gainsborough
Hugh Edward Conway Marquess of Hertford.

A European/Latin American Institute
2.42 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will seek to broaden the range of the Europe/Latin America Institute which has been proposed by the European Commission so that it should include such countries as Guyana, French Guiana, Surinam, Jamaica, and all the lesser Antilles, none of which are commonly considered as "Latin".
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): The proposal for a European/Latin American Institute stems not from the Commission but from an independent international group. The Commission has proposed that the Community might give some financial assistance towards their establishment of such an institute. We do not yet know the intention of the originators of the scheme with respect to geographical coverage. Most Caribbean countries are, however, already closely linked to the Community through either the Lomé Convention or as "Overseas countries and territories" under Article 131 of the European Economic Community Treaty.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness for that clarification of fact. Will the Government, should they have the opportunity, do
246
what they can to ensure that the institute, if it comes into being, takes account of those South and Central American countries which are not "Latin"?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I take note of the point that the noble Lord has made. There are, I understand, quite a number of steps to be taken before such an institute might come into being, and there are of course those who feel that there are already institutes serving a very similar purpose in this country which would like Community funds should they be available. I should also say that any membership of a regional organisation would be a matter for the countries concerned.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, will the noble Baroness confirm that one of the steps to be taken was recommended by the parliamentary working document? That document recommended that the Latin American states concerned set up an ad hoc political body as a partner to act in concert with the EEC. Will the noble Baroness kindly say whether any action has been taken along those lines?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I cannot be clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, says that what he is referring to is identical to the institute identified in the Question. But pursuit of this matter will depend largely on whether or not the European Parliament agrees to reinstate this item in the budget when it could be further considered.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am much obliged. The document to which I refer deals in detail with this subject and also with relations between the Community and Latin America. I would be most grateful if the noble Baroness would look at this and confirm whether or not what I say is correct.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I shall of course look into this matter and write to the noble Lord.

Public Expenditure: Monitoring
2.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps the Treasury and the accounting officers of the various spending departments have taken during the current financial year to monitor public expenditure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the monitoring of public expenditure during the current financial year is a key priority. Special attention is being given by the Treasury and spending departments to monitoring the pattern of spending during and at the end of the year. Discussions are taking place with local authority associations about better monitoring of local authority expenditure.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for telling us what is happening about public expenditure in the current year. Can he confirm that there was a General Election on 9th June, and is he aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a Statement on public expenditure in another place exactly four weeks later? Is he further aware that during the course of that Statement he explained that information about public expenditure came in regularly, week by week or day by day, and that the trouble about public expenditure overshooting its mark arose in the last three months of the last financial year and in the first three months of this financial year; that is to say, in the first six months of this calendar year? Is it not obvious that information was available to the Government before polling day just as much as it was available after polling day, and that the Government can therefore be properly charged with a lack of good faith in not telling the electors the full position about public expenditure—and, indeed, about the National Health Service—before polling day?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, yes I can confirm that there was a General Election on 9th June, as the noble Lord asks. So far as concerns his charge about knowledge of the increase in the public sector borrowing requirement, I can say that, as he knows, spending has been higher than expected and this was the main reason why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made reductions in the cash limits and announced them on 7th July. He included among them the fact that there was to be extra spending on social security benefits largely because of the higher rates of take-up of supplementary benefit and agricultural support. I can assure the noble Lord that the Treasury monitors the progress of the PSBR throughout the financial year.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, while not wishing to join the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in refighting the last General Election, the outcome of which seems to me to have been wholly satisfactory, may I ask my noble friend whether the monitoring of public expenditure by the Public Accounts Committee and the Comptroller and Auditor General has been made even more effective by the legislation passed at the end of the last Parliament?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am not entirely sure of the legislation to which my noble friend refers. I can say, however, that so far as letting Parliament see forecast profiles is concerned, this is something which, as he probably knows, has been recommended by the Procedure Committee in respect of finance. The Government are considering this and other recommendations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his noble friend Lord Cockfield made it clear to the House before the election that public expenditure was of two kinds, demand expenditure and expenditure that was limited by cash limits? Is the noble Lord telling the House that the Government were not aware before the General Election that demand expenditure, including expenditure on unemployment, was going to continue to rise and that if the Government felt constrained to keep within their
248
total expenditure limit of £126,000 million then the cash limit expenditure would have to go down, as we have now experienced with expenditure planned on the National Health Service?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that it would be a mistake to get drawn now into a debate on Health Service cuts to which the noble Lord refers. But the fact is that the forecast of the public sector borrowing requirements at the time of the Budget was £7.5 billion the outturn was £9.1 billion. The under-forecast of the central Government borrowing requirement's own account element of the public sector borrowing requirement was £1 billion. The remainder was on the local authority borrowing requirement. That may not entirely answer the noble Lord's question, but I hope that if he wants further information on how that difference is made up, I can give it to him in writing.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord further. Is he aware that the Question in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, does not refer to the public sector borrowing requirement? Is he further aware that so far the Treasury appear to be unable to arrive at estimates of the PSBR which are accurate to the nearest £1,000 million?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, once estimates have been made it is very important that they be controlled and that costs and all those other elements which go towards the financial structure of the country are maintained by proper management, by proper organisation and, where possible, by proper forecasting.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is not the Minister absolutely right in saying that now is not the time to be drawn into a general debate on public expenditure? Therefore, would it not follow from that, that in order to enable the House to discuss these matters fully and to enable the Government to defend their good faith—and they were under attack from wide sections of the population for bad faith during the General Election—he should discuss with his friends the possibility of time being provided by the Government for a full debate on these important issues?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, that of course is a matter for the usual channels.

Student Mobility
2.52 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, at the forthcoming meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers in New Delhi, they will take the lead in giving effect to:—
(a) the Report of the Commonwealth Standing Committee on Student Mobility, and
(b) the recommendations of the House of Commons Select Committee on Trade and Industry that encouragement and support should be given to schemes by British businessmen to assist with the education and training of students and officials from overseas.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we have already taken a lead in giving effect to most recommendations in the Report of the Commonwealth Standing Committee on Student Mobility. The agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting has yet to be fixed, but if as we expect the subject is included we shall be glad to encourage the rest of the Commonwealth to make similar commitments to our own.
Paragraph 32 of the Committee on Trade and Industry's Report noted with pleasure the Overseas Development Administration's support of the scheme initiated by British businessmen in Malaysia. Subject to the availability of funds, we will continue to support and encourage British businessmen who wish to assist with the education and training of students and officials from overseas.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that not very encouraging reply. The idea behind my Question was to suggest that they should take the initiative. In all circumstances they should be responsible for bringing this matter to the conference in New Delhi for the purpose of debating it. I am not sure whether that is the case. But are not the Government anyhow fully aware of the great importance of encouraging trade and hence the whole economic development of the poorer countries, by making use of the latest teaching techniques and notably what is called "distance teaching" involving the use of video tapes and so on? Do they realise that it would eventually pay them handsomely if they here and now were to offer to make some special financial provision to further this desirable end?
Secondly, have the Government read and are they prepared to accept the recommendations on student mobility of a very useful conference organised in Melbourne last August by the Commonwealth Students' Conference?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I had hoped from my original Answer that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, would recognise that the Government have made a very considerable contribution in this matter. We made available £46 million in February for awards to overseas students, of which more than half has been allocated to the Commonwealth. We have the Scholarship and Fellowship Plan which will take up about £6 million of that £46 million that I have already indicated, and the ODA's Technical Cooperation and Training Programme is being expanded by £21 million over the three years. This, we feel, is a major contribution. Of course, I recognise the noble Lord's point about distance teaching and video tapes, but that is a specialised aspect of this matter, although I see the point that he has made.
On the question of the Commonwealth conference in Melbourne, I am aware that it took place and I hope that it recognised that the British Government have
250
made a major contribution to the education of Commonwealth students.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall the very serious loss of face that the Government suffered over the earlier question of overseas students' fees? On that occasion the parsimonious attitude of the Government led to a tremendous loss of goodwill overseas and to an upsurge of protest in this country from all parts of the political spectrum. Will the noble Baroness assure us in more forthright terms than her answers have so far given, that the Government will take a much more positive attitude on the two reports to which the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has referred?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the reasons why the Government took their original stand on the question of overseas student fees was the very considerable cost to the taxpayer in this country of an unlimited subsidy to overseas students. I do not think that I can put it more clearly than to indicate that last February this large sum of money was made available for the purposes of helping overseas students and that over half will go to countries from the Commonwealth.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the cutting back of grants to overseas students in fact began under her Government's predecessors—under the Labour Administration?
Baroness Young: My Lords. I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. In fact, of course, the differential between the home fee and the overseas student's fee was started by the Labour Government in about, I think, 1969.

Amusement Arcades: Controls
2.57 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they propose to take any steps to deny those under the age of 16 access to gambling machines in amusement arcades
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, we are looking at the whole subject of controls over amusement arcades and that includes the suggestion that local authorities should have a power to impose an age limit in respect of admission to such premises. We are aware of the concern of local authorities and others on this issue and officials will be meeting officers of the Westminster City and Wandsworth Borough Councils tomorrow to discuss this further. My right honourable friend the Minister of State will be meeting representatives of the Amusement Arcade Action Group before long.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for the most encouraging reply that I have yet had from him to any Question

251
that I have asked. In those circumstances, with the leave of the House, I will refrain from taking up further time.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall read my Answer again with great care.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, may I join in the noble Lord's jubilation and hope that a similar lot will befall these Benches in due course? Is the noble Lord the Minister aware, as I gather from his Answer he is, that this is a growing evil not least because of the youngsters who unfortunately after leaving school are in many cases without employment? Is he also aware of the growing evil of the fact that these gambling machines are gambling one way only; that is, the proprietor always wins and the person concerned—and this is especially serious in the case of a juvenile—always loses?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we shall of course take all considerations into view when considering the whole issue, including the nature of the harm that is done to young people and the fact that they are going to congregate somewhere whatever we do.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Amusement Arcade Action Group is in favour or against?
Lord Elton: My Lords, in favour or against what?
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, amusement arcades?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think they believe that there should be restricted entry to them, but my right honourable friend will know more when he has spoken to them.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Church will be heartened by his answers? Is he aware that in this very week the National Council for Social Aid, which is one of the General Synod Councils of the Church of England, is producing a new document concerning gambling? Moreover, in an advance copy there is reference to the indiscriminate spread of gaming machines and the deliberate appeal to excitement and excess. Therefore, the Minister's Answer will, I think, give encouragement to the Church and may the Minister draw comfort from that as well on this most comforting day.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should be nowhere without the comfort I constantly draw from the Church, but I shall make certain that my right honourable friend reads the document which the right reverand Prelate has drawn to our attention.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, is it not true that, in the debates in this House on the last Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, my colleagues and I tried very hard to get some control written into the Act on this very point but we were turned down all the time by the Government? Can the Minister perhaps look back on those debates because he may find that there are some very useful amendments on which he could now legislate?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that if my right honourable friend stands in need of the advice of the noble Baroness, he will ask for it.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister agree that, although we need legislation, we also need to understand the social factors which have led to this increase in gaming machines in amusement arcades? Will his noble friend consider setting up a committee of inquiry, made up perhaps of the right reverend Prelate's organisation, together with the National Council on Gambling, gamblers' associations and the National Children's Bureau?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the first thing to do is to decide whether legislation is needed. The second thing to do is to take further advice, should legislation be needed, as to what form that legislation should take. I can undertake that the consultations will be very wide if that should arise.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, would the Minister tell us how on earth they propose to keep enterprising under 16 year-olds out? This brings very much to mind the picture of a friend of mine visiting chapel disguised as an old lady, to the delight of many of his friends. How can we stop that in the gambling arcades?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that we are getting rather ahead of the present position. We will consider such problems when they arise.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister continue the reputation that he has in this House for gallantry, and not continue to reply as he did to my noble friend Lady Birk? She did not proffer her guidance but asked the noble Lord the Minister to look at amendments that were put down by the Opposition which are extremely relevant to this matter, which were very helpful but which at the time the Government saw fit to refuse?
Lord Elton: My Lords, of course, I intended no discourtesy and, of course, we shall look at the amendments. But it may well be that our consideration of them will be strengthened by consulting the noble Baroness at the same time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that, if boys of 15 years old are banned from these amusement arcades, they may spend their time chasing girls, and that will do them even more harm?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that half the battle would be won if he could persuade his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to instruct his inspectors to stop overturning refusals by local planning authorities to open these places in the first place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are aware that there is some dissatisfaction with the present planning controls and this can be looked at in our review of the whole subject. But I rather think that what my noble friend has in mind is control by licensing rather than by planning regulation.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, although I agree with the principle of this Question, does my noble friend really think that, given all the power that would be given to local authorities in this Bill, if it comes about, it would in actual fact be enforceable?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if such a Bill were to be drafted, it would be for consideration what terms should be in the Bill and how it would be enforced. I agree that that is a matter which we must consider very closely, but I could not possibly give a view on it now.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after four o'clock this afternoon my noble friend Lady Young will, with the leave of the House, make a Statement on Grenada. It may also be helpful to your Lordships to know that the Motion to approve the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations, which was to have been taken in the House tomorrow, has been deferred and has therefore been removed from the Order Paper.

Business of the House
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders shall apply to the Motion in the name of the Lord Diamond set down for Thursday 3rd November.—(Viscount Whitelaw.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Central and Local Government
3.5 p.m.
Lord Beloff Lord Beloff rose to call attention to the relations between central and local government with particular reference to financial matters including the burden of rates; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I am well aware that there are many of your Lordships who, unlike myself, have the advantage of long service in local government and who will no doubt be giving the House the benefit of that experience later this afternoon. Therefore, in opening the debate, I propose to suggest—perhaps in a somewhat academic fashion —some of the general principles that in my view should govern consideration of the issues with which we are confronted, and in particular the two White Papers upon which discussion will no doubt focus.
First, despite what is often said, the issues before us in these two White Papers are not constitutional. The machinery of local government and the arrangements for its financing are not part of the country's constitution; they are the products of legislation and can be changed by legislation. What the Lords and Commons have given the Lords and Commons can take away.
The elected councils, which are local government as we see it today, are not by the standards of this country particularly old institutions—a century and a half in the boroughs, not quite a century in the counties. When people talk, as they frequently do, of rating powers having been granted to localities centuries ago, they omit to point out that these powers were in the hands of unelected justices of the peace and of tightly knit municipal corporations. Do they really wish to go back to the era of "turtle soup" municipal affairs?
Secondly, no one could argue that the existing system can be analysed in any logical terms whatever as to the areas, the structures, the functions or the finance. For instance, for an historian it is not too difficult to explain why education in this country should be a function of local government and health a responsibility of central Government, but the reverse would be equally justifiable and, did time permit, I should explain why.
Thirdly—and this is connected with the illogical, arbitary and accidental nature of our local government system—there is among the general public no great interest in, still less affection for, its organs. There may be, and often is, a sense of belonging to an historic town or county, but there is no necessary link between such sentiments and the idea that these are appropriate areas for the exercise of governmental powers. As many inquiries have shown, one reason is that very few citizens, except those professionally interested, actually know what at the moment are the powers and responsibilities of the various levels of local government or how they interact with the central state.
One result of this, which will be familiar to noble Lords, is the persistently low level of participation in local elections, never rising much above 45 per cent. on average of those entitled to vote and often, particularly in municipal by-elections, falling very much below that level. When electors vote, as again it is not difficult to demonstrate, the thing which is in their minds is whether or not they approve of the Government in power in Westminster, and not the opinion they hold of their local council.
Fourthly, what in fact concerns the citizen is not his right to vote for local councillors, or their right to set targets of expenditure or rating, but the quality of the services he gets and the economy with which those services are provided; and when Parliament considers these matters it is these questions, and these questions alone, which should concern it. All the rest of the talk represents the indignation of interested parties—those actually engaged in local government, whether as councillors or as officials, many of whom have banded together against the present suggestions and spent, one might add, a good deal of public money in doing so.
Fifthly, if there are to be services that locally-elected bodies provide—and it is arguable, indeed, that there should be—then it is certainly helpful that they should be responsible for raising at least part of the funds locally. Furthermore—and on this I agree with the present and preceding Governments—if there is to be a local tax there is no alternative to rates, to taxing immovable property. The reason is the simple one that we live in a highly mobile society in which people work in one place, live in another and seek recreation or shopping in a third, and, therefore, any allocation of

255
an income tax or any other form of tax locally is difficult except in a hugely arbitrary fashion.
Why, then, in the light of these considerations, do we in fact talk, as the Motion does, of "the burden of rates"? As regards domestic rates, there are, I think, two main reasons. First of all, there is public uncertainty about how rates are spent. It is a pity that in the Government's proposals to abolish one tier of local government we are not, we are told, to get rid of precepting, because the precepting system is, and remains, a cause of confusion in people's minds. Secondly, there is the fact that many adults are not householders and not ratepayers; and because of rate relief and the meeting of rate bills out of social security payments, there is at present, whatever there may have been in the past, a total disjunction between voting rights and the payment of rates. Everyone gets services; only some people pay extra for them. It has indeed been reckoned that only 35 per cent, of those who are eligible to vote in local government elections pay full rates. Therefore, for those who oppose the intervention of central Government to talk about "no taxation without representation" is really a bit much.
The second main reason for talking of the burden is that 57 per cent. of rates are paid for by businesses, which have no votes at all. It is perfectly true that businesses are important consumers of local services and therefore ought to contribute to them. But a system ought to be devised which would not fall with undue harshness on businesses which at a particular moment may be making no profits out of which to pay for them, so that they become wholly a cost of business.
It is indeed extraordinary to find the Association of District Councils arguing that there is no evidence of a connection between the burden of business rates and the provision of employment. I wonder whether those who drew up the document of that association have looked at the evidence collected by the London Chamber of Commerce and by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, by the Confederation of British Industry. But these are technical matters which perhaps we need not deal with this evening. What we are dealing with is something rather more specific; that is to say, with action on the part of a limited number of local authorities in which the normal rules of good husbandry are willingly and indeed wilfully defied and in which some local authorities are taking upon themselves to do what is the business of central Government, not local government; that is to say, to use the power to tax to redistribute wealth and income.
It is the view in some quarters that the measures proposed to be taken by Her Majesty's Government are more radical than this problem demands, and that there may be others that would go at least some of the way to meet it. But it is no good pretending that the problem does not exist. I hope that in the course of this debate we shall not have remarks made from the point of view of local authorities—for instance, the shire counties—where the particular set of abuses which the Government have had to tackle are hardly felt at all. It is only those who live in inner London or in South Yorkshire, or in similar areas, or who have studied what those people have to put up with, who are really in a position to discuss these matters.
Let us look not at the domestic ratepayer, because for many noble Lords the position of London's domestic ratepayers is very familiar: let us look at business, which bears the heavier burden. In Camden, one of the London boroughs with the greatest record of profligacy, domestic ratepayers pay only just over 14 per cent. of the rate bill, so it is hard to say that their voting rights are much of a democratic safeguard. As I said, there are a great many figures which show the effect on employment in London and in other such areas of excessive business rates. In part, this arises from expenditure by local authorities which goes well beyond the main purposes with which they have for decades been entrusted by legislation. They have used in a reckless and often careless fashion their powers under Section 137 of the Local Government Act. If one could adapt some famous words from the proceedings of the other place, Section 137 has been abused, is being abused, and ought to be repealed.
The Government must be right, then, to tackle local authorities whose spending is irresponsible. There are of course varying degrees of irresponsibility. Some are activities which in themselves are perfectly legitimate but which are carried out with great extravagance. There is Camden's housing programme, for instance, where to build a council flat appears to be more expensive than to furnish a maisonette in Park Lane; or the transport subsidies which have enabled fares to be stable in South Yorkshire for a decade of continuous, or almost continuous, inflation.
In London, councils have spent money on grants to various voluntary groups. Many of these groups no doubt do genuinely good work. No-one would wish to decry co-operation between local government and voluntary bodies. Others are, if you like, faintly absurd but relatively innocuous, like "Babies against the bomb", and that kind of thing. Others, however, plainly damage the community, and are perhaps intended to damage the community. For instance, there are the various organisations that are subsidised for so-called monitoring of the police, whose main effect seems to be to damage the serious efforts that have been made on all sides since the Scarman Report to improve relations between the police and the communities, especially the ethnic minorities.
But there are other actions by councils that clearly flout the intentions of Parliament if not the letter of the law. For instance, the distribution under the guise of free council newspapers of what are indeed only party propaganda tracts; or the spending of great sums of ratepayers' money, as Strathclyde has done, in printing and distributing propaganda on behalf of CND. There are many forms of direct campaigning against Government policies, in some cases, in foreign affairs, and in relation to Northern Ireland against what one might call the national policy. On the other hand, there are duties that Parliament clearly intended local government to fulfil—in the field of civil defence, for example—which are being neglected.
However, there is one other reason which is again perhaps not fully grasped by those whose experience is in more rural areas. In some urban areas elected councils have ceased to be representatives of the people at large but are part of an organised effort to provide an ever-increasing number of individuals of

257
the right political persuasion—by which I mean the left political persuasion—of well-paid jobs at public expense. It is for too easy for persons in employment under one local authority to become elected members of another.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord will give way, because he just made a remark about left-wing local authorities who have —if I may paraphrase him—given jobs to the boys. This is a very dangerous subject—extremely dangerous. No doubt when the noble Lord resumes he will be more careful and will remember the result of his own party's activities in the Greater London Council, which—unfortunately for local government especially—had to be investigated so carefully with such dire results.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, may I perhaps meet that point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with a few figures. In the borough of Camden 40 per cent. of councillors hold public service appointments. In Islington—my unhappy birthplace twinned with Grenada—50 per cent. of councillors are employed in the public service. In the GLC 61 per cent. of councillors are employed in the public service. Public servants in the service of local government or other public authorities have a clear right to be represented like other citizens; but it is difficult to believe that councils in their treatment of some subjects are not affected by the preponderance of this single interest.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I am afraid that he cannot deal with one aspect which he wishes to criticise. If he wants to deal with the integrity of local government, would he kindly remember that those jobs are at least honestly held? The accusations made in the GLC were of corrupt, dishonest conduct.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I am not talking about corrupt conduct. I am talking about the tendency in local government which tends towards an exaggerated degree of local expenditure. That seems to me to be quite a different thing. The interchangeability of local government posts with paid employment under other local authorities is a feature of this kind. I would not wish to keep the House longer since I have twice been interrupted; but if time permitted I would give other examples from outside London of similar features.
But economy ought not to be the only object of Government policy when dealing with local government. It should also be concerned with the quality of the services. One of my doubts about the remedies in these two White Papers is whether sufficient consideration has been given to quality as against expense. I am afraid that time only permits me to give a single example, but to me it is by far the most important example. That is the proposal to replace the present Inner London Education Authority, which has an appalling record of bad management, of poor education, of interference with good schools, of political partisanship. The proposal is to replace it with an elected board, nominated by the boroughs. That might well produce not even a better ILEA, but perhaps even
258
a worse one because the system might mean that fewer people genuinely concerned with education would serve upon it, and that does not seem to me to be a reform. If the GLC is to be swept away, which is the Government's intention, I should like to urge on the Government the view that is held by Conservative members of the present ILEA and many people concerned with the welfare and education of London's children that it should be replaced not by a quango or by a joint board, but by a directly elected authority for that purpose and that purpose only. That would enable the parents of London's children to decide the kind of education they would like their children to have and not have their electoral desires confused by the fact that they would be voting at one and the same time for other subjects, all of them of less importance in my view and the view of many of my friends.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.27 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for asking us today to address ourselves to the present state of relations between central and local government. Unfortunately the relations, particularly in some areas, are achieving the status of a broken marriage. We hope that it will not end in a complete divorce, which would be very bad for the country. The interest shown in this subject can be gauged by the number of speakers who have put their names down today. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton will be making his maiden speech later on this subject.
During the parliamentary recess the Government published two White Papers which marked a dramatic shift in the balance of power in this country, a shift away from elected local government to non-accountable joint boards or to the Secretary of State for the Environment. I found the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, on education in London rather intriguing, because he does not want a quango or a board. It seems to me that he wants the same sort of thing as the ILEA but he wants a straight election. Directly one starts along this path one can see the problems and confusions that can arise. In practice what this changeover means is that the decisions will rest with the Secretary of State's officials and their computers located in the tower blocks of Marsham Street.
There are strong political points to be made today and the noble Lord quite rightly made many from his side. But I hope that in this Chamber we shall look very closely to our important role, which transcends party politics—the role of watchdogs of our constitution. It is clear that the Government's proposals for rate-capping and for the abolition of one tier of government in our major conurbations are not just about rate demands nor which group of councillors is responsible for which service. They are about,
"violence to the amorphous parcel of law and custom which serves the United Kingdom as a constitution",
as The Times first leader of 16th September put it.
To understand the Government's arrival at their present policies for the abolition of representative and vigorous local government—towards which they have

259
rapidly been moving for some time—we have to go back in history, perhaps more recent history. I must confess that I had been going to throw in 1601, but the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pipped me to that point. I think that he would agree that we should not go as far back as to the Secretary of State calling in aid the Revolutionary Settlement of 1688. I do not think that as an historian he could possibly agree with that as a pre-requisite to understanding government in 1983. This is a view not shared by certain other academics. But the Government are prepared to do away with a tradition of 150 years of an elected local authority for the whole of London.
In regard to what the Government now propose, we need go back only as far as 1974, which was the first year of the operation of the new structure of local government outside London created by Mr. Peter Walker, the Minister at the time. Local government in London had been reorganised under Conservative legislation of 1963 by Sir Keith Joseph. Both these reorganisations followed Royal Commissions—in marked contrast to the present hasty manifesto pledge. In 1974 the rates shot up, partly due to the reorganisation, but the major factor was inflation of over 25 per cent; yet rates were a problem, and when the Labour Government were elected they set up the Layfield Committee.
The Conservative Party at that time, when the present Prime Minister was the opposition spokesperson for the Environment, did not wait for the results in the Layfield Report but said that if rates were a problem then the Tories would abolish them. So the second Tory manifesto of 1974 contained the pledge to abolish domestic rates within the normal lifetime of a Parliament,—a promise that, quite frankly, has been an embarrassment to many Conservatives since. May I remind many noble Lords that the next sentence of that same manifesto was:
"Local authorities must continue to have some independent source of finance".
Because both promises looked like being broken in one measure, and in any case they are largely incompatible, the 1979 manifesto qualified the original, unrealistic commitment by giving lower income tax priority over abolition of the domestic rating sytem.
So we saw income tax on the higher paid reduced and the rate support grant reduced from 61 per cent, of expenditure in 1979–80 to a little over 50 per cent. in 1983–84. That added some 25p in the pound to rate bills, the equivalent of about 3p in the pound on the basic rate of income tax. The Government have used domestic and commercial rates to keep income tax down. This is the origin of the noble Lord's calling attention to the burden of taxes. Of course, every tax is a burden whether it is a rate or income tax. Nobody welcomes it, nobody applauds it. For the average person rates are around 2 per cent. of personal disposable income. Rates in the non-domestic sector are less than 1 per cent. of total manufacturing costs. In both cases, rates are highly visible taxes, which is why they are so unpopular. But it is also how local authorities are able to demonstrate accountability.
Now we bring it up to date and find that the Secretary of State is seeking power to restrict
260
expenditure of an arbitrary selection of authorites and, further, reserve powers to apply the limits to all authorities. Members from the county councils will be speaking today—and they speak for themselves—but when the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, says, as I understood it, that they really should keep out of this, that really this is just to do with the Labour metropolitan counties, then I think he is rather going beyond the brief that he set himself. I have here a letter from the leader of the Kent County Council, which is cetainly not a Labour council, which expresses great concern about applying rate limits to all authorities. While they say that they do not mind them being applied to some of the selected authorities, the Labour big spenders, they are very concerned about the second half of the powers that the Secretary of State is taking; so that it cannot be dealt with in quite the narrow way that the noble Lord tried to deal with it.
The White Paper, Rates, is not, of course, just about rate bills. What the Government are doing is taking away from elected local authorities the right to levy a local tax to fulfil the powers and duties that Parliament gave them. On a formal legalistic level, local authorities are, as the noble Lord said, creatures of Parliament since they exist within a defined legal framework. In our constitution, what Parliament has created it can destroy. Although local authorites are the creation of Parliament, their legitimacy goes further. They are a means of diffusing power within society, a power that carries responsibility and accountability. For local authorities that accountability is clear: it is to their electorate; and it is made very clear each May as many local authorities face annual elections of some of their members.
I accept that local accountability is not perfect, but it is a system which ensures that 24,000 elected councillors in England and Wales are responsible and accountable for the provision of major public services. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, rather dismissed the electoral rights of citizens when he made his comment on what people were interested in and were not interested in. I also think, as an educationist, that it is very dangerous to denigrate the rights of people voting; because what we are surely trying to do is to encourage our young people to take more and more interest in civic matters, and in fact to increase the number of people who vote. In a democracy the electorate can change the representation on their council if the spending of that council does not accord with their own views. In fact, they have done so in recent times and have effected a change in the composition of councils. This is a valuable means of ensuring participation in our society.
I think that, in spite of what I thought was the extremely clear and praiseworthy intervention of my noble friend Lord Mishcon, the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, still seemed to me to insist on something which I found extremely unpleasant and, if I may say so, rather offensive on his point about people working in one authority and then becoming councillors. If they have a right to become councillors, there is no reason why they should not do so. Civil servants now have the right to stand for local elections. I wonder whether the noble Lord thinks that that is entirely wrong. The participation of people in our society seems to me to be something which should be encouraged. As my

261
noble friend pointed out, if there is any misuse of powers then action must be taken. I would be the first to say so and I know he would agree with it.
It is no accident that the local authorities are the only bodies outside Parliament with tax-raising powers since taxation and representation go hand in hand. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, has not forgotten that we lost the American colonies—which seems to have been a great pity—in 1776 because they would not accept taxation without representation.
In spite of what he said, I would say that representation without taxation is a sham; and that would be the outcome of rate-capping. In his reorganisation proposals, to which I shall return, the Secretary of State is proposing quangos, joint boards and small statutory bodies, each having some rating powers. The Secretary of State for Transport would levy a transport rate on London—and here we are getting very close to the tyranny of taxation without representation. In a democracy it is absolutely essential that these things should be kept balanced. Professor Hayek, the economist who is credited with being behind much of the Government's economic thinking, has said:
"There are strong reasons why action by local authorities generally offers the next best solution where private initiative cannot be relied upon to provide certain services and some sort of collective action is needed; for it has many of the advantages of private enterprise and few of the dangers of the coercive action of governments".
That was in his book. Liberty and Constitution, in 1960.
What are the advantages to which Professor Hayek referred? They are responsiveness to local needs and wishes and the ability to innovate. These two functions depend upon local authorities being able to raise their own taxes. What then are the dangers of coercive action which concern Professor Hayek? They are writ large in the White Paper itself. The bureaucratic reliance upon the grant-related expenditures puts more power in the hands of officials and their computers, increases centralisation and increases the possibility of something going wrong—and going wrong on a far greater scale, with dire effects for everybody.
In the last Parliament we endured a string of legislation increasing the power of a Secretary of State: Acts on housing, local government, the Planning and Land Act, the Mental Health Act, the Local Government Finance Act and many more. All these spawn subordinate legislation, each clipping away at the rights of the elected local authorities. We fought very hard in this House, not only on these Benches but across the House, and we achieved some success in preserving some of the autonomy of local government.
The rates White Paper does not address itself at all to the consequences of the reductions which would follow from rate capping. What would happen if authorities had to spend at the level of GRE? What would be the effect on social services in Inner London, when London boroughs on average are overspending by nearly 40 per cent. when compared with their grant-related expenditure? It is really not good enough for the noble Lord to reject these authorities because be believes so many of them are Labour authorities. The people in them have the same needs, the same
262
wants and the same deprivations whether they are voting Conservative or Labour and wherever they happen to live. Both Conservative and Labour authorities will be hit by this. What will happen to old people when more old people's homes have to be shut or when meals on wheels disappear? Day centres will be reduced when they ought to be increased for financial as well as humane reasons. How many children will suffer? What will the aids be for the disabled? Translated into social terms, the cost is horrendous. Financially, all the evidence indicates that not only will there be no saving but the cost will probably be higher.
We look to the rates White Paper for the long and detailed explanations that such a constitutional change requires; but we are disappointed. The White Paper is very thin indeed on argument. The reasoning is wrapped up in one bold assertion: we live in a unitary and not a federal state. But again, as The Times of 16th September pointed out:
"It does not follow from that observation that the exercise of all public authority belongs as of right to the central government and its apparatus extending from Whitehall.".
The Government perceive a major economic problem because local government as a whole continues to spend more than the Government believe the country can afford. That is in the White Paper, and that is the nub of it. Are the Government really saying that an alleged over-spend of £770 million, or 0.6 per cent. of total public expenditure, matters in macro-economic terms? The truth is that local spending financed from the rates has no macro-economic effect. Indeed, local authority expenditure has gone down while Government expenditure has gone up.
The argument boils down to the Government's taking a different view from local authorities of what level of local services is needed. It is not basically an economic problem, but a political and social judgment—and a political judgment based on prejudice against the public sector. That prejudice shows itself even more in the context of public expenditure policies. Take a current example. To reduce housing improvement grants by £220 million, as the Government have said they are going to do, while housing stock is crying out for attention is cruelly short-sighted. To add 30,000 more construction workers to the 400,000 already on the dole is a human tragedy, and highly wasteful when each extra unemployed worker costs around £6,000 to the Exchequer. This is just one example and I will not detain the House by giving more, but I am sure that many of them will be mentioned.
The rates White Paper is a major attack on all local government and not just the few authorities which are big spenders—and it is interesting that the same few authorities are mentioned time after time. Although many others have views about this and do not always support this amount of spending, the amounts that are spent, from some of the examples given by the noble Lord, are in fact a very small proportion of what the rates amount to. It is interesting that all the local authority associations, the county councils, the district councils and the Association of Metropolitan Authorities recognise this fact and are speaking with one voice, irrespective of their political complexion. Today, the presidents of the three associations are speaking in this debate.

263
The second White Paper on streamlining is even more unsubtle. Take its title: Streamlining the Cities. This is either Orwellian newspeak or heavy irony by civil servants. Far from "streamlining", the proposals return to the era before the creation of coherent local government areas and councils. Again, if I may, I shall quote from The Times leader of 8th October:
"The White Paper seems to make the entire system of urban administration in London and the metropolitan counties more opaque, less reachable."
This retrograde step would jeopardise many services only viable when provided on a country-wide basis. The heritage and the arts are an outstanding example, and there are many more.
I want, today, not to point out the many glaring inaccuracies of that document—I am sure that other speakers will do that—but the tragedy is that the Government are embarking upon a reorganisation of local government in a breathlessly half-baked and reckless manner. The Government are planning to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties as a smokescreen for their inability to reform local government finance. I would hastily say, before the Minister reminds me, that this has been a problem for all Governments. I recognise that and accept it. They are raising that smokescreen in a brazen political manner with no regard for the cost savings and benefits. Chapter 6 of the White Paper is headed "Savings and Transitional Costs", yet the only figure in that chapter is three years. There is no costing: just the time of the transitional period. It ill behoves a Government committed to a businesslike approach to present such an appallingly uncosted plan.
Our present structure of local government is certainly not perfect and there is a need for reappraisal, possibly in the direction of unitary authorities; but it requires to be properly and carefully thought out and it requires an independent financial study to be commissioned. The Government have refused to do this and so the Association of Metropolitan Counties have asked Coopers and Lybrand to undertake such a study. But, more generally, a Royal Commission or committee of inquiry is needed to review the present arrangements and make recommendations. Changes of this magnitude should not be flesh put on a hasty election manifesto commitment—a commitment which was based, fairly enough, on political ends and a commitment which will leave London as the only capital city in Western Europe without an elected local authority. It is a commitment that will reduce services, many of which are inadequate already, to an even greater state of inadequacy.
This, alas! is the present unhappy state of relations between central and local government: a massive attack on local government by a central Government nominally committed to freedom of choice. Where is that freedom of choice for local electors? What sort of local government are the present Government trying to create? The model is unfortunately clear: puppets answerable to the Secretary of State, like the health districts and the water authorities. Who then will want to become or remain a councillor within such a wretched straitjacket? In doing this, what they are doing is denigrating the quality of councillors.
264
With great respect, this is very much more important than the point made about councillors by the noble Lord. If we allow these proposals to be enacted, local democracy will wither and another part of the nation's social fabric will be destroyed. Local government must be a living organism and not an unpreserved ancient monument. If this House is to demonstrate its constitutional role and the wealth of its wide experience and individual expertise for the benefit of the nation, we must sink our party differences and give a clear message to central Government that we will not be a party to the emasculation of local government.
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Beloff for tabling this Motion for debate today. He has focused on some of the immediate and pressing problems which face local government. I am delighted that he has done so, and as a Government Minister I welcome the timely opportunity which he has given to me to set out our policies. By leave of the House, I shall try towards the end of the debate to pick up and comment specifically upon some of the concerns expressed, and on other points made.
Every Government, regardless of political colour, have the fundamental right to set the national framework within which local government operates. The Government are answerable to Parliament, to the electorate of the country as a whole; not to particular geographical sections of it. Within the national framework, each local authority is answerable, within its area, on matters for which it is responsible under the law. The vast majority of authorities understand this relationship; in the past, it was a convention that was always respected. It is a positive disservice to local government when a minority arrogate to themselves misplaced constitutional presumptions.
The national framework set by the Government cannot be fixed, rigid or permanent. It has to take account, in the first place, of the national economic situation. The capital resources which we make available to local authorities, our support for their revenue expenditure and the planned national level of that revenue expenditure necessarily depend on the prospects which we foresee for public spending as a whole.
The national framework is also conditioned by the actions of local authorities themselves, in two ways. First, there is the response of authorities, whether of co-operation or obstruction, to national policy objectives. Secondly, the national framework must depend on how local authorities discharge their own responsibilities. My noble friend Lord Beloff has cited some examples of mischief and irresponsibility. I deplore the cases he has described. The harm they do to the standing and the reputation of the whole of local government is immense. If I do not follow my noble friend along his path of asking for some Government action, it is because I still want to believe that local government can rid itself of such cankers—if the will is there—through the associations and other influences, local government has the ability to set its own house in

265
order. It must fulfil that ability, because for too long it has been silent on this matter of the abuse of Section 137.
This will be a wide-ranging debate. As I said, I look forward to responding later, by leave of the House, to the general concerns. But in my opening remarks I should like to concentrate on two main areas against the background which I have outlined. They are the areas touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk; namely, our proposals for the abolition of the Greater London Council and the English metropolitan counties, and restraints on local government expenditure.
On financial aspects, local authorities' current spending, as a proportion of total domestic expenditure, is now almost double what it was in the 1960s, and that expenditure continues to rise. Between 1978–79 and 1983– 84, when this Government asked for real savings, current expenditure actually rose. Expenditure in England this year is no less than 12 per cent. higher, in real terms, than planned for in the 1980 Public Expenditure White Paper— —
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister would give the comparable figures for central government expenditure, so that we can have a true appreciation of the meaning of his figures.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Lord will contain himself a little, I shall come to that, and much more, in due course. Between April, 1979, and April, 1983, domestic rates rose by 91 per cent., compared with a 55 per cent. increase in the retail price index. The average increase in domestic rates was 72p in the pound, with a range from 40p to a staggering 160p. Against this background of rising expenditure, rising rates, and now the threat of rising levels of manpower, the Government's concern is easy to understand.
It has to be said that the great majority of authorities have made the effort to spend within, or close to, their expenditure targets. But for others, targets and grant holdback have not proved a sufficient deterrent. A significant minority of authorities put our national objectives at risk. At the same time, they have placed intolerable burdens on their ratepayers. Let there be no fudging of the issue: it is their actions which have led to the proposals in our White Paper on rates.
The basis for our proposals has been challenged in three ways. First, some have questioned whether the Government have a role at all in relation to local government expenditure. They are wrong. The noble
Baroness quoted certain sayings that were put out previously by other Governments. I would quote Labour's 1977 Green Paper responding to the Lay field Committee, which said:
"Because of their responsibilities for the management of the economy, central government must concern themselves with total local government expenditure and taxation.".
The Government cannot allow their anti-inflation policy to be put at risk by overspending in so substantial a sector of the economy.
Secondly, others have tried to suggest that local authority overspending is not sufficiently significant to worry about. But they, too, are wrong. We are talking
266
this year of an overspend now of over £850 million. It is precisely such amounts which cause so much difficulty in terms of economic management. We have had to increase provision for 1984–85 by £500 million in view of overspending in 1983–84. Since the Government intend to stay on course, this £500 million has to be found from somewhere. Other programmes risk suffering because of local government overspending.
Thirdly, there is the so-called constitutional concern. We hear the never-ceasing cry, "The end of local democracy." I can claim to know a little about that, and I say that it is nothing of the kind. My noble friend Lord Beloff has already illustrated far greater dangers to local democracy. I shall be interested to hear how other speakers view these. I shall want to respond to their points later and give one or two examples.
We need to be quite clear about the constitutional position. The Times may well have said it and the noble Baroness may have said it, but we live in a unitary state. Parliament is supreme, and has granted local government its powers. I reject entirely the idea that local mandates override national policy. It was never so in the past, and the notion has certainly not suddenly become valid now.
The new dimension today is not constitutional. It concerns the post-war consensus about the relationship between central and local government. Local authorities have, up till now, accepted that they should live and work within the overall parameters laid down by central government. The notorious Clay Cross affair is the only exception which comes to mind. But that consensus has now broken down. I say again: let there be no doubt or equivocation about it, the blame for that breakdown rests squarely with that minority of high-spending local authorities who have chosen, deliberately, to flout and disregard the economic policies of national government. We now have no alternative but to act, through Parliament, to safeguard our policy and those directly affected, and that is what we are doing. It is, after all, a policy on which we were elected. Our manifesto promised to curb excessive and irresponsible rate increases. We owe it to the national electorate, who so overwhelmingly endorsed us in June, to honour that pledge.
It is not only the objectives of national policy which are at issue. It is also, as I mentioned earlier, the protection of ratepayers. Let me deal first with non-domestic rates. Some have tried to argue—and we shall very likely hear it again today—that high rates have no adverse effect on industry and commerce; that high rates do not destroy jobs. This is patently untrue and wrong. Non-domestic ratepayers contribute nearly 60 per cent. of rates. Non-domestic rates total some £6 billion this year. They are the largest single tax on business. When they are forced up, costs rise with them, growth is stifled and jobs are lost. Yet, as has been said, those affected have no votes.
It is worth looking at just two of the scores of examples—and I repeat "scores of examples"—of what this means in practice in the real world. The noble Baroness quoted extracts and comments from The Times. Let me quote to her a letter from a

267
Camden business ratepayer which appeared in The Times on 3rd October. He said:
"In Camden, domestic ratepayers provide only 14.4 per cent. of the Council's total income. No wonder there is growing 'demand' for the services, so inexpensive for the recipients; that the rates paid on our office here, have multiplied 13 times, in the 12 years since we moved; that our rates became £2,000 per annum for every person employed in the building; that we vacated one-third of the space by moving departments out of London, where we could no longer remain and be competitive; and that we are having great difficulty in reletting this space".
My second example (of the many I could give) is the Sheffield Chamber of Trade who have found that almost 70 per cent. of their members would be forced into reducing their workforces in the event of rates increasing by a greater percentage than their prices. Over 30 per cent. are contemplating a move to a lower rates area. And who can blame them?
Ask the elected members, ask the business community, ask all those who actually pay rates, ask those living in Sheffield, Brent, Islington, Southwark, Lambeth, Haringey, Camden and the other big spending and high rating authorities what they think about the Government's rate limitation proposals. Ask industrialists in those places about their costs. Ask why so many want to move elsewhere. You will not get arguments about constitutional niceties from people who know the tightness of their operating margins. The message is loud and clear. If a Conservative Government will not protect them from punitive rates, to whom can they turn? Well, this Government will protect them. I put it to those who seek to prevent us from carrying out our firm manifesto commitment that there can be no compromising the undertaking we have given.
In our manifesto and in our White Paper we have in mind the domestic as well as the non-domestic ratepayer. It is a minority of authorities which heap heavier and heavier burdens on their backs. The time has passed when we could expect those authorities to have thought for the people they are supposed to serve. Since those locally elected members will not fulfil that duty, then we must do so.
I cannot stress too strongly that three-quarters of this year's overspend is accounted for by just 16 authorities. The selective rate limitation scheme will apply only to the highest spenders—probably only to between a dozen and 20 authorities altogether. Authorities with small budgets and those spending below GRE will be expressly excluded. I am confident that the selective scheme will suffice. We have no wish to activate a general limitation scheme. That is why we are keeping general limitation as a reserve power. I say again that I very much hope we shall not have to use that power. But the decision rests with local government. If authorities respond to the selective scheme and to the continuing operation of the present constraints of the grant system in such a way as to bring their spending more closely in line with our overall plans, then no further action will ever be needed. And that is what we should like to happen.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the Minister has made his point about the selective scheme, with which I do not happen to agree, although I can see the Secretary of State's point. But in that case, why is the Secretary of
268
State going ahead with taking the other reserve power which is causing so much trouble all round?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Mcintosh of Haringey, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will allow me to deal with that point in the later part of the debate. I promise her that I shall do so.
Our second proposal for change is to deal with the structural weaknesses which I identified earlier. As the noble Baroness said, we intend to reform local government in London and the two metropolitan counties. The GLC and the metropolitan county councils are, quite simply, unnecessary. Their major functions can be perfectly well performed without a completely separate tier of local government. That the GLC and the MCCs are not needed is clearly demonstrated by their continued and largely unsuccessful attempts to find an adequate role for themselves. These authorities undertake functions in parallel with the lower tier; there is overlap and friction with the lower tier; there is conflict with central Government as they seek to influence national policies through the use of general powers that were never meant to extend so far. Will someone tell me what these people, and the GLC in particular, are doing dabbling in foreign policy?
Your Lordships will have seen from our White Paper what we propose. The existing strong tier of elected local government in these areas, the borough and district councils, can now look forward to being the genuine primary tier. They will be directly responsible for most functions. In the very few cases where the needs of a service point to a wider area, the borough and district councils will appoint members to joint boards to exercise these functions jointly. The result will be simpler, more intelligible and better local government. It will indeed be making local government local. We remember well the campaign that was run for us to do that.
Of course the GLC and the metropolitan counties are opposed to abolition. As someone else might have said, "Well, they would be, wouldn't they?" In recent weeks we have seen their organised campaigning get under way: advertisements, leaflets, full-time staff in county halls, professional lobbying. These authorities claim they have not sufficient money to provide essential services, yet they are prepared to spend millions—and I do mean millions—on their campaigns. Where is the money coming from? Who is paying? It is not coming out of the members' pockets. No wonder that their ratepayers are clamouring for abolition as soon as possible.
These vested interests assiduously foster misapprehensions—not to say distortions—about our proposals. They say, "We will not save money; it will cost more because we will be losing the benefits of scale". But we did not have those benefits of scale in the metropolitan counties before reorganisation. I have not noticed any reduction in costs since and because the metropolitan counties were created.
We are criticised for not spelling out the savings in detail. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, did so. You can imagine the uproar if we denied authorities the opportunity of consultation. But if you want consultation and the chance to talk about the implications of the proposals in detail, not least about the staffing

269
structures, you must not complain if the final calculations are not spelt out beforehand. You cannot have it both ways.
We have already seen the results of studies purporting to show that the new system will cost more. Of course it could cost more if you set it up that way, but it does not have to cost more and we intend to make sure that it will cost less. The scope for savings is there. The removal of a tier of government must eliminate activities that do not need replacing. Your Lordships will no doubt point to the experience of 1974, and I am only too well aware of what happened then. But the climate is different. Authorities are much more aware of the need to secure value for money. The boroughs and districts will be under strong pressure to provide their new services economically. Our intention to control the budgets of the joint boards for the critical first three years will enable us to ensure that these new bodies are set up with the absolute minimum bureaucracy; and savings there will be.
Possibly the most serious distortion is that these structural changes somehow undermine local democracy; that we are creating, they say, scores of quangos with unlimited power to raise rates and taking whole areas of local government under the control of central Government. This is simply not so. The fact is that there are one and a half new quangos proposed in the White Paper. I shall not use the remark I made elsewhere recently, that it takes two to quango. I shall not say it again, although it went down well there. It is not doing so well here, apparently! But never mind; I live in hope.
The fact is that the one and a half quangos include the body to deal with residual functions, such as management of existing debt in London, and the London Planning Commission. I regard the latter as half a quango because it will be a non-statutory advisory body, with non-executive functions. Joint boards are not quangos. The members will be appointed by the authorities in the area and, apart from the magistrates on the police boards, they will be elected members of those authorities. Joint boards are a well precedented device for local authorities to join together to operate over wider areas.
The single tier system will clearly require authorities to work together, both in joint boards and on other services. I have seen suggestions that this will not happen. I just do not believe it. Local authorities are well used to providing services jointly—formally and informally. To allege that the need for co-operation is an objection to our proposals shows a startling lack of faith in the good sense of borough and district members and officers.
When I speak again, by leave of your Lordships' House, I will respond to the case made by my noble friend Lord Beloff for a directly elected education authority for Inner London. The Government are firmly committed to these changes. We have just begun a period of consultation with our White Paper and this is a very welcome opportunity to hear your Lordships' views on these topics. I look forward to responding later in the debate.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, replies can he be rather more specific
270
about the savings in transitional costs? Chapter 6 of the White Paper Streamlining the Cities states:
"It is not possible to put a figure on the savings arising from abolition, or the transitional costs".
How is it that there has not been any costing of what the Government intend to do? Any businessman who set out to do something of this sort must be able to show whether it would be cost-effective and what line it is going to take. Will the noble Lord the Minister deal with that point later?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, with respect, was not listening when I referred to these points about savings. I specifically made the very point that, although there must be some consideration of these matters, to try to respond in detail at a period when one is going into consultation and discussion is wrong. I will not reply in detail but I will return to that point when I speak again later.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for giving us this timely opportunity for the discussion we are having this afternoon. I should also like to welcome in advance the speech we shall hear shortly from the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He and I worked together very closely on the Local Government Planning and Land Bill, and while our paths have diverged somewhat since then, it has not lessened my respect or admiration for his knowledge and for the way in which he has dealt with local government over many years, and for his service in another place. I am sure he will be an acquisition to this House.
Because of the economic and social changes we have seen over the past century, the state has acquired for itself a whole range of new functions which, with hindsight, might have been better devolved to lower levels. The result has been that local government is too dependent upon central Government and central Government are much too apt to interfere with local government. The division of powers has constantly shifted over the years—dependent, more often than not, on temporary political expediency rather than on what should or should not be done by central Government.
Even in the fields for which it has responsibility, local government is financially dependent on the centre. As other speakers have said, more than 50 per cent. of local government expenditure is covered by Government grant; and that grant is determined by what central Government consider is a right assessment of local needs. All this has eroded local government independence over the years. This Government, more than all others, have made a quite unprecedented intrusion into what has hitherto been regarded as an agreed division of power between the Government and local authorities. The overload at the centre and the enfeeblement of the base which has followed go hand in hand with a very dangerous lack of accountability in between.
Local government must be made stronger. It must be made more independent of central Government —and it must be more accountable to the electorate. By that I mean, more accountable downwards, to the people, and not upwards to civil servants in Whitehall.

271
It is the key to that independence which lies in local government finance. And the key to accountability lies in the structure of local government. It is because local government depends on central Government for more than half its revenue that its freedom of action is so narrowly circumscribed; and it is because its structure is so excessively complex and inadequately understood that the public do not know who does what and cannot properly call them to account.
We on these Benches believe that at every level of government no function should be exercised which can with equal effectiveness be performed by an elected body at a lower level, closer to the people. It is the enterprising and vigorous councils which can do more for their citizens than remote centralised Government control. But just so long as dependence on grants from central Government remains so high, it will be impossible to restore any real degree of financial autonomy to local authorities.
We believe that in any form of local government finance the percentage ought to be reduced to something around 30 per cent. This figure ought to be sufficient to equalise standards of local authority services. We could also argue that the criterion for determining the amount of grants should be the equalisation of resources on the basis of average incomes—which is the best test of the area on how to pay the rates.
On the non-domestic rates, we agree that there is no easy solution as to the question of whether non-domestic rates should remain part of the local government finance package. There is an argument that their abolition would break a valuable link between businesses and the local authorities in their area. On the other hand—as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, implied—the power of local authorities to raise general revenue from ratepayers who have no votes in local government elections is an anomaly and one which could be capable of abuse.
We should like to see the balance at present raised by non-domestic rates covered by central Government in the wider context of a national programme for some form of industrial taxation and by the local authorities by way of realistic charges for their services. We believe that most businesses would regard any increase in the charge for their services a price worth paying for complete abolition of the arbitary system of non-domestic rates—even more so since we would expect organisations concerned with industry and commerce to be involved in determining the charges made in the system. If non-domestic rates were transferred to the centre, then national Government would be able to plan their fiscal policies towards industry much more effectively, by reducing the non-domestic rate burden in the most needy areas and encouraging businesses to relocate where they are most needed.
Governments have a responsibility for the overall health of the economy, which necessarily involves them in regulating such matters as the amount of borrowing in which the public sector—and I include in that local government—engages and the total level of taxation and pay settlements. Although these factors of themselves involve central Government in general decisions about local government finance, they do not
272
justify, and neither should they be used as a pretext for, detailed involvement by central Government in what are essentially local decisions about the use of resources and the cost of services of the kind in which this Government have been engaged.
To remove key local decisions about the use of resources from local democratic control is to destroy the whole basis of accountability in local government. In the White Paper, the Government are using quite spurious economic arguments to justify cuts in local spending—purely, one might think, for dogmatic and ideological reasons. They are dealing with local government finance in isolation from local government structure and electoral reform, and are thereby adding to the confusion about the accountability of local authorities to their electorates rather than trying to enhance it. They are puttng forward arguments against the introduction of a local income tax in substitution for rates which I do not believe stand up to examination. And they are too nervous of their own supporters to initiate a revaluation of the rate base during the lifetime of this Parliament—and are thus compounding the unfairness of the present rating system.
The Alliance is a constructive Opposition and we are willing to be persuaded by argument that changes in policy are needed. But the only possible conclusion to be drawn from the White Paper on finance is that reason and tradition have been abandoned in favour of the present Government's prejudice against local government. The Government have given up any attempt to improve local accountability. With these proposals to take the general power to limit rate increases for all authorities, the Government are in danger of removing local accountability entirely. It is Whitehall which will decide the levels of individual local authorities' spending and local taxation levels, thus reducing local authorities to mere management boards of the Department of the Environment. Central Government officials will have the power to make the decisions for every local authority, and even the parish council activities are not ruled out because they are left for "further consideration".
I have argued in this Chamber before that central Government have sufficient powers to make local government spending compatible with national economic management by controlling only two variables, borrowing for capital expenditure and the level of the central grant given to local authorities. Local taxation, if it is made properly accountable to the electors by the introduction of proportional representation into local elections, and by local income tax, has no effect on public borrowing, and local people should be free to decide on the relative merits of spending on local services or on personal consumption.
Local spending is not out of control. The White Paper admits that 80 per cent. of local authorities have not increased their real expenditure over the past four years. Unlike central Government, local authorities cannot go in for deficit financing, but local councillors can and do scrutinise estimates in a detailed way, which is impossible in the expenditure of central Government departments. Local government spending has fallen as a proportion of all public spending from 29 per cent. in 1977–78 to 25 per cent.

273
in 1982–83. It has also taken a gradually falling proportion of the GDP since 1977. It is central Government expenditure which needs to be made more open to scrutiny and more accountable.
The Government admit that only a small minority of local authorities are overspending in their terms. Yet they are willing to throw away the fundamental principle of our local government system because of the alleged perverse behaviour of these few authorities. Mr. Patrick Jenkin is reported as saying that half of this year's overspend was down to the GLC and the six metropolitan authorities. So at a stroke half the problem will disappear if legislation does go forward to abolish them. If 50 per cent, of the problem is to be dealt with in another Bill, then is there any need to be quite so dogmatic over the rate capping issue?
We in the Alliance would argue that the correct way to deal with unrepresentative local authorities who spend on activities which the majority of their electorate oppose is to introduce proportional representation into local elections. We believe in vibrant and accountable local government, free to innovate to meet the needs of its own area and its own local problems and with a buoyant local tax which can raise the bulk of local spending needs and provide a direct link between expenditure and revenue decisions. We should prefer a single tier of all-purpose authorities and for such authorities a local income tax in the long term would be the best replacement for rates. So long as local councils depend on central Government for over half their revenue, their freedom of action is bound to be constrained. While local authorities raise a substantial part of their revenue from business there will remain the temptation to extravagance which cannot properly be called to account, which is why we say that non-domestic rates should be transferred to the centre by industrial taxation. Many of the services which local authorities provide for industry and commerce could be more extensively charged for directly. In this way, businesses would be able to influence the quality of the services provided.
The detailed schemes show that local councils are going to lose their power to determine their own expenditure levels. It will be the Government which will decide what they can spend, it will be the Government which will decide what revenue they can raise, and it will even be the Government which will decide how large their balances should be. This is going to make medium and long-term planning impossible, as the Government will decide on a year-to-year basis and local authorities will not be notified of their rate levels before December. This is going to make it all extremely difficult for cuts to be made in any reasonable way, and if staff cuts prove to be necessary the cost in redundancy payments could well mean that authorities fail to meet the Government's required spending limits.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I wonder whether I may put this to the noble Baroness. She said that local authorities will not be notified of their grants before December. Would she tell me when have they ever been notified of their grants before December?
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, that is what makes it so difficult for local authorities to work out what their
274
rates will be and what services they can provide. Why will the Government not revalue domestic properties? It is long overdue and the longer it is left the worse the situation becomes. Can it be that they dare not revalue now because they are not carrying out their election pledges to abolish domestic rates? Domestic rates have to be reformed. Why not look at changing from rental to capital valuation? Capital valuation would be seen to be fairer. It would relate more clearly to the ability to pay, and regular revaluations could be carried out at much shorter intervals—say, every three or four years. This would make domestic rates, while we have them, a buoyant and a realistic tax.
The Alliance will support the Government's proposals to introduce a requirement that separate notices be sent out from rating and precepting authorities to each ratepayer, because this will clarify for ratepayers which authority is responsible for which service and for the level of each authority's spending. We would also support the proposals for extended rights to pay by instalments to more ratepayers. But we are entirely against the major centralist solution proposed because we believe it will destroy the long-standing tradition of local government in this country. We need a decentralisation of power from the centre, thus giving greater democracy and accountability to local government.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has said, all the local authority associations are against these proposals, as are NALGO and the Society of Chief Executives. John Lovill, the chairman of the Association of County Councils, has said,
"Whitehall is not the place for running local services and making local decisions. These proposals are a further intrusion into the great tradition of local independence, and, as an association whose members represent 30 million people, we shall and must resist them".
And the ACC in its response to the Government has said that too much too quickly has been asked of local government. The ADC view the Government's rate capping proposals as the most serious threat ever to local democracy. They think that the proposals are a fundamental breach of local democracy and will be unworkable. They go so far as to suggest that the question on the White Paper proposals which should be posted to every person in the country is, "Do you wish your local affairs to be determined by remote civil servants and computers in Whitehall, rather than by your democratically elected councillors, who are directly answerable to their local electorate?"
My Lords, this White Paper has few friends, and I urge the Members of this House who participate in and who believe in local government to forget their party loyalties and to stand up and be counted now in defence of local democracy. The only group to profit from the White Paper, should it become law, will be the legal profession, because, if rate capping becomes a reality, then confrontation through the courts becomes a certainty.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, began on an historical note and I want to end on one, prefacing that by reminding the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that on 9th October 1980 I told the House that a parish council had met with him and had quoted a passage from Magna Carta to him:
"To no one will we sell, to no one will we deny or delay, right or justice."

275
May I remind the Government of another passage in Magna Carta:
"And the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties and free custom both by land and by water. Furthermore we will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns and ports shall all have their liberties and free customs".
What is a free custom if it is not the right to levy by the elected will of local people the rates to sustain those services which the people want and to spend some of their money collectively instead of individually? Is it not as much a limitation of personal, if collectively expressed, freedom for the state to impose a fixed ceiling on rates as to limit a person's income?

Grenada
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to bring the House up to date on the situation in Grenada. The House will appreciate that at present our knowledge of developments is limited.
We understand that the Americans have now secured both the airports on the island at Pearls and Salines, as well as the radio station and Fort Rupert. But fighting is apparently continuing at Fort Fredrick and elsewhere. Two United States servicemen have been killed; and there are unconfirmed reports that 12 Cubans have been killed during the fighting. There is no firm information at present of any other casualties. In addition, there are reports that a number of Soviet nationals may have been detained and rumours that Mr. Coard has sought sanctuary in the Soviet Embassy. I am not in a position to confirm these.
The latest information available to me is that there are no reports of any British casualties. The United States Administration have informed us that they are willing to evacuate United Kingdom citizens to Barbados as soon as conditions allow. HMS "Antrim" remains ready to be called upon in case of need; and we are also making contingency arrangements for evacuation by air by British aircraft. A consular team from the British High Commission in Bridgetown is standing by to go to Grenada as soon as practicable to establish how many British citizens may wish to be evacuated. The majority of them are long-term residents of Grenada.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that we have received assurances that the Governor-General, Sir Paul Scoon, is safe. He may have an important role to play in the restoration of democracy in Grenada. He represents one of the few elements of constitutional continuity in Grenada at present. The American Administration are aware of this constitutional position and have undertaken to respect it.
My Lords, there is little further that I can add at this time, but the House will of course be kept informed of any future significant developments.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness for making that Statement today, especially in the light of the severe worsening of the situation in Grenada. It has brought some good
276
news. We are glad that the Governor-General is safe and that there have been no British casualties; but that feeling is overshadowed by the fact that fighting continues and fatalities have occurred.
This is the third day in succession that we have had Statements about the island, and on each occasion there has been a deterioration in the situation and to some extent an amendment of the facts as we were given them. Would the noble Baroness agree that the Foreign Secretary's Statement on Monday clearly indicated that at that stage Her Majesty's Government had not fully apprehended the American Government's attitude to events in Grenada, and that neither the Foreign Secretary nor the Prime Minister were aware that the United States was planning to initiate military intervention in response to those events?
There is a need to clarify the extent of the consultation which took place between the United States and the United Kingdom Governments. How can the Government reconcile the fact that on Monday it was said that Her Majesty's Government did not know of any intention of the United States Government to invade the island, only to find that the United States had indeed invaded on Tuesday; and yet yesterday it was said that the United States and the United Kingdom Governments had kept in close contact about their intentions during the entire weekend?
When precisely were Her Majesty's Government notified of the American operation? Is it not the case that the President told the Prime Minister that the operation was imminent and that no opportunity was given to Her Majesty's Government to consult or to advance arguments against an invasion? Is the noble Baroness aware that this lack of consultation raises doubts about the validity of consultations on nuclear weapons and other matters? Can she confirm that Her Majesty's Government protested against the invasion but that this was disregarded by the United States Government? What steps are the Government taking to protest further against the action? Will Britain support the requests made by a number of countries for a meeting of the Security Council to discuss the matter?
We are very relieved that the statements of the noble Baroness on Monday and Tuesday to the effect that she was not aware that British citizens were in any imminent danger continue to be true. However, would she agree that it seems strange that the protection of innocent lives was the prime justification given by President Reagan for the United States' intervention, yet the British Government were able to announce that British citizens were not in immediate danger? How are those two statements to be reconciled? Is it not a worrying discrepancy in our respective perceptions of events in Grenada and the safety of our citizens? Further, would the noble Baroness reassure the House that conditions will allow the evacuation of British citizens under any circumstances? What does the phrase in the Statement, "conditions will allow", mean? It is indeed a strange development that Her Majesty's Government have to ask permission to remove British citizens from a Commonwealth country.
Is the noble Baroness aware that the United States' action has been severely condemned by Sir Sonny

277
Ramphal, the Commonwealth Secretary-General, who was not consulted by anyone, and that this has special implications for Britain as a senior member of the Commonwealth? Would the noble Baroness agree with Mr. Perez de Cuellar, the United Nations Secretary-General, that we must guard against any further escalation of tension and ensure that all parties involved exercise the greatest restraint? Does it not greatly weaken the authority of the United Kingdom, and of the Western world, when other nations commit acts of aggression, with all their consequences?
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, in thanking the noble Baroness for coming here to make this Statement today. I await with interest the answers to the numerous questions asked by the Leader of the Labour Opposition, to which I regret that I have to add one or two more.
However much Grenada's neighbouring islands may hate and fear what has happened there, and however well we understand their invitation to the United States and to us to help them in their invasion, is not the invasion of a sovereign state without provocation against international law? Is it not the case that on Friday last, if not before, Mr. Adams, the Prime Minister of Barbados, informed the British Government what was afoot and informally asked for our military help? Is it not also true that on Monday morning—that is, 1.30 p.m. our time on Monday—both Mrs. Eugenia Charles, the Prime Minister of Dominica, as Chairman of the Organisation of East Caribbean States, and Mr. John Compton, the Prime Minister of St. Lucia, communicated formally and in writing an invitation to us to take part in this invasion in the West Indies, yet two and a half hours later the noble Baroness was able to come to the House to say that she knew nothing of anything like this?
Why have the Government been inactive and silent during the whole build-up to this invasion? Why did the Government take no diplomatic initiative, if for no other purpose than to gain the initiative from the United States? Why did they not take perhaps a Commonwealth initiative? Why did the Government not take Parliament into their confidence, at least on Monday, if not before, about what they knew? Lastly, are the Government still sure that there is no case for dual key control of cruise missiles?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I have made this Statement today as I said that I would when the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me to keep the House fully informed of the position as we see it. I have come to the House today with a further Statement. I should like to make it quite clear that my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has at no time done other than speak to the House of the situation as he knows it. I should not like there to be any misunderstanding on that point.
I have been asked a number of detailed questions about the chronology, of this affair. I think that it may be for the convenience of the House if I read out the full chronology, as we know it, in some detail. On 21st October the British High Commissioner in Barbados learned that some Caribbean Heads of Government
278
were pressing their colleagues in the Caribbean community to ask for military help in restoring constitutional government in Grenada. We promptly instructed our embassy in Washington to ascertain how the United States Government might respond to such an approach. The following day, Saturday, 22nd October, the United States Government diverted towards Grenada a carrier group, led by USS "Independence". They stated that this was a signal to the local authorities of concern about the safety of United States citizens on the island.
We were informed on the same day, 22nd October, that Heads of Government of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States had decided to put together a multinational force and to call upon friendly Governments to help restore peace and order in Grenada. Late that evening (that is, 22nd October) we were infomed by the American Government that they had received a firm request from the Heads of Government of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to help restore peace and order in Grenada. They told us that no decision had been taken on how to respond, and they had concluded that they should proceed very cautiously.
On Sunday, 23rd October, the British High Commission in Barbados was informed that a formal request for British participation in a multinational force would probably be handed over later in the day. This did not happen. But we received later that day the conclusions of a meeting in Trinidad of all the Commonwealth Caribbean countries, except Grenada. They had decided in favour of political and economic measures against Grenada, but were divided about the desirability of military action.
We were in close touch with the American Government throughout 23rd October, and two United States consular officials accompanied our Deputy High Commissioner on a visit to Grenada over the weekend to form a first-hand assessment of the risks to British and American citizens.
Separately we were assured by the United States Government that we would be consulted immediately if the United States decided to take any action and informed that a United States emissary, Ambassador McNeil, had been sent to Barbados to confer with Mr. Adams and other Caribbean leaders.
It was also on 23rd October that HMS "Antrim" was instructed to sail from Cartagena, in Colombia, to the vicinity of Grenada in case the evacuation of British nationals proved necessary. This was a precautionary move, which was entirely unrelated to the suggestion of some Caribbean leaders that a multinational force should be established.
Ministers met early on Monday morning, 24th October, to consider events over the weekend. They also had available from the the British Deputy High Commissioner a report of his visit to Grenada. Following that meeting, our Ambassador in Washington was instructed to put to the United States Government factors which would have to be carefully weighed before decisions were taken.
On Monday evening we received in London the text of a statement by the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, which had been handed to the British High Commission in Barbados, informing the

279
British Government, among others, of the organisation's intention of taking action under Article 8 of the 1981 treaty of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States for the collective defence and preservation of peace and security against external aggression, and requesting assistance from friendly Governments.
On Monday evening President Reagan informed my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he was giving serious consideration to the request from the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States, and would welcome her thoughts. He undertook to inform my right honourable friend in advance of any decision taken by the United States.
While our response to that message was being considered, a second message arrived from the President, saying that he had decided to respond positively to the request that had been made to him. Ministers met immediatley to discuss the situation, and shortly after midnight on Monday 25th October my right honourable friend sent a reply to the President, in which, as she told another place yesterday, she reiterated the considerations which we had already put to the United States Government the previous day and expressed our concern at the course of action which he was contemplating. She also phoned the President to underline the importance that we attached to the matter.
Early on Tuesday morning my right honourable friend received a message from President Reagan informing her that he had very carefully weighed the issues raised in her message, but had decided that United States participation in the multinational force should nonetheless go ahead.
That is the detailed sequence of events as they have occurred.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me a quite separate point about international law. As I said yesterday, this is primarily a matter for the United States and the Caribbean Governments. It is not I think, for us to sit in judgment on the United States and Commonwealth countries involved in action which they consider directly affects their stability and that of the region as a whole.
Finally, I should like to confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that there is no parallel at all with the question of cruise or dual key. Any decision about the use of nuclear weapons is governed by the specific written agreement between the United States and ourselves. That agreement provides specifically that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.
Lord Cledwyn of Penhros: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness for giving a full account in chronological sequence of events over the last few days. Is she aware that many noble Lords in the House will be deeply disturbed by what that chronology reveals? Is it not the case that the United States Government and the President completely disregarded the advice which the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government gave on this issue; that they avoided the kind of consultation that should take
280
place between allies; that the United States, whatever the circumstances in Grenada, invaded it, an independent Commonwealth country, without consultation with the United Kingdom Government, one of her allies; and that this is bound to worsen relations between this country and the United States, when everyone in this country wants good relations with our ally the United States?
Can the noble Baroness say what further steps the Government are now proposing to take in the light of United States action? Will she be good enough to answer my question; namely, whether any steps are proposed in the United Nations and in the Security Council with regard to this matter, and what further action are the United Kingdom Government proposing to take in relation to the operation generally?
Baroness Young: My Lords, on the first question that the noble Lord has asked, I should like to make it clear that in this situation Her Majesty's Government were consulted. Your Lordships will see that from the chronology of the events that I have read out. The situation is in fact that the United States and some Commonwealth countries in the Caribbean took the view that the risk to which their citizens were exposed called for some action. The United Kingdom and a number of other Commonwealth Caribbean countries took a different view. The fact is that we regret the action that the Americans decided to take. But we do not necessarily agree with the Americans on every issue, any more than they always agree with us; nor should we expect to. But that does not in any way mean that there has been no consultation.
On the question of further steps, I should like to confirm that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be seeing Mr. Shultz in Paris tomorrow, and there are at present no steps in contemplation at the United Nations.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that there are here certain facts that we seem to be forgetting? The first is that we live in a world of mounting terrorism. The second—that a gang of terrorists should be allowed to seize and maintain themselves in a Caribbean island—is plainly intolerable to any international community. The third is that if in those circumstances much bloodshed is to be spared, action has to be very quick before the assassins really establish themselves. I think that we were very lucky indeed to find the Americans ready and willing to assume this international duty. The trouble is not what was done. That was right, was it not? The trouble is that we have injured our relations with America by the diplomatic incompetence of our Foreign Office and our Prime Minister and of the American President and the Americans. The injury to our relations is a matter of diplomatic incompetence and not due to anything that was done.
Earl de la Warr: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Baroness Young: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paget, is entitled to his views about this matter; but I think that it would be quite wrong to describe the

281
actions of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in the terms that he has done. She has had to consider very carefully these matters, along with my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, and she came to certain conclusions that have been supported by other countries in the Commonwealth. I should like to make it clear that the relationship with our oldest and most important ally, the United States, is a matter of great concern to Her Majesty's Government. On this issue, as on many others—and there have been differences of view on other questions—we recognise that the very important issues that unite us are far more important.
Earl de la Warr: My Lords, may I apologise to my noble friend for being so anxious to rise previously that I did not give her a chance to reply. I should like to put certain questions arising from those I put yesterday. Is it not extraordinary that the argument in the past few days has left out the great strategic significance of what is going on in the Eastern Caribbean today? Does she not agree that it is some years since the United Kingdom abdicated, in the best sense, its responsibility for the defence of the Caribbean to the United States Government in spite of the fact that by then the United States had left Ghaguaramas, their big naval base in Trinidad? Would she not agree that a proliferation of small island Governments in the Eastern Caribbean that were of the Russian way of thinking would pose a terrible danger to naval ships and supplies coming to us across the Atlantic? Would she agree that no fewer than half the men and supplies from America would come from the southern ports in the Gulf of Mexico and through the Panama Canal?
Does my noble friend, in short, not agree that this issue of Grenada is a matter of supreme importance to the naval aspect of the Western Alliance? Finally, would she not agree that it is high time that the British Government gave some credit to the Americans, albeit that they may have behaved with scant politeness to the British Government in the length of notice that they gave them, for pouncing on this situation, which carries with it such great strategic importance?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am not sure that this is the occasion to debate the development of the islands of the Caribbean. In answer to my noble friend, on the general strategic issue, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the Americans live much closer to Grenada than we do. They had explicit and pressing requests from countries in the region to take a lead in restoring peace and law and order in Grenada. Her Majesty's Government recognise that the security of this part of the world in the American hemisphere is not something that the British can dismiss lightly because we are further away. Several of the countries most closely connected with Grenada viewed developments there as a threat to their security, and we should not forget that there are 600 Cubans on the island. I think that we also have to recognise that the American community in Grenada is very much larger than the British community and, finally, that the United States Administration have the responsibility of deciding how best to secure their protection. These points have to be borne in mind in this debate.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, will the noble Baroness and Her Majesty's Government consider that, in the course of the next few days, weeks and months, the actions of America on the island of Grenada will become extremely popular, that there are already signs that they are supported by a great majority of the population and that in the next few days we shall see something quite unique in recent history; namely, the opening of a Communist gaol and people who have been imprisoned for many years without trial coming out and able to say precisely what their life has been like? Is she aware that, when all this is published the opinion of the world may change quite dramatically?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I think I will only respond to the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, by saying that we all hope that the outcome is peace and stability in the island and a return to democracy.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall—
Noble Lords: Order! Lord Jenkins of Putney.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am most grateful. Does not the noble Baroness agree that it is always possible to find an excuse for an invasion but that, in this case, even the normal excuse that it is carried out at the invitation of the Government in power cannot be found? Is she not aware that Article 8 of the agreement is a very slender excuse for invasion and that it did not convince Her Majesty's Government? This is therefore an invasion of a Commonwealth country taking place against the wishes of Her Majesty's Government. Does that not render the present United States Government an untrustworthy ally? If our wishes are to be overridden in this respect, what assurance can we have that our wishes would not be overridden on the question of the use of cruise missiles in our own country? Is there not cause to say that in these circumstances the deployment of cruise missiles should either be cancelled or at least postponed until more satisfactory assurances can be obtained?
Baroness Young: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, is, no. As I have already indicated in answering questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the two situations are quite different.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lady permit me to try in one question to put the feeling, as I understand it, of my noble friends? Would she agree that, whatever the casualties arising out of the invasion of Grenada—we hope that they will be small—the greatest casualty will be the moral standing of the West, the standing of international law, about which this House has expressed opinions in the past, and also the good faith of the alliance between the United Kingdom and the United States?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I do not think that it would be right or appropriate for me to make long-term judgments as to the consequences of this today. My purpose in making the Statement was to draw the

283
attention of the House to the position as we now find it. I think that what we all wish to see is a return to stability and democracy as soon as possible.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the observation she made in the very first sentence of the repetition of this Statement—namely, that the information is very limited—is very worrying to me, although it is not very surprising, for she will recall that in her repetition of the Statement on Monday she used the phrase that the atmosphere was "calm but tense" and at another stage in the Statement that the situation was "volatile". The mere fact that those two statements are quite irreconcilable has nothing to do with it—
Lord Denham: Question!
Lord Morris: My Lords, with respect to the Chief Whip, I am asking a question. However, the language was precisely the same as that used in a report by the BBC World Service correspondent five and a half hours earlier from Barbados. That indeed begs the question: who is briefing whom? Are Her Majesty's Government briefed by the BBC, or are Her Majesty's Government briefing the BBC? I find it a matter for very great concern.
The other question that I wish to ask my noble friend very quickly is this. According to her chronology of events, I find it very disturbing—and I feel sure that other noble Lords also find it very disturbing—that Her Majesty's Government were asked after the United States Government to support the Organisation of East Caribbean States, rather than the other way round.
Baroness Young: My Lords, perhaps I may take the noble Lord's last point first. The fact is that the Eastern Caribbean States are divided on their view as to the military intervention or whether or not there should have been economic and political measures. On the other point that he has raised, I think I can say that there is no suggestion at all, and it is quite absurd to say, that the BBC is briefing the Government. The BBC is perfectly entitled as an independent organisation to take the view that it thinks to be right.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, so many noble Lords have comments to make and yet the noble Baroness was so clearly right when she said that now is not the time to debate the matter. I wonder whether I may suggest that the usual channels should examine the possibility of our holding a debate tomorrow, especially in view of the fact that we shall not now be taking the Equal Pay (Amendment) Regulations tomorrow afternoon as had been expected.
Baroness Young: My Lords, this would be a matter for the usual channels, who, I am sure, have taken note of this point. Perhaps it might be a convenient time for the House to return to the debate. I would like to express my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who has been prevented from making his maiden speech while this Statement has taken place. I wish him very well and I hope that we
284
shall hear from him now and on many future occasions.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have asked the noble Baroness a question on two occasions this week—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I want to follow up the question that I have asked her on each of the Statements that she has made. Does the noble Baroness recall that on Monday I asked her whether she was prepared on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to condemn the invasion of the Commonwealth state of Grenada, which is a monarchy? The noble Baroness would not do so. This afternoon she has expressed regret. Will the noble Baroness now escalate the word "regret" to "condemnation"? Is there any precedent for a Commonwealth country, a monarchy within the Commonwealth, being invaded by a foreign power without the expression of utter condemnation from Her Majesty's Government?
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think that the House as a whole would agree that we have given 33 minutes to this Statement out of the debate. That I think was proper and I am sure that the House will agree that my noble friend was right to come to the House, as she promised yesterday, and give full information. I should like to give the undertaking, too, that we shall continue to give full information to this House. I believe that we have been seen to do so. I really must ask the noble Lord not to pursue the matter now. I do not think that the House wishes to pursue it. I think that noble Lords want to return to a debate of great importance. On the undertaking that these matters can be pursued and that we shall see that there are opportunities to do so, may I ask the noble Lord please to desist now so that we may continue with the debate?

Central and Local Government
5.5 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I feel that I shall have the sympathy of the whole House in this my first speech in your Lordships' House. I know that your Lordships have a reputation for generosity and understanding in these matters. I am most grateful for the kind personal references already made both in this debate and elsewhere in the House. I have been made to feel very welcome indeed.
I do not intend to abuse either convention or custom. I am strengthened in my belief that I can contribute to your Lordships' proceedings from the experience I bring from other places. First, there is my long association with the co-operative movement which has been my inspiration and my guide and on whose behalf I have worked for more than 44 years. It

285
would be my intention to maintain that association in the years that lie ahead. Secondly, there is my deep sense of gratitude to the people of Edmonton who honoured me with their trust for many years and on whose behalf I sat in the other place where I learned to appreciate the values we know and love as our parliamentary heritage. That experience will stand me in good stead in your Lordships' House.
Thirdly, I bring with me a knowledg of local government instilled in me over the years, but especially born out of my experience from serving on the council of the London Borough of Enfield. It was there that I learned to respect the dedication of men and women of all political persuasions, and to understand that love of one's community often transcended party dogma. There is a fierce loyalty to the democratic precepts of our local government institutions which rests on a healthy respect for central Government, but which flourishes the better when the sovereignty of local government is properly respected by central Government.
We are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for giving us this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Government the profund sense of unease and dismay felt at almost every level of local government at their current crop of initiatives. I am, indeed, conscious that a maiden speech should be non-controversial, but I hazard a guess when I say that it would be a miracle for any speech in this debate to fail to offend someone. I do not intend to give offence, but it will be very difficult indeed to avoid doing so.
It is a plain statement of fact to assert that these past four years have seen a deterioration in the hitherto healthy relationships between local and central Government. I served in another place on the committees which considered the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill, the Local Government Finance Bill and the Housing and Building Control Bill. All had a common theme: the placing on local councils of the heavy hand of the man in Marsham Street, a diminution of local powers and the aggregation to the centre—the Secretary of State—of more and more powers. Over these past four years working in or for local government has been an unhappy and at times a miserable task.
As we look at the White Papers on rate capping and on the abolition of the metropolitan counties and the GLC, as we view the horror and despair born out of the latest cut in rate support grant, we are entitled to ask: Will the Government ever learn? Are we really to look forward to yet a further dose of chastisement for local people? Is it such a crime for them to have innocently thought that when they were elected to provide services they would be allowed to raise the required revenues in the form of charges or grants, or rates?
The Government are fully entitled to claim the credit for uniting local government as it has never been united before. It is united neither in defying the Government of the day, nor in what the Government misleadingly describe as "overspending". The Association of Municipal Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of District Councils and the London Boroughs Association are all united in a defence of the constitutional rights that
286
local government has enjoyed for more than 380 years, since 1601.
No words from a political opponent trying to make a comparatively non-controversial speech could match the anger and anguish heaped upon the Minister from his own side, who feels betrayed—and not for the first time. Instead, let me quote to this noble House the words that I heard during the passage of the Local Government Planning and Land Bill while in Committee on 8th July 1980:
"When the public funds have been distributed, it is then a matter for individual local authorities and their councillors as to what their expenditure decisions are. It is their choice between services, their choice as to the volume of expenditure on these services, and their choice as to the rate levels that they decide to impose.
"That is the freedom and discretion that exists in local government. It is this partnership: public, ministerial and parliamentary responsiblity for the public funds, the national taxpayers' funds, paid to local government; the local councillors' responsibility for the final rating decisions and the expenditure of their own local authority. That is the basis on which local government and central Government partnership exists. We each have our responsibility to our own electorates in that respect".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/80; col. 313.]
All who are taking part in this debate today could subscribe to those views. They were accepted by all in that Committee on 8th July 1980. They were spoken by the Minister in charge of the Bill, the now Secretary of State for Employment. They have formed the cornerstone of central and local relationships for more than 380 years. I ask this question: are the Government so insensitive and inflexible that they cannot even now reflect and make the partnership they talk about a living reality? Except for political ends surely there is nothing to be gained by driving the impending legislation through Parliament, and so much to be lost which, once lost, could damage the relationship beyond repair?
Pots calling kettles black is no new phenomenon in British political life or politics. Sweeping assertions that local government cannot control its expenditure or keep to targets comes ill from a central Government of any political colour which have a record of constantly exceeding their forecasts and budgets. On any objective criteria the totality of local government control of its expenditure stands comparision with central Government performance in recent years. I ask the Government: why not trust locally-elected men and women to manage local affairs? If they fail to satisfy their electors, they will receive their just deserts through the ballot box at the next election. Why seek to deprive both the councillors and the electors of that democratic opportunity?
In putting forward their proposals both to cap the rates and to abolish authorities, the Government lamentably fail to produce convincing evidence to buttress their case—all too often there is no evidence at all. If the Government are so convinced that the practices in some areas are so much against the interests of ratepayers, are resented and should be ended, why not give democracy the chance to work? What are the Government afraid of?
Much is made of the dissension and conflict which has been created in local government of late. I fear that if the Government persist along their present path, they will create far more conflict and dissension than they assert is present today and which I beg leave to doubt exists. This Government have a wonderful

287
opportunity. There are thousands of dedicated men and women serving on councils at parish, district, borough and county level. These servants of the public have, in the main, whatever their political allegiances, taken to public service because they felt that they could make a contribution to the improvement of their village, their town, their city. I am proud to say that for a number of years I shared their hopes and their aspirations. From my experience of working with those of other political persuasions, I know that their prime purpose is serving their community and that, in fact, crosses all political boundaries.
Respectfully, I tell this House that there are limits to what those men and women—our local councillors—will take. It is one thing to combine with others to strive to create a town in the image of all that is best and then to stand accountable, publicly, for what one has achieved or not achieved. It is quite another matter to become merely the agent of a central power, lacking in any real decision-making powers and frustrated at every turn. Rather than suffer further humiliation, the men and women I know will conclude that it is not worth the candle to play charades and to pretend that local councillors govern.
I say: give them back their role; allow them to apply their local knowledge for the good of their community. If this debate has served the purpose of alerting the Government to these dangers, it will have been time and effort well spent. We will all rejoice if this debate helps to persuade the Government once more to restore central and local relationships to what they once were, and to what they could and must be again.
5.16 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, on behalf of the whole House, it is a real privilege to be the first to congratulate such an excellent maiden speaker as the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I am sure your Lordships will agree that he was very right in not wasting too much time—I think only one day—between his appearance here and his fluent and excellent maiden speech. It is all the better for me because I agree with a great deal of what the noble Lord said. However, just before he rose to his feet he may have felt that for one awful moment he was back in another place. I hope he will realise that that is not his fate, and that we very much hope that his long experience in local government will be of great value to this House for many years to come.
I have spoken too often on this subject before us today and it may be a great delight to your Lordships to know that this is probably the last occasion on which I may be able to give the totally political view of the Association of County Councils before I retire from politics. In doing so, I realise that I may be defying my noble friend Lord Beloff, whose introductory speech we all so much enjoyed, as I think he rather implied that only those who live in Camden or South Yorkshire, or some such places, who knew the full horror of local government, would be entitled to participate today. But that is not quite the case. The legislation that we have been discussing does not confine itself entirely to South Yorkshire and is, in fact, countrywide; so I have no qualms about putting the views of the ACC.
288
The debate is about the relationships between central and local government. I think that they can be summed up in one word; they are "unhappy". They are not getting any happier, and I am afraid that during the four years of the last Government it was difficult to see any improvement. It is entirely a matter of opinion whether you put this down to the fault of a few extravagant and reckless authorities for defying the Government, or whether you blame the desire of Whitehall to centralise as much power as possible—a danger which was most certainly foreseen in the Layfield Committee's report. No doubt it is somewhat of a mixture of both and, depending where you sit here, you can choose for yourself which view to take. But there is mistrust on both sides of this argument.
I should like to turn to the White Paper on Rates, which was published this August. There are two general reactions about that: first, that it is commonly thought (and I certainly think so) that it is a missed opportunity; one might call it a whole forest of ungrasped nettles—massive things which should have been tackled. Secondly, in its central ideas, as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, most forcibly said, it has perhaps united all shades of political opinion in all local authority associations against its principal proposals.
Why is this paper so disappointing? It is, indeed, acknowledged that rates are here to stay; that they are forever likely to be a form of taxation. This is a realistic conclusion which must be welcomed. Some Conservative words have had to be eaten and thoroughly digested to produce this result. We all hate rates; in fact, we all hate paying taxes anyway. But surely rates are one of the most unpopular taxes that you can have. That is really the whole point of them. The fact that they are so obvious, unpopular and unavoidable means that those who pay them can actually realise more what they are getting for their payment. I do not think that the White Paper has gone nearly far enough in tackling the problem of making those who levy the rates accountable to those who actually pay them. It is in fact a classic case of treating the symptoms and not the disease.
The non-domestic ratepayer, or business ratepayer, has indeed a great cause for complaint. As has been mentioned, he is paying something like 57 per cent. of the total rate bill at the moment. But this is hardly the fault of local government, or of the local authorities. The relationship between the domestic and the non-domestic rate is entirely the result of a political decision by various Governments—not entirely this one, of course—to relieve the voter and to put as much as possible of the burden on the unrepresented industry.
I would agree that reintroducing the business vote does nothing to help this problem, and business does have a considerable cause for complaint in this matter. The proposals we heard from the Alliance on this matter of the business vote certainly deserve more careful study than perhaps they have had. I hope that they will be published, because there may be something in what they say—not all of what they say, let me hasten to add, but in the business vote situation I believe they may have some constructive answers.

289
To some extent business (using that word as a very general term) has only itself to blame. How many members of the CBI, how many directors of industry, how many senior management people in industry, have tried in one way or another to sit on local councils, to get on to the councils and to be represented on them? They too often complain about the rates, but they do not try to do the dirty work, sitting on the councils and taking the necessary decisions before the rate is fixed. Not nearly enough people from industry have found the time, or been released by their employers, to stand for election to local authorities. I regret this. I equally regret that the White Paper has nothing to say on the relationship between the domestic and non-domestic rates, because it is of crucial importance; and I repeat that the unfavourable relationship at the moment is not the fault of local authorities, it is the fault of Parliament.
I ask three questions about this new legislation which will come before us. First, is it necessary, or is it the result of a vendetta against some local authorities which may indeed be justified but may be temporary? How serious is the problem? Is there a better way, and what else could we suggest for the undoubted need to control expenditure? Regarding the necessity for this legislation, the White Paper can be criticised for its rather selective use of statistics. We all use the statistics which justify the case we are trying to make, and the Government themselves cannot escape some criticism on that account.
For example, they say that domestic rates have increased by 91 per cent. between 1979 and 1983–84, but that the retail price index has gone up by only 55 per cent. This is of course undeniably true, but they do not point out that two things have affected this figure. First of all, over this period the rate support grant percentage, which is a massive sum, has fallen from 61 per cent. to 53.8 per cent.; and, then, the domestic rate relief, now at 18½p in the pound, has not kept up with inflation over this period and is therefore way out of date.
If these two facts are taken into the picture there is quite a different story. The Government have transferred the burden from taxpayer to ratepayer of an equivalent of 2p in the pound—not 3p, as the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said. The 2p in the pound by way of income tax has in fact been transferred to the ratepayer. That is a perfectly fair and legitimate political decision which has been made, and one cannot query it, but it is no good blaming local authorities for the increase in rates which has been necessary to take up this burden and to replace the loss of rate support grant. If you do these sums you see that local government domestic rates have actually risen by 2.7 per cent, less than the RPI, and industrial rates have risen by about 2 per cent, less than the RPI, over that period.
Indeed, another statistic which is not mentioned is that local authority expenditure as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 15.9 per cent, in 1974–75 to 12.8 per cent. in 1982–83. Nor does the White Paper acknowledge in any way the fact that the pressures on the Government's own social services budget—the tragically high level of unemployment, the ageing population and such like factors—which have led the Government themselves to overspend their own
290
budget have equally been operating to some extent on the social services budgets of local authorities. In addition to that, the local authorities had the dramatic and expensive experience of Professor Clegg.
Nobody would deny that a handful of local authorities have totally abused their powers and caused genuine hardship and distress. It is a matter of opinion whether this demands a radical change—and it is a radical change—in the constitutional relationship which now exists between local and central government. In an ideal situation the pressure to curb extravagance should come not from the top but from the bottom. The electors should revolt. I believe that there are signs that that is happening, or will happen. Surely our aim should be to encourage that process and to develop accountability, and the White Paper does nothing in that direction.
At the moment there are no incentives to save money. There are no votes in closing schools—quite the reverse. Not unnaturally electors demand more and more services, certain at the moment that very few of them will contribute anything to the cost thereof. A certain county council was one of the few to reduce its rates by a considerable percentage in 1981. It was a Conservative-controlled council. However, they were swept from power despite this fact. They might just as well not have tried.
Perhaps the activities of Mr. Livingstone, which have taken up so much of our attention in newspapers over the last few years, will result in a higher turnout of electors at the next election, whether to register support or otherwise for his policies. It is perhaps rather sad that, the only time I mention the other White Paper, we may be denied the opportunity to see what does happen if there are no more elections to the GLC.
The Government should be taking more steps to mobilise the ratepayers rather than putting the lid on rates. We are approaching it from the wrong end. It would be more effective in the long run, and less harmful to local and central government relationships, if this were done. There are already severe penalties for overspending under the current system, and they should be given a chance to work.
However, I am sure that the Government will insist on such proposed legislation, and one may make a strong case with specific arguments for certain cuts. However, may I ask them, in framing this legislation, for the benefit of relationships and for the benefit of their own friends in local government as well as their enemies, that they should try to make this legislation for specific councils as temporary as possible, and not permanent. We can understand and appreciate the need to put a stopper on the wild extravagance that could come from a dying GLC or a dying metropolitan county council. As we know, half of the overspending is already attributable to them, and if they had a free rein for the last few years I dread to think what could happen. We had enough experience in 1974 of seeing what a dying rural district council could do to get rid of its balances before they went into new district councils, and the Government must take steps to stop that deathbed extravagance.
May I ask the Government to define precisely the criteria which will be needed to distinguish the

291
naughty boys? It is one of the most difficult things to accurately assess the needs of different local authorities, and the Government, in taking this on themselves, must be clear what they are doing and why, and who is being singled out.
Finally, may I suggest that if there is a case to be answered then legislation should be confined to the business rate only if it is to be permanent, and not the domestic rate, at least until we have been able to re-examine the total relationship between domestic and non-domestic rates. Before they introduce the second part of this legislation—and I for one hope that they never will—regarding the general rate-capping proposals, may they remember that it is quite wrong for the flock to suffer for the activities of a few black sheep.
I am not going to open a new box on agricultural rating. I had enough trouble with that in Layfield days. May I make one suggestion on that? It is that farmers who over-indulge in straw burning and break the rules on that might be susceptible to agricultural rates because of the demands they put on our fire brigade. There would seem to me a possibility there of keeping the punishment in line with the crime.
It gives me no pleasure whatever, on behalf of the ACC, to criticise the proposals before us. There is indeed much unhappiness among the Government's strongest supporters in local government, in the county councils—more than I can recall in 25 years' involvement in local government. There is a risk of damage to our relationships. I hope and believe that the Government will move carefully on this and will consult the associations and the responsible people in all walks of local government, and that together we can go forward to see how best we can achieve what we are all really after, the one thing that all this is really about, and that is value for money in the public service.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I am very happy to congratulate my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on his maiden speech, to which we all listened with great interest. We look forward especially to hearing the speech he makes when he starts to be controversial. I am sure that will be extremely stimulating and very good for the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, to whom we owe this debate, began by pointing out to us that local government in its present form is only a century or a century and a half old. I am obliged to say, "So what?" How old is democracy in this country? No one can really say that this country was a democracy before the year 1867 at the earliest; the date of the second Reform Act. But democracy has taken root; it has become a real part of the Government of this country. We regard it as part of our constitution. The two things are united, because the value of local government and of giving considerable powers to local authorities is the exercise that it gives the citizens in democratic government. Lenin sneered at our form of Government on the ground that it allowed us to go to the ballot box once every five years. That even so was not true, but the existence of local government is one answer to that. It is there that people get exercise not only in
292
judging and voting, but many of them receive experience of government itself. Both this House and another place have been enormously enriched by the coming into both Houses of people, such as my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, who started their political experience in local government.
The development of a sense of interest in local affairs has been one of the things that have helped to provide the legislature with experienced and useful people. I am bound to say that I thought the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was seriously under-estimating the real value of local government and local liberties and diversities to this country.
Next, the existence of local government and the power of local authorities to handle problems in different ways is valuable in providing opportunity for experiment. We now regard rent rebates as part of the whole process of rents, but they began as an experiment by a local authority. In the first place it was a very unpopular experiment, but it took a local authority which had the courage to persist. It brought the question into public discussion and that caused that development in our local government.
Similarly in education one thing often being argued about is the discretionary grant. There are always arguments about whether a particular educational grant ought to be at the discretion of the local authority or ought to be mandatory. One of the values of having such things as grants at the discretion of a local authority is the experimentation. There are examples of local authorities who are bolder or more generous and what has been in one decade a discretionary grant will probably be decided to be so valuable that in the next decade it becomes universal practice. That is one of the ways in which progress is achieved in the development of public services.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, also objected to the fact that local authorities have taken to themselves something that ought to belong to Parliament; that is the redistribution of wealth. On what grounds can we say that that is not a reasonable function for a local authority to assume? When it provides poorer people with housing of a quality that they could not possibly afford out of their own incomes, when it provides their children with education of a kind that their parents by themselves could not afford, those are examples of the redistribution of wealth, and a very good thing too. If we did not have that we should have a profoundly impoverished nation. One of the most interesting things to do in local government is to look at the kinds of public library provided by a working-class borough in London or any other of our great cities; surrounded by people who could not possibly afford to have a well stocked library in their own homes on their own shelves, but who are quite obviously very ready indeed to go on voting for councillors who spend a good deal of money on a first-class library and thereby affect, to some extent, the distribution of wealth and bring to poorer people something they could not afford for themselves. They are extending knowledge and education and generally enriching and adding to the dignity of our life.
All this means that we build up by our form of local government the quality of civic pride. I wish that more people voted when it came to local elections, but even the 45 per cent., though that is not what one would

293
wish, is a considerable figure. It illustrates the feeling of pride in their city which a great many people feel. That is a healthy emotion and is something that contributes to the good functioning of democracy in general. It is an unspeakably difficult thing to organise. There are practically no right answers to any of the questions in the field of local government.
If one asks what is the right size for a local authority, the answer depends on what service one is arguing about. In education, for example, one can make a case for a large authority because in a large authority there will be a sufficient number of people with very exceptional needs; the afflicted, the handicapped, the people who wish to learn an unusual foreign language. In a large authority there will be enough of them to make that possible and to make proper provisions. On the other hand, one can argue that a smaller authority may be more accessible, more understandable to the public. One can continue those arguments indefinitely. When one has decided what is the right size for one local authority and its services, one may find it is not the right size for another. My advice to all Governments who attempt to reform local government is, "For goodness' sake, do not seek for perfection". One should not too rashly tear up what exists before one is reasonably certain of something better. One thing quite clear about these two papers is that the Government cannot be reasonably certain of any such thing, because nothing like sufficient consideration has been given.
We listened to Lord Bellwin's contemptuous account of the uselessness of the Greater London Council and the other metropolitan councils. Who brought those bodies into existence? It was the party to which he belongs, with very little enthusiasm or support from us. My point is that, with nothing like the detailed study there was before the Greater London Government Act, they are now proposing to get rid of them. They might be right; they might be wrong. It is extremely doubtful whether the advantage or disadvantage will be sufficient to compensate for the trouble of making the change, because whenever one makes these changes one has to consider the lives and careers of the public servants, the arrangements that have to be made for redundancy pay, and the general discouragement of people who work in local authorities.
What is the reason that is urged for the latest attack on the range of powers of local authorities? It is the alleged misbehaviour of certain local authorities. If things were to go on as they have been, in 1985 we should have an election in London and we should be able to decide whether in fact the citizens and voters of Greater London share the hostile opinion of the GLC that has been expressed on the Benches opposite. It is interesting to notice that it is exactly that which the Government propose to prevent them from doing, for they are going to abolish the body before the electorate has had a chance to express a view on it.
But where have the problems of these authorities that are regarded as badly behaved come from? They come partly from the fact that they are inner cities and because of the general problem that has been affecting inner cities in recent years—a decline in population, sometimes an increase in the proportion of the population who are immigrants or the children of
294
immigrants and, in some cases, considerable sections of the population whose mother tongue is not English and who create special and additional problems for the local authorities. The authorities have had special burdens and difficulties placed upon them. It is from that, really, that their financial difficulties arise and not from the alleged extravagence. The total amount spent in what are regarded by some people as extravagent and unnecessary ways, is a tiny proportion of their total expenditure. Their real expenditure problems come from the social difficulties that they have to solve.
It was interesting to notice in the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, on the riots at Brixton, that he went out of his way to speak of the useful influence exercised in Brixton by the Tulse Hill comprehensive school and to speak in general of the useful work done on the ethnic problem by the Inner London Education Authority. Not unnaturally, that part of the report of the noble and learned Lord was not given a great deal of prominence in the media. Indeed, Dr. Rhodes Boyson, who at one stage had some responsibilities in the field of education, was saying contemptuously that the comprehensive schools in London had done nothing to help with the problems of racial discord. One must assume that he had not read the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. If he had done so, he might have realised that that was an ill-considered judgment.
I would say, while on this topic, that there are a very great many parents in London who send their children to ILEA schools who would not at all agree with Lord Beloff's verdict on the matter. Indeed, one might note over the years a steady and bitter hostility of the Conservative Party towards the authority which has had charge over London's education. That hostility has not been because the authority's schools have been bad, but because they had have been good. And it has been because they have been gradually extending to people who, under the old selective system of education did not enjoy it, the opportunites of education that are now becoming increasingly available.
One of the greatest injuries that will be done by these proposals is if we are provided with some botched-up arrangement for the running of the London schools. I understand that, according to the White Paper, the members are to be indirectly elected. Am I not right about that?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when the noble Lord says "indirectly elected", I presume he means that the membership will be of elected members of the local authorities concerned, appointed by those authorities?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, that is exactly what I meant. The electorate will elect the borough councils, the borough councils will elect the education authorities. That is why I said that the education authority would be indirectly elected. That seems to be a fair and accurate description of it.
One of the great objections to ILEA in the past has been that it was not democratic and one of the reasons advanced for the charge that it was not democratic was that some of its members were only indirectly elected. Now, apparently, they are all to be indirectly elected.

295
This has never been regarded, I think, as a particularly good way of choosing a representative. The electorate, when it is electing the borough council, will not know who is going to sit on the body that controls the schools which its children attend. That will be decided for them in the council chamber by the local councillors in the majority party in each borough. I cannot think that there is any conceivable advantage in doing this.
After all, the Conversative Party has not a very good track record on reforming local government. It produced the London Government Act, which I do not believe has provided a benefit for any single human being, and which they themselves are now engaged in deriding with every attack they make on the Greater London Council. Then there was the great reform of local government outside London, and no sooner was it over than everybody cmplained that it was becoming intolerably expensive. Now, apparently, they are going to do it again. One cannot approach this with any great enthusiasm. And look at the way they have treated ILEA itself! First of all, because it is considered to be spending too much, it gets its grants reduced to nothing. As a result, it has to spend still more and then it is told that it is spendthrift. You first compel it to be spendthrift and you then say it must be penalised because it is spendthrift. This is not the way to command confidence.
I listened with very great interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I think that everyone, without distinction of party, would listen with great interest to what she had to say about local government finance. I have always believed that it ought to be possible to raise at any rate some considerable part of local revenue by means of a local income tax. I have always been told that it cannot be done. But everybody seems to find the present way of doing it almost equally impossible and undesirable. My advice to the Government would be this. "If you must make changes, try to do it in the direction of local income tax. If you cannot, please leave it alone!—because the amount of damage done by Convervative Governments to local government by not leaving it alone is already very considerable".
My Lords, there is no need to do this. The total amount of resources which might be considered as being wasted—and that is a matter of political argument—by high-spending local authorities is nothing like enough to justify a major change of this kind. Although I accept that one cannot call it a constitutional change, it is a profound change in the relations between central and local government; and, if things go on in that direction, it will reach dimensions where one could fairly call it a constitutional change. My noble friend Lady Birk was asking in one of the proposed Bills why there should be provisions for the councils that are not regarded as having been badly behaved. Why do you need them? Of course, we know why the Government need them—it is so that they can, if necessary, step in and clobber them at any time they like if they think it necessary. After all, why was the old LCC clobbered? It was because its citizens went on voting a Labour majority. Why do they now want to abolish the GLC? It is because, after you had the London Government Act and created that in order to get rid of the Labour majority on the LCC, you still got
296
Labour majorities turning up on the GLC—and you have to get rid of that! This arrangement for clobbering any and every local authority will be handy for future Governments if those authorities show a tiresome tendency to vote Labour and to provide services on the scale that their citizens want them to be provided. That is what it is all about. That is why I hope that it will be steadily resisted.
5.50 p.m.
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, when this debate started I began to wonder whether I would become involved in a party political debate, which I always seek to avoid. I recall the speech that I first made in your Lordships'House some nine years ago, and I feel that the essential point I made in that speech had some relevance to the debate which is taking place today. Naturally I made my maiden speech in a education debate and I contrasted the East and the West: the East with over-central control and direction, perhaps quite efficient but with no freedom, and the West with over-devolution, which had a great degree of freedom but which made educational opportunity dependent on place of birth or the length of a parent's purse.
I took the opportunity to find great happiness in the structure of this country and in the relationship between central and local government, in which central Government performed those functions which were appropriate to central government—those things which necessarily had to be common and uniform throughout the service—leaving local authorities to provide the service and administer it, providing a grant formula which ensured that educational opportunity was not dependent on place of birth or the economic status of the parents.
Since that date I have watched with growing concern what I am bound to describe as the deliberate destruction of the relationship between central and local government, which was then the envy of the world. I say "deliberate" advisedly, and obviously I must seek to justify that phrase. The present Government, coming into their first period of office, did so with a very important pledge: that they would bring central government expenditure under control. Now let us face the fact: they utterly failed to do so, and they recognised a very real danger in the situation, with increasing criticism being directed against the central Government for not controlling Government expenditure. So there was a need to do something about it. The obvious thing to do was to transfer the criticism somewhere else, and the readiest answer was to transfer the criticism from central Government to local government.
They found—and nobody disputes this fact—a few local authorities which were guilty of gross misbehaviour, spending more money than could reasonably be justified. But they were not sure that it would sufficiently divert criticism from central Government if they merely dealt with those local authorities, and so they decided that the best ploy was in fact to bring the criticism to bear on all local government. They had a simple and ready means to do that: the rate support grant. That is a simple means by which central Government can force local authorities to increase their rates. Let us be quite clear about that.

297
If a local authority did not increase its expenditure by one penny from 1978 or 1979 until today, it would have had to increase its rates every year because of the reduction in rate support grant. That is a fact—
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Lord would just allow me to intervene, would he then explain why it was that when the rate support grant was reduced under a Labour Administration from 65 per cent. down to 56 per cent. local government as a whole did not increase its rates in the way that he says it would have been compelled to do?
Lord Alexander of Potterhill: My Lords, I suggest that we examine carefully the accounts of central Government and of local government during the years of the present Government's while in office. In every year the increase in expenditure in local government is less than the increase in central Government expenditure. I take the education service whose accounts I study every year. The transfer from taxes to rates over that period is £ 1,000 million a year. Applied to the whole of local government, it is probably of the order of £2,000 million, because education represents half the expenditure of local authorities. You cannot carry out that operation without greatly increasing central control and direction in order to impose that policy. Let there be no mistake: the increase in central control and direction over local government, probably in every service but certainly in the education service, is a matter of the gravest possible concern to those of us who are invoved in that service.
I began my professional career as a teacher. When a teacher found a few children misbehaving—which is what the central Government found in relation to local authorities—the right thing to do was to deal with the few children who were misbehaving. But if the teacher was weak or anxious to divert attention from his or her own incompetence, then they punished the whole of the class. What happened, my Lords? the whole of the class rebelled. And what was the end result of that? There is only one possible answer: you got rid of the teacher. This is precisely what the central Government have been doing to local government. They have found a few—we are all agreed on that—local authorities misbehaving. But instead of dealing with the few local authorities who misbehaved, they have applied the punishment to the whole class—to all local authorities; and the proposals would involve very severe punishments indeed.
I must say I fear that if the Government continue in this way they may get the same answer as applied in the case of the teacher: they may get the sack. But, much worse than that, they will have destroyed a relationship between central and local government which was the envy of the world and perhaps the best expression and structure for a truly free democratic society.
6 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, will forgive me if I do not follow his every argument. Perhaps I might say that he was really rather over-simplifying matters in comparing local authorities with children in school. They are vast organisations handling vast sums of money,
298
and are not quite the same as schools. I do not think that the analogy will go all the way. I also rather hope that my noble friend Lord Bellwin will settle the other arguments in his own good time when he replies.
I should like very much to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton—and I am sorry that he is not here. For a non-controversial speech, he has given us a good foretaste of what he will be like with a controversial one. I look forward to it, and hope that I may find myself debating with him.
I should like very much to thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for introducing this most interesting debate. It has had the makings of a quite fierce one in some respects, but it is none the worse for that. I should like to remind your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Bellwin, speaking from the Government Front Bench, is probably one of the most experienced local authority councillors that we have in our midst, and his fondness for local government, which he has demonstrated to us over the last five years, has been quite considerable. I find it a little strange for the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to say that the Government are prejudiced against local government when one observes that my noble friend Lord Bellwin is the Minister for Local Government. I do not think that that quite ties up.
I have been advised by many people, as I am sure most of your Lordships have, but particularly by representatives of industry, especially the CBI, and I speak mainly with that sort of bias in contributing to the argument. But I have also been advised by the Association of Local Councils, of which I have recently been honoured to be made a Vice-President, and I am delighted to see that the noble Lord the leader of the Opposition has also recently been made a Vice-President. I am sorry that he is not in his place, so that we can compare our honoured positions together.
I propose, first, to tackle the White Paper on rates, and I suggest that there is general support for the Government's conclusion that for the foreseeable future rates should remain the main source of local revenue for local government. Industry welcomes the proposals for the new statutory duty on authorities to consult with business before fixing business rates, especially because these represent a higher charge on businesses than central taxation and because they bear no relation to the profitability of the business, so they may be extremely unfair. My noble friend Lord Ridley has told us that 57 per cent, of the rates bill is supplied by business rates, and that is something which is very much the concern of industry.
The CBI say that the consultations to which I have referred already happen with 40 county councils. However, there is general agreement that it is most important to establish that such consultation is properly effective. The CBI have suggested a code of practice. Other businessmen have expressed the view that the draft policy statement and draft budget are available for consideration by business ratepayers, with at least four weeks allowed for written comment before key policy decisions are taken. This may be something which is desirable, but it would be difficult to put into effect. Indeed, the Association of Local Councils have picked up the point in another way, by

299
expressing the view that the consultations will probably be of little value because of the short time normally existing between the information becoming available and the rates being applied. This is clearly a matter which the Government will have to consider carefully, including giving consideration to an appeal system for use when business advice is ignored. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will consider this of sufficient importance for him to take it into account.
The point has also been strongly made by the ACC and the ADC, as well as by some business representatives, that the most effective way in which they can contribute to decision-making is by many more businessmen becoming councillors. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Ridley said as much in his most interesting speech. This is certainly the best solution, and it was the case in the last century. It is also something which the CBI and other employers' organisations encourage. However, if one looks into it, it is extremely difficult with present-day business structures to get enough people with the right level of business authority to stand for election. Companies are very different from what they were a hundred years ago, when there were a whole multiplicity of what we would today call medium-sized companies. So many of them have now been bought up by bigger companies and operate as subsidiaries, without the subsidiaries having the kind of authority which they could probably convey back into the local authorities.
So there is a different structure, but that does not mean to say that it is not something that is worth going for, and I think that people will try to organise it and try to persuade others. But then there is the other problem that the individuals concerned, the ones who are most talented in business, are the ones who are busiest and most keen to get on. They are reluctant to spare their own time to undertake this task for fear that they will lose the opportunity to do their job in the company. So there are difficulties, but it is certainly a good idea.
Turning now to rate limitation, this has been accepted by industry as a step forced upon the Government by a relatively few irresponsible local authorities. But many businessmen—and this may surprise some of your Lordships—would have preferred the problem to be solved by local discipline and increased accountability; in effect, saying as my noble friend Lord Ridley did in his plea for mobilising ratepayers, and only capping the business rates. That is something which I am sure business would be keen to support if it were practicable.
It is certainly hoped that the Government will never need to use the proposed general rate limitation scheme, though it is appreciated that there is an argument for including it in the legislation as an "awful warning" to the recalcitrant few. The Association of Local Councils' like all other local authorities, do not at all like the concept of rate limitation. They take the view that the Government are, of course, entitled to impose terms on monies provided by them, but they object to restrictions on local authorities own resources. They appreciate that local council funding should not be directly affected by this, but fear a knock-on effect from the superior bodies. They suggest
300
that the best answer would be to leave the precepts of all local councils out of rate limitation schemes altogether. If my noble friend thought that that was practicable, he might give thought to it when considering how the White Paper will be put into effect. In doing that, he might remember that in local authorities for small towns and villages the local councillors enjoy a special, close contact with ordinary ratepayers. I am sure that other representatives on different types of councils will say that they do, too, but local councillors really are living in among them.
The objection by all associated with local government to the proposals for rate limitation leads to the main point of my noble friend's Motion—the relations between central and local government. Much of what I will say here reflects what has been said by my noble friend Lord Beloff. These relations certainly are not good in many areas, and the problem seems to me to stem from an assumption by some that local authorities should be given complete freedom to exercise their responsibilities how they wish. This might have been a tenable argument in the early days of elected local government, when local responsibilities were few and comparisons between the ways of life in different parts of the county were limited. However, in the last 70 years the responsibilities of local authorities have much increased, meaning that there is a greater opportunity for variations in government at local level, whether or not people like it.
In addition, communication between communities has been vastly improved, meaning that people can be aware of differences in local government and can justly expect the Government of the nation to ensure that they are not too great. Over the years, many more precise failings have grown up in the present-day local government system. I emphasise the word "system". It has come about from behind, as it were, because what I am about to say does not, in the main, relate to the hard-working councillors or to their even more hard-working senior officials.
These precise failings are spelt out in detail in an excellent new book entitled Municipal Empire by Mr. David Walker, which some noble Lords may have read. I was fortunate recently to see it reviewed in the Economist and our Library kindly obtained it for me. While mentioning libraries, I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that it is not only the poor who have to go to libraries; it is also your Lordships—and certainly this noble Lord, because I cannot afford to have a big library. May I also say, in passing, that it was my grandfather who started the libraries in the Isle of Wight.
Though it may offend some, I believe that Mr. Walker's book really ought to be compulsory reading for all who are attempting to grapple with the problem which we are debating today. During the early part of our debate I said to myself, "Especially, if I may dare to say so, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk".
Mr. Walker questions whether local government really is local—this is the problem—with so much centralisation of management matters. Mr. Walker gives several examples of it. One of them is wage bargaining which, if it were local, would give much greater authority at local level to local authorities. He spells out how many groups of local government

301
employees have insulated themselves from any sort of investigation into the cost-effective performance of their tasks. He identifies startling differences in costs of services per head of population between apparently similar authorities. Mr. Walker makes clear what we all know: that in some authorities councillors use the system to flaunt the policies of the national Government. This, I would suggest to your Lordships, specially qualifies for criticism, since the Government have recently been re-elected with an increased majority.
A recent example of this was the attitude of certain authorities to the Government's civil defence policy. The new orders, currently under debate in another place and to be debated here next Tuesday, will require positive action by all local authorities concerned. I am delighted to learn that the Association of County Councils welcomes these orders. I trust that any local authorities which have resisted civil defence in the past will now cease to deprive their ratepayers of this necessary protection against the possibility in the future of threat from an opponent.
Mr. Walker concludes his book with seven immediate steps that he recommends to make local government more local and more responsive to the disciplines of the market and to restore power to the consumer against the producers of various services.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I am following with great interest what the noble Lord is saying but I find in it an appalling, frightening paradox. This Government were returned with an overwhelming majority. Quite a number of authorities which once were Labour are now Conservative—to wit, Cardiff. They now follow policies which were not followed before, because at that time those authorities were Labour controlled. The policies which they now follow are close to those advocated by central Government. But is it an offence for a city which, despite a Conservative Government, has a Socialist administration to try to adhere to what they believe to be proper Socialist principles? If it is, democracy dies in this debate.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is that Mr. Walker does not say that that is an offence. Mr. Walker has written a very well balanced and fair book which calls to account authorities, regardless of party, whose procedures have led them to be profligate. All Mr. Walker says in relation to the political differences between the parties is that, on the whole, none of them really gets elected properly because councillors are chosen by a small number of people. Less than 40 per cent. of the electorate actually vote for the candidates. Therefore, local elections are not nearly so democratic as the national system which provides a much wider opportunity for people to choose their prospective candidates, since many more electors vote.
I end on the point, which I emphasise, that what is really needed is the restoration of power to the consumer against the producers of various services. For a whole host of reasons, the producers of services are not subject to any kind of discipline which makes sure that they produce those services as efficiently and cheaply as they can. The losers are the rest of us. This is not blaming individuals; it is blaming a vast system
302
which has grown up. In many respects it resists disciplines, such as examination of whether or not particular services are being handled efficiently. It is that which causes the trouble. The complaints ought to come from the ratepayers, but they do not have much of a chance. Even if they returned another party—this brings us back to the argument we had a minute ago—the system would continue to operate inefficiently. This shows that in modern times it is reasonable for central Government to have some powers to ensure that there is a degree of cohesion in our everyday life. I would hope therefore that local government colleagues will accept some restraint from the centre, for the good of the nation as a whole, that they will endeavour to govern as responsibly as practicable in their own locality, and that they will take pride in the vast range of responsibilities which Parliament, over the years, has granted them.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, would listen to what I am saying. I always feel a certain amount of sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, when we discuss local government. Today he has had half-hearted support from one of the members of his party. In the last five debates we have had on anything to do with local government the noble Lord has made marvellous speeches and then sat down, looked round and found that he had not got one supporter. The noble Lord bats alone. I do not know whether that is the Yorkshire way of playing cricket.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to say there is nothing new about that.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, one wonders why this happens. One understands why the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has been given the job: because nobody else on the Government side is able to do anything about local government, or anything about what the other House wants us to do.
I wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton on his very excellent maiden speech. We look forward to hearing many more speeches from him. Having myself started in the co-operative movement, I began listening to my noble friend a long time ago, before either of us entered this House. It is a pleasure that he has joined us on these Benches.
If we are talking about the reorganisation of local government and the savings which will arise with the abolition of the metropolitan counties, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, does not need to be reminded that I come from Birmingham, and that I sat on that council for 15 years. We were the biggest opponents of the formation of the metropolitan counties. That was not a Labour point of view but an all party point of view. Birmingham reckoned that they ought to have been able to convince the Government, as the largest all-purpose local authority in the whole ofEurope—but the Government took no heed and in 1971, when the Second Reading took place in another place, there was supposed to be great acclaim. I believe that both Labour and Conservative councillors in Birmingham can say, "We told you so".
Lord Bellwin: In Leeds as well, my Lords.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: Yes, my Lords, the noble Lord the Minister says, "Leeds as well". But somebody—and not local authorities—wanted metropolitan counties. It appears that the wheel has turned full circle in a very short space of time. What a waste of public money that experiment has been—and that is the important point we have to remember; public money has been wasted on an experiment. Thank goodness that experiment is to finish quite quickly.
What worries us now is the assumption that the demands of the public are the same in every part of the country. It may be that the Government will now try to aim for total uniformity, which in my view will stifle any innovation. This was one of the points made by my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham. Many of the Acts now on the statute book arose from something that a local authority decided to do originally. It concerns me that centrally determined decisions are not necessarily sensitive to local needs and very often create large-scale errors. It cannot be credible that the Government will be able to produce a scheme of rate control which will be fair between authorities and which takes into account individual circumstances and needs.
Ministers, quite realistically, have neither the time, the energy, nor the resources to determine the policies of every local authority. In the constituency I used to represent in another place, there were eight multi-storey blocks of flats, and 50 per cent, of the families living in them were one-parent families—many of them members of the ethnic minorities in very serious circumstances. At the school there, 95 per cent. of the children had free meals. That information would not be readily known to many people representing constituencies in the shires or in other parts of the country. They are matters not readily recognised by Whitehall and the people who make such decisions.
The noble Lords, Lord Bellwin and Lord Mottistone, quoted instances in support of the argument that rates are a heavy burden on industry and commerce. We have heard some evidence, but what is the balance of the evidence? In the West Midlands, we are facing the most serious economic crisis in the history of the West Midlands. Some 17.8 per cent. of the workforce are out of work, and 25 per cent. of those people have been out of work for more than 12 months. When we read about closures in the local press, many manufacturers give their reason for closure in the Birmingham Evening Mail and the Birmingham Post as loss of orders. Never do they make any mention of rates; they blame loss of orders. The question the Government need to ask themselves is: why do manufactuers lose orders? Are they just inefficient as the Government think the National Health Service is? Do they need Marks and Spencer and Sainsbury to go round all these manufacturers, to make them more efficient?
The latest disaster we have in Birmingham is the closure of the large Dunlop complex, Fort Dunlop. Part of that complex is to be rescued by a Japanese company. They will have to pay full rates, because Birmingham is not an assisted area. I do not know why
304
another company can come in and take over a complex as large as Fort Dunlop, keep production going, and also pay our rates. There must be something wrong somewhere with the way in which British Industry is organised.
We heard certian quotations, and I shall now quote not from Labour Weekly or any other socialist magazine but from CBI News for 16th September. It states:
"West Midlands' recovery fragile… Dr Kevin Kawkins, the regional director, says; 'The recovery', such as it is, remains fragile and is threatened by several factors'."
That is something different from what we hear being said by the Government Front Bench. He goes on:
"Many exporters are increasingly concerned about the present exchange value of sterling, particularly against key European currencies. Interest rates are still far too high and are discouraging investment in our manufactureing base."
He makes no mention of rates. Perhaps that is a figment of imagination in the minds of some people.
I wish to quote another comment. Again it is not from the Daily Mirror, which one might expect would be trying to support the Labour Party, but it is from today's issue of the Guardian. It reports that the Confederation of British Industry has recently undertaken a survey about the priorities it believes the Government ought to have. The priorities emerging from the survey—and 200 British managers replied—as to ways in which the Government could help get British Industry going again were reducing energy costs and cutting National Insurance charges. The most important priority of all was Government injection of more money into the economy. Again, there was no question of rates in the priorities of these very eminent people in the business community.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if the noble Baroness will permit me, if she were to quote from other public statements of the CBI and from other publications at other times, she would find rates mentioned there. The noble Baroness has just picked on those which do not include any mention of them.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: That is not true, my Lords. I was just giving the most up-to-date comments. There may have been some mention of rates before the last general election, but not now.
If we look at the White Paper, we see that the Government give credit to the rate system. They say it is well understood, cheap to collect and very difficult to evade, and that it acts as an incentive to the most efficient use of property. If one was sitting an examination and gave an answer such as that, one would get 10 out of 10. What is wrong with it? That satisfies any cost-effective macro-economic genius there is. You could not have anything simpler than that. One could only wish that the same criteria applied to the many and various ways in which the Government collect taxes.
This paragraph continues as follows—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, could elucidate further when he replies:
"The Government recognises that rates are not a popular tax".

305
What I really would like to know, if the Minister could inform me, is which of the many forms of taxation levied by the Government are popular.
I am fully aware that local government and central Government cannot be equated. Though central Government by their statutes place the responsibility for providing a wide range of public services on the shoulders of local government, local government then has to come as a supplicant for finance to provide the services. The Government are constantly asking for extension of services; this Government is no different from any other in that respect. The Government are transferring expenditure from central Government to local government. I will give just two or three instances; the housing benefit scheme, which has been transferred from the DHSS. It was hoped by local authorities that the administration costs would be fully reimbursed, but I understand that a flat-rate specific grant mechanism will most likely apply within the Exchequer grant system. So the real burden of housing benefits scheme will be falling in the main upon local authorities.
It is so easy then for the Government to say that they have cut expenditure and the number of employees, when all they have done is shift the burden from one form of government to another. Take the housing improvement grants. I fully accept that those grants have done a tremendous amount for some of the very bad property, expecially in our inner cities. In1980–81 70,000 grants were paid. For this financial year the figure will be around 200,000. This represents an enormous extra workload on local authorities. Yet the local authorities are not expected by the Government to take on any extra staff, nor to receive any extra revenue grant within the rate support scheme. You are just told, "Get on with the job and do it. Do not have all these long waiting lists. Pull your finger out. You have people waiting for improvement grants". Local authorities cannot sit on labour, so we have to have excessive overtime. Then quite recently we have the DoE shifting the responsibility for action on environmental lead pollution on to the backs of the local authorities, again without any resources.
If I could come to something which is quite important to me as a magistrate, especially in the city of Birmingham, where—I do not want to boast about our city—we have the largest court system in the whole of Europe, with 25 courts sitting every day with the exception of Saturday when only six sit. So do not come to Birmingham if you are going to be unruly or anything like that. When we are thinking about the probation service, the Home Office again is encouraging services to be expanded, and of course further work is arising from the Criminal Justice Act 1982. Magistrates are being constantly reminded, "Use some other form of punishment instead of custodial sentence". So what do the probation services do? They set up community work and all the other kinds of clinics and centres for those who habitually drink. Now the probation service is costing just over £6 million in the West Midlands. We are being asked to do this by the Home Office. We are encouraged by the Home Office and by the DOE, but they say we cannot have any money to do it. That is just not on. It is in these instances where Her Majesty's Government pull in two different and distinct directions.
306
I will say quite quickly that mention has been made of business having no voting power. Well, it might not have any voting power but it has plenty of muscle power, not only in this place and in the other place, but in all the other places where power resides. So while it may not have a vote in local elections, and while it might not for a lot of good reasons want to sit on local authorities, it has plenty of political clout.
I apologise for speaking for longer than I intended, May I say in conclusion that not everybody in business wishes to cut back on public expenditure. This is my final quotation. This again is from a moderate supporter of the Government, the Birmingham Evening Mail of last night. It is a statement from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers; from Mr. Bruce Chievers, the federation president, another well known man, I suppose, in business circles. He says:
"We are deeply concerned by the downturn in new inquiries and by the sluggish performance of output.
"it is particularly depressing that for the second quarter in succession, we have seen a fall in new inquiries from the public sector".
He warned:
"Any further cuts in public capital spending would do irretrievable damage to prospects of a sustained recovery and would seriously undermine earlier Government initiatives on housing improvement and in the inner cities which are only now starting to bear fruit".
So perhaps we have somebody in industry—and I would have said that perhaps the building industry is one of the industries we ought to be thinking quite seriously about—saying, "Do not cut back on your public money". So while it is true to say that there might be some people in manufacturing who say cut back public money, there are others equally vocal in saying, "Let us start spending it".
I want to say one word about recalcitrant authorities, the naughty boy authorities not accepting what the Government tell them; these are all the naughty Labour boys, of course. There were a lot of naughty Conservative boys as well when the Labour Government wanted comprehensive schools as an education policy, but we did not decide that because they would not toe the line we would change local government and the system. We decided that time would tell. If I could use an analogy which I wrote down earlier when the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was speaking about school teachers, I was thinking of the police when they go to football matches and there are a few hooligans. It would be very easy to say, "Everybody in that stand, come on, willy-nilly; we will get the lot of you". That would not be justice. They have to single out the people who are naughty and give them the just punishment.
I will close by saying that there is concern on the part of all the local authority associations; they appear to be unamimous in condemnation of the Government's proposals. May I say to the Government: you did not listen to us in 1974; make quite sure you listen in 1983.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, should not apologise in any way. She has given us a very lively and spirited

307
speech. Although we are having a splendid debate today, it will be some months before this House and the other place are required to take decisions on the legislation envisaged in the two White Papers that we are discussing. Nevertheless, I think it is useful to have this opportunity for a preliminary skirmish and to reconnoitre the ground over which quite a few battles have yet to be fought. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. For instance, I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will be glad to know from the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, that he has both sides of Birmingham City Council rooting for him. As the debate goes on we shall discover how the land lies in other directions. We do not need to come to decisions yet. I shall keep my powder dry.
I sometimes reflect in your Lordships'House the views of the Association of District Councils. Its views on all this are well known to most of your Lordships taking part in the debate because you have our literature. There is no need for me to repeat them. All I wish to do is briefly to say something about the strengths and weaknesses of the two White Papers, and to talk about some of the ungrasped nettles to which my noble friend Lord Ridley has already referred.
It is not true to say that none of us on this side of the House can ever compliment my noble friend Lord Bellwin. I am about to pay him a compliment. There may not be many more to follow. We are pleased to see in the White Paper on rates that rates are to stay. It was clear from the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter about 18 months ago that the rates were going to stay. It is a pity that it has taken the Government quite so long to come round to that conclusion. The rates are not to be abolished; they are now recognised as one of the best forms of local tax, and they are staying. That is not to say that they cannot be improved. We all know that they can. It is nice to see some small signs in the White Paper of the improvements that are to be made. One of the most useful will be some modification of the precepting system, so that when the rate demands are presented to people the separate bills will be presented separately so that the ratepayer can see who is charging him what, and why, and why such-and-such a rate is going up.
As a London ratepayer in central London I get rate demands from four authorities: the Metropolitan Police, the Inner London Education Authority, the GLC and Westminster City. Unless the demands are separately distinguished one has no means of knowing that the rate increases come from the GLC, ILEA and the Metropolitan Police. They do not come from the rating authority. It manages to keep its rates fairly steady.
What is really wrong with the rates is that they are severely overburdened. Far more is being asked of the rates than they were ever designed to produce. That topic must be tackled, and I shall come back to it in a moment. But we are grateful to my noble friend the Minister and the Government for coming at last to the decision that the rates must stay.
I turn now to the subject of the metropolitan county councils, the topic of the second White Paper. Here one sees the dilemma posed to the Government. On the one hand, we have the extravagances,
308
irresponsibility and defiance of Mr. Livingstone, of the Greater London Council and others like them. The extravagance must be curbed, the defiance dealt with, and the irresponsibility stopped. The behaviour of the GLC and its satellite authorities which behave in a like manner has got the whole of local government the bad name from which it now suffers. That must be dealt with. It has made all the work of local government enormously more difficult.
On the other hand, if one looks at Mr. Livingstone, and others like him, the fact remains that when it comes to elections he is probably the Conservative Party's greatest single electoral asset. It is he who has provoked so many of the party opposite to form another party; it is he more than anything else who has damaged their prospects in the polls. While he is in office he is of enormous benefit to the Conservatives. But I am afraid, balancing one thing with another—and as we have now just got through an election with a considerable Conservative victory due to a lot of other factors besides Mr. Livingstone—he must be dealt with. The Government have come to the view that the loss of at least some of the highest spending, most irresponsible metropolitan counties is the remedy that they have to adopt. In the other White Paper they have taken the view that selective rate curbing and the reserve power to cap all the rates are other measures which they must lay before us. This they think is the least that they can do.
The judgment that we have to exercise in some months' time, after much more debate of all this, is to ensure that the cure being commended to us is not worse than the disease. That is the judgment we have to make. It will require a great deal of debate, discussion and lobbying to ensure that we get that right. But that is the decision that we have to exercise and which it is Parliament's duty to exercise. A great deal of damage has already been caused by these miscreants. The whole nexus that we are discussing today of relationships between central and local government has been appallingly damaged, but there is serious fear that even more damage—we have had much already—is coming in the form of excessive interference in local government affairs from Whitehall. We have had to stop one Government Bill which sought to interfere with our affairs too much. Our role over these new few months in dealing with this Bill must be to seek to remedy the damage that has already been caused and not to allow too much more in the field of local government and of local and central government relations.
As my noble friend Lord Ridley has said, the whole arena is littered with ungrasped nettles. There are very real long-term problems still waiting to be dealt with while the Government grapple with the short-term problems. They are all in the field of local government finance, and they need radical, fundamental, long-term approaches, which they are not getting. It can be put in two ways. There is a jack of clear accountability by local authorities to their electorates. We are far too accountable to central government. There is also a lack of access to their own single, independent sources of finance,
On the first point, I would say to my noble friend Lord Mottistone that the arrival on the scene of the Audit Commision, which we were discussing only

309
yesterday, will give local authorities and their electors a much better picture of the performance of the authorities in terms of efficiency, economy (value for money) and effectiveness. I think that we can pin a fair amount of hope on the results of its work. Anyway, I think that we should wish the Audit Commission well.
Three factors impair the accountability of local government at the moment. One is the precepting business, which my noble friend Lord Beloff mentioned. The mention in the first White Paper of the Government's intention to require local authorities to present bills to ratepayers divided up to indicate clearly which authorities are demanding what, and why, will be very useful. There is also the rate support grant. The way in which that interferes with the accountability of local authorities has been clearly spelled out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. I hope that your Lordships and the Government will take what she had to say on that point to heart. It is quite impossible for an authority half of whose finances come from the centre to be properly accountable to its own local electorate.
The third factor which confuses the issue and damages local accountability is the rate rebate, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, mentioned. With rates as high as they are, it is inevitable that large numbers of the poorer ratepayers will have to have rate rebates. I am not arguing against that. But it produces the effect that very large numbers of the voters can happily vote for this, that, or the other service, and for higher and higher standards, because there is no prospect of their having to pay for them.
Those are all areas that must be dealt with. There must be separate billing and exclusive use of one source of local revenue for each tier of local authorities. As the ADC has already indicated in an earlier paper, it would be possible for them to have exclusive access to the rates, and thus move 330 of the 450 units of local government into a position of being wholly accountable to their own electorate. It leaves problems for the higher spending authorities, but it is at least then reduced to that much smaller number.
Another change which would be very helpful and of which there is no mention in the White Paper, though I hope that there may be some mention of it in the legislation, concerns authority being given to local government to adopt more flexibility in regard to which services it charges for. There are a number of sacred cows in local government which do not really deserve to be as sacred as they are, and it would do no harm at all if local authorities were allowed to impose charges, with suitable rebates and so on, for some of these services.
However the most important point, which has been mentioned by my noble friends Lord Ridley and Lord Mottistone, is to work away—and we are all working at it—to get more local businessmen in local government. I salute those who are already there, because the burden is very considerable and the job satisfaction is not all that great (and not much that the Government are doing is designed to make it greater). We must all work away hard at getting more local businessmen on local councils. The saddest thing about all of this is that it is such a major distraction from the actual work of local government and the positive long-term issues that we ought to be tackling.
6.52 p.m.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I agree with a very great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, and indeed what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said. I think that I have one advantage over them, in that, according to the prescription that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, gave us, I am at least entitled to talk about the metropolitan counties, because I was a metropolitan councillor for eight years. The noble Lord, in one stroke, as it were, excluded virtually the whole of his own side of your Lordships' House, with the exception of the noble Lord the Minister and I think the noble Lord, Lord Marshall. I think that they should be given a dispensation and be allowed to talk about metropolitan counties.
The point has come up quite frequently from several sides about involving businessmen in local government more than they are involved at present and other people who live very busy lives. I think that there are two points here. I go back to the good old days of the unitary authorities, the county boroughs. We had on them a lot of businessmen in leading positions in their communities. We had small wards. In those days I represented a ward of 4,000 people. Subsequently, after reorganisation, I represented a ward of nearly 20,000 people, which, if one is reasonably conscientious, takes much more time.
Much more important, I suspect, is the point that meetings, instead of being disposed of in a civilised way between the hours of half-past five in the evening and eight o'clock at night, would go on and on until two and three in the morning; and in very many areas they still do. People who do not suffer from insomnia and who have other things to do find this—in all political parties, I believe—a grave disadvantage and a serious problem.
When I used to attend the General Purposes Committee of Birkenhead County Borough the agenda was on one sheet of paper, and we had verbal reports. Now in authorities that are not much larger councillors have 300 or 400 pages, which very often they receive only 12 hours, or less, before the time of the meeting. These small, or perhaps quite important, administrative points that we ought to be thinking about and that local authorities themselves should be thinking about.
As I said a few moments ago, in my earlier years I served in a county borough, and indeed I managed to get myself on the long service panel there. So it is not just the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who has been in local government a long time. That to me was the ideal form of local government, though I think that at the time of reorganisation we all recognised that there were many services, in particular in inner cities, that had to be organised on boundaries wider than those of the county boroughs. It was unfair that a big city such as Liverpool was providing many of the services enjoyed by smaller county boroughs such as Birkenhead or Wallasey.
So while we on these Benches have fought the metropolitan county council elections as being opposed to metropolitan county councils as they were, we never said, in all the period when we were fighting the elections, that they should be merely abolished. What we said was that they should be replaced by

311
bodies with a regional role and probably still wider boundaries than the county councils, because some of the matters—such as economic planning and so on—covered wider areas than those of the metropolitan counties.
What I find reprehensible is the concept of returning to joint boards. These were Victorian institutions. I know that the right honourable lady the friend of the Minister believes in Victorian values, but the Victorians themselves disposed of joint boards because they thought that they were anachronistic and useless and were not serving the best interests of society at the end of the nineteenth century.
During the course of the discussions and in the White Paper the Government have tried to give the impression that all is going to be well because the lower tier authorities in metropolitan areas are going to get most of the services which will be run by elected councillors. But when it is borne in mind that police, fire, and transport services are all going to be run by one form or other of joint body, I would not call them quangos: I would call them qualgos, which is an equally offensive, though more accurate term, because they will be quasi-autonomous local government bodies, since they will have councillors on them. Seventy-two per cent. of the services—certainly in my area—will be paid for by the joint boards rather than by the district councils.
Recently I had the misfortune to chair a working party of the Liberal Party on reform of local government finance, which gives me such justification as I have for speaking on this particular subject. We took the view, which my noble friend Lady Stedman has put much better than I can put it, that rates should be phased out. I understand the arguments which several of your Lordships have put forward that rates are an extremely valuable form of fund-raising, et cetera. But we believe that one of the great things that we should be trying to do to make local government more responsive and more responsible is to reduce the level of grants received from central government. Therefore we should like to see local income tax introduced to assist in reducing the grant element in local government to perhaps 30 per cent., thereby giving us a little more independence. Indeed, I think that this is broadly the view which Layfield took. We would hope that local income tax would eventually enable local government to become fairly independent of central government. To me, as a person who has been in local government most of his life, the most important point is that the more independent we are of central Government the better, rather than being more dependent on central Government, which we regard as the very opposite to the correct attitude, and we reprehend the Government's views on that.
I am not going to join in the chorus of saying nasty things about the noble Lord the Minister. I think that he has a quite difficult job, which he does jolly well. Although he has served many centuries in local government, he has been misled. It is similar to a recent experience I had when staying in an hotel in North Wales. I speak Welsh. We were having a golfing holiday, and some of the members of the golfing party came down late for breakfast. The waitresses spoke
312
about them in Welsh. I remarked that they were extremely rude to speak about people in Welsh. They told me that I was worse than them because I had sold out to them. In the same way, the Minister has sold out on the best interests of local government.
I am concerned about the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, that what Governments can do Governments can disband. There is a delicate constitutional settlement involved in local government that partly depends upon legislation but also partly depends on custom, habit and so on. I discern a worrying feature which should interest your Lordships because of the role of your Lordships' House. We should be concerned about the constitutional problems that are beginning to show themselves in the relationship between local government and central Government.
This debate is a wonderful opportunity to allow the Government to have second thoughts about some of their policies. Hardly anyone loves their White Papers. Hardly anyone goes around saying, "This is the most delightful piece of proposed legislation I have ever come across". The White Papers on rates or the streamlining of cities are, I am sorry to have to tell the Minister, rudely vilified in the rougher parts of the North of England where I come from. Local organisations, the serious press, whatever that is—it is perhaps the newspaper that I happen to be reading at the time—and all serious commentators seem to have condemned some parts, if not all, of the White Papers. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has referred to what appeared in The Times.
The problems with which we are dealing and with which as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, remarked, we shall have to continue to deal over many months, concern two manifesto commitments of the Conservative Party. The first is the 1974 commitment to abolish the rates, which for one reason or another, the Conservatives have failed to implement. I gather that this has caused some upset to the Prime Minister and explains why the proposed legislation to control Metropolitan counties has been rushed forward as a replacement. Secondly, there was the 1983 commitment to dismantle the two-tier structure in metropolitan counties.
I cannot understand why the Government will not undertake an objective survey of what is wrong with two-tier local government in metropolitan areas. As the metropolitan authorities themselves have been forced to undertake such a review, I would have thought that the Government would welcome the opportunity to examine the whole issue to see if there were any ways in which costs could be saved and benefits increased rather than taking a piecemeal and sudden decision to abolish one tier or part of the two-tier system. There is not really much evidence to support the claim by the Government that 9,000 jobs and £120 million would be saved by abolishing the metropolitan counties.
There are seven functions, as I count them, which will require inter-district co-operation after abolition, and a further seven requiring joint committee arrangements among the remaining authorities. Added to this will be Government control over council budgets,

313
which your Lordships will be discussing, control over structure plans and TPPs. We see control passing almost entirely to Whitehall. As many of your Lordships have remarked, what possible purpose exists for businessmen and other people to take an interest in local government that has been emasculated in so many areas?
It is my opinion that rates are not a serious problem. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has left; I know that he is concered. However, in macro-economic terms, to use an appalling phrase, only 3.5 per cent. of the retail price index is accounted for by rates, while 7.9 per cent. is accounted for by alcohol and 3.6 per cent. by tobacco. A much more savage effect on there tail price index occurs when the Chancellor of the Exchequer increases the price of drink or cigarettes. A 10 per cent. increase in rates only results in a 0.35 percentage increase in the retail price index. It is almost a law of nature that as rates come down rents for commercial properties go up. One has only to look at enterprise zones. They are free of rates but the rents, speaking generally, are fairly high in many, although not all, of these areas. This is the complaint that comes back to me.
It is a fact that relations between local authorities and the Government could hardly be worse. My complaint basically is that there has been a lack of consistency in Government policy towards local government. Instead of re-designing the main edifice in a way that could be planned ahead and considered, the Government seem to keep building inadequate and ill-considered lean-to sheds on existing rather parlous structures. I shall conclude with these somewhat bitter remarks. There has been a lot of talk of democracy. The case is made for proportional representation. It is made in local government. There is no need to go through the details; they are too apparent to be repeated. This will be accepted, I believe, by many of your Lordships on both sides of the House. I recognise the difficulties behind the argument that, once it is introduced for Merseyside, it is the thin end of the wedge. Frankly, however, PR is probably the best kind of legislation for local authorities. It makes them more responsible and more answerable.
I hope that the Government, in their wisdom, will consider this as one of the reforms that they should be studying. I believe that it should be considered in a much greater context than merely piecemeal. How many bits of local government legislation have appeared before your Lordships over the past few years? How many vast chunks will appear in the next few months? Would it not be better to review the whole of local government, perhaps taking a year or 18 months to do so, instead of trying to involve ourselves in so much instant politics? I hope that the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, in initiating this debate will assist the Government in reconsidering one or two of their views.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty. I was a member of the Procedure Committee that recommended to the House that the practice of every member congratulating a maiden
314
speaker should cease because of the time it takes. I would, however, find it discourteous and even churlish not to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton, whom I have known for many years, on a splendid speech.
Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, I am a local authority man. In fact, I am in my 32nd year as a member of a local authority, although I am bound to say that it gets more like hard labour as each year goes by. We are grateful to the noble Lord for giving us an opportunity to discuss this matter, although I think that I should say to him, with the greatest respect, that only a person without experience of local government could be so out of sympathy with the whole of local government as he was.
I receive considerable satisfaction in serving local government, which I regard in many ways as one of our finest achievements: local government as the guardian of public health; local government in its development of local amenities; local government as the embodiment of the pride and the democratic participation of local people. I have also for some time been a vice-president and executive member of the United Kingdom branch of the Council of European Municipalities, and what I have seen elsewhere merely enhances my view of what we have achieved in this country over the last 100 years in the control of local affairs and its independence within a framework of law.
What we are discussing tonight is a real threat of the destruction of this system in which many of us take pride and to which all local authorities and almost all experienced conservative councillors are opposed. I personally thought that The Times put it very well in its leader on 16th September. It said:
"One of the constant elements over a long period of history has been the power of local public authorities to determine for themselves the level of their expenditure by virtue of their power to levy a tax on the occupation of property".
Then The Times pointed to this exraordinary paradox. It said:
"Now, in 1983, a government which is rhetorically committed to respect for the constitution, the diffusion of responsibility in society and the reduction of the role of government to its essentials, proposes to substitute its own discretion for that of individual local authorities in setting their levels of both spending and taxing. The proposal is not only a breach of constitutional custom; it throws on to Whitehall and Westminster a mass of local detail and complexity which they are not, and ought not to be, equipped to handle".
So the first question that I put is the one that has been put by the Association of District Councils, of which I happen to be a vice-president. The question which should be put to everyone in the country is as follows: Do you wish your local affairs to be determined by remote civil servants and computers in Whitehall rather than by your democratically elected local councillors who are directly answerable to their local electorate? Their vice-chairman, Councillor John Morgan—and there is no more loyal conservative supporter than Councillor Morgan—said:
"We think these proposals are a fundamental breach of local democracy and in practice will be wholly unworkable".
The Association of District Councils also expressed its disappointment that the Government have not accepted the association's constructive proposals for reforming local government financing. I propose to come later to both of these points—that is, whether the

315
proposals are workable, and the question of rating reform.
What then can be the justification for what all the local authority assciations regard as a most damaging change? The Times leader again said that the justification for the Government's action is that they say they need the new powers in order to make effective their management of the economy; the case resting on the grounds of economic management in order to give effect to their broad social objectives of reducing taxes and public spending as a proportion of national income has not been made out. It says:
"The only local operations that directly affect either of those aggregates are capital expenditures and borrowing for that purpose. But central government has for long enjoyed strict control over both those items.
"On the other hand the local expenditures which Whitehall now characterizes as excessive can have little or no effect on the borrowing requirement or the money supply since they are necessarily covered within each financial year by revenue. For the same reason they can have little impact on the other domestic factors affecting the rate of inflation. Averaged over the recent past rates have risen more or less in step with the cost of living: that they have risen faster in the past couple of years is partly due to … the proportion of local expenditure met by central grants. The impact of rates on the cost of living index recently has been less marked than the impact of fuel prices over which Ministers have a more direct influence.
"Councils with expansionary spending plans do indeed exert a counter pressure to the government's large social objective of reducing the public share of the national income.
But, again, The Times says that that matter ought to be kept in perspective.
"The conventional methods of persuasion and grant manipulation by which Ministers have been able to lean on the local authorities collectively have not collapsed. What has happened is that councils are not as uniformly or immediately responsive as before in the face of very large demands for retrenchment at a time when they can see no diminution in the need for their major services".
The Government have demanded too much too quickly. Indeed, Councillor John Lovell, Chairman of the Association of County Councils, went further and said, "We could find ourselves taken to court for non-compliance with statutory services".
Nevertheless, the overspending councils characterised as such by the Government amount in total to less than half a per cent. of the local planned public expenditure. I have no doubt that that figure could still be further reduced. The Government, however, are proposing a major constitutional change to deal with a problem for which they are as much responsible as the so-called recalcitrant councils. The ratepayers feel most hurt, not necessarily by the highest rated authorities but from those whose rates go up the most. I ought to point out to any Member of the House who thinks that the only cowboys are the Labour authorities that one of the worst offenders for increasing the rates is the Conservative controlled Wandsworth Council.
However, one of the worst features is that the Government, having proposed in two general elections, as a number of noble Lords have said, first in 1974, that:
"Within the lifetime of this Parliament we shall abolish the domestic rating system and replace it by taxes more broadly based and more related to people's ability to pay",
and again in 1979, have on both occasions failed to keep their promises. The anomalies which exist in the rating system cause rates to be scrutinised in an entirely different way from that of any other
316
expenditure. There are plenty of people who are aware of inefficiencies in government—and I am talking about any government—but they are not as obvious as they are in local government, and that is because of the impact and the way in which rates are levied.
The Association of County Councils points out that rate increases would be less than inflation but for Government grant cuts, and council spending as a percentage of national output has fallen from 159 per cent. in 1974–75 to 128 per cent. last year, while central Government spending had increased from 33.3 per cent. to 353 per cent. I do not want to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, because he explained in detail how this occurred.
The real Government failure is not to tackle the whole problem of local government finance. The problem is that only 29 per cent. of all adults pay rates, while millions use the services that local government provides. There has been no revaluation of property since 1973, leaving dramatic variations in the valuations of similar properties in different parts of the country. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is not present, because this situation often penalises the non-domestic ratepayer as much as the domestic ratepayer. I still believe, like some other noble Lords, that there is a case for much more fundamental thinking about the whole position of the non-domestic ratepayer. However, I am glad to say that long before the White Paper came out my local authority met regularly with its chamber of commerce, and has done for some long time. I, as the Member for the constituency and a member of the council at the same time, served as a link over many years.
Another anomaly is that flats are rated higher than houses and cottages are rated lower because it was thought that all cottages were for farm workers, while many of them are expensive second homes. Central Government grants go to areas where ratable values are comparatively low. It may surprise some noble Lords that within the last decade the system has channelled more money to the South-East, leaving the Midlands and the North short. Anomalies mainly arise from a system where 7 million people have jobs and use local authority facilities, but make no contribution at all to the expenditure.
The Chairman of the Association of County Councils, Councillor Lovell, has accused the Government of relying on selective figures and inaccurate comparisons in making the case for new powers to centralise council rates. He said that rate increases were in large measure due to deliberate cuts in the rate support grant and the Government's refusal to make a realistic allowance for pay and prices. Those of us who are members of a local authority, and particularly chairmen of finance committees, know how desperately difficult it was in 1981–82 and 1982–83 to have a rate of inflation which was lower than that in other parts of the Government service and yet we had to find any difference above and beyond what had been set both for inflation in terms of goods and for pay.
The Government say that there is no alternative. The Association of County Councils does not accept that. It is prepared to co-operate fully—and I want the House to understand this—in achieving responsible

317
expenditure and rate levels without making the fundamental constitutional change resulting in the centralisation of power in the hands of the Executive which the selective limitation of rates would produce.
For those who might be prepared to accept the Government's let-out for district councils, perhaps it would be well to realise that the £ 10 million spending threshold, which is meant to exclude nearly 200 district councils, could be changed by the Secretary of State. I would remind noble Lords that only last year Mr. Tom King, the then Secretary of State, said that local councils would retain power to fix rates, but within a few months Mr. Patrick Jenkin had changed all that.
I said that I would say something about whether the proposals would work or whether—as Councillor John Morgan, the vice-chairman of the Association of District Councils, said—they are unworkable. I do not think that one could consult anyone better than the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. They say:
"The Government plans to limit local authority rate rises but the legislation is not only likely to be ineffective; it might well have an adverse effect on the credit worthiness of local authorities".
Those officers of local authorities who have to go into the money markets know how real a prospect that is. They also say:
"The specific scheme to limit rate increases of a few local authorities would not be enough to bring the aggregate local government spending in line with government targets. The general scheme would therefore have to be introduced".
Therefore, on almost any reckoning—local government spending as related to central Government spending, the average rate levied as against taxation, the percentage of local expenditure as against the gross national product between local government and central Government, and the local authority percentage of total public expenditure—local government has a better record than central Government. Nevertheless, the Government are to make a major constitutional change without tackling the real problem of local government finance. If there ever was a case where this House should use its powers to say "Think again", this is it.
7.23 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to begin by offering my sincere congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on his eloquent, authoritative and impassioned maiden speech. I would like to contribute to the debate on this important topic, which has been raised by my noble friend Lord Beloff, by discussing that aspect of local government which accounts for well over one-half of local government spending. I refer, of course, to education. I shall use as an example the Inner London Education Authority, as its future is currently under discussion. I readily acknowledge, of course, that some of its problems are associated with its own peculiar situation. However, they reflect wider issues and the problems are also important in their own right.
There is widespread concern over the education of the children in our nation's capital city. This concern has been voiced by many parents, by teachers, including some head teachers, and by Her Majesty's
318
Inspectorate. There are at least three aspects of this concern: first, low educational standards; secondly, attempts to politicise the curriculum; and, thirdly, high levels of expenditure and lack of accountability.
First, I shall deal with low educational standards. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that of course there are still many good schools in ILEA doing a magnificent job for their pupils. I applaud them and have no wish to detract from their achievement or to denigrate the many conscientious and hard-working staff teaching in these schools. However, Her Majesty's Inspectors have found that in many schools all is not as well as it might be. For example, in their report, Educational Provision by the Inner London Education Authority, they say:
"too many secondary schools expect too little from their pupils at all levels … where schools choose to group their pupils without reference to individual abilities and achievements, teachers often fail to adjust their own approaches accordingly and pupils suffer … some schools view O-level as an inappropriate target … for any of their pupils. There is therefore a considerable tendency for many pupils of all abilities … to achieve less than they are capable of …Much A-level work is slow, narrow and unchallenging, with a considerable minority of pupils taking three years to prepare for the examinations and then performing poorly".
Her Majesty's Inspectors emphasis that pupils' under-achievement is exacerbated by policies such as mixed ability teaching. I quote again:
"The retention of mixed ability grouping up to the end of year 2 or 3 for all or the great majority of subjects is not uncommon in ILEA schools and is often accompanied by a continuation of undifferentiated teaching. This frequently occurs at a level barely suitable for the middle of the ability range in the group, leaving the least able unheeded and the most able unchallenged."
It is, therefore, perhaps not surprising that London's school children perform very badly in formal examinations. Lord Stewart's accolades notwithstanding, ILEA'S results are among the worst in the country. It is particularly worrying that they compare unfavourably even with other LEAs which also have high proportions of pupils from educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. Although ILEA obviously provides for many poor districts, it also contains some of the most affluent neighbourhoods in the country—such as Hampstead, Highgate, Chelsea and Dulwich. ILEA's dismal performance is highlighted by the fact that in O-level attainment its pupils fare worse on average than pupils in all the secondary modern schools in England, even though those secondary modern schools do not contain the most academically able children, and would not therefore be expected to obtain many O-level passes.
I turn from formal academic attainment to what is perhaps even more important, the basic skills of numeracy necessary for modern life. The findings of a survey by the Institute of Mathematics were alarming. For example, one quarter of ILEA's 15 and 16 year-olds could not even perform the simple multiplication 6 by 79; nearly one-third could not divide 243 by 9, and I would emphasise that this was not mental arithmetic but a written test. Over one-half could not write "one hundred and forty-nine pounds and nine pence" in figures. Such failures in basic numeracy among school-leavers must raise serious questions about the quality of teaching and learning in many ILEA schools.
I turn briefly to the politicisation of the curriculum. Many teachers are becoming acutely worried about

319
recent attempts by ILEA to interfere in their teaching. They are particularly anxious about pressures to teach in ways which they see as unacceptably politicised. One example must suffice. ILEA has recently spent £49,000 producing glossy booklets on "race, sex and class" in an explicit attempt to prevail upon teachers to alter their curricula. The accompanying letter "instructs" teachers to take account of them in terms more reminiscent of a totalitarian state than a local education authority in a democratic society. Particularly worrying is the content of these brochures. For example, the approach to the concept of race is implicitly conflictual—the "assimilationist" and "cultural diversity" approaches to racial integration are set up as straw men and immediately destroyed, and a conflict model is put in their place. Many teachers are wondering whether this is the best basis for building an integrated, harmonious society.
A related development which is disturbing many teachers is ILEA's use of highly politicised staff, such as the manager with special responsibility for political education, Mr. George Nicholson. He has made his position clear. For example, in response to a question on whether ILEA would, "try to demand of schools that they introduce political education or would attempt to influence by such things as conferences", Mr. Nicholson has replied:
"A bit of both … a mixture of persuasion, arm-twisting and example….It's like a subversive campaign … we're not just talking about History or Geography, we're talking about subjects right the way across, from Maths to Music to English. I don't see that there is any subject that is untouched by politics".
A number of head teachers have been querying whether such external pressure to alter the curriculum is ultra vires. Additionally, those head teachers who wish to resist such pressure are increasingly worried because many documents are now by-passing them and going directly to their staff. I suggest that there are clearly important matters of principle here which require serious consideration.
Although I have chosen ILEA as an example of these problems, they are not unique to ILEA. Other LEAs have experienced similar developments. In my own borough of Brent, the Education Committee has decided to press for mixed ability teaching in all secondary schools in all subjects throughout the first three years. Also large sums of money have been invested in new appointments of staff, with a remit to change curricula to take account of the alleged interests of the diverse ethnic minority groups in the borough. This is despite the fact that many parents in these groups have made it quite clear that they would prefer their children to receive a sound, "traditional" education which would enable them to obtain good jobs on equal terms with other applicants.
My third area of discussion was cost effectiveness. Education is famous as a "big spender". Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that education authorities should be accountable to ratepayers. However, all too often there is an unthinking acceptance of the idea that money spent on education is never wasted. The outcries about the so-called "cuts" ignored the fact that more is spent now per child, in real terms, than ever before in the history of English education. And it is relevant to note that the local education authorities
320
which are particularly big spenders do not always have much to show for the burdens they inflict on their ratepayers. ILEA spends much more per pupil than the national average and its pupil-teacher ratio is amongst the lowest in the country. It spends twice the national average per child on books and equipment, and three times as much on support staff. Yet we have noted that its record in educational attainment is questionable.
In conclusion, my Lords, I suggest that the problems which I have mentioned indicate a need for more accountability in our education system, especially at the level of local government, where ratepayers foot such a high proportion of the bill. I will conclude with a few brief comments on how this might be achieved, first in relation to ILEA and then in a wider context.
As my noble friend Lord Beloff has reminded us, the recent White Paper recommends that ILEA should be replaced by a joint board. It will be clear from what I have already said that I would not be averse to the dissolution of ILEA in its present form—indeed, I would strongly support it. However, I share the concern of many others that the kind of successor described in the White Paper could be as disastrous as ILEA itself. Its composition could be just as politicised, and its accountability could be just as minimal.
By far the better alternative would be a directly elected body. Candidates would then have the opportunity to put their ideas on education directly to the electorate and the public could vote on these without ail the usual pressures of party politics. There is considerable evidence that many members of the public disagree with their own party on its education policy, but feel that loyalty requires them to support it notwithstanding.
A separate elected body could stand on a specifically educational manifesto and could be directly accountable for policy and for associated expenditure to its electors. That would be a truly democratic way forward and would help to ensure that ratepayers' money was spent in ways over which they had more control. It could also help to avoid situations where ILEA flouts the wishes of so many of those whom it should be serving.
This suggestion for a successor to ILEA need not set a precedent for other places. It is partly the size and complexity of the capital city which require special consideration. Many other LEAs are doing an excellent job and need no such reform. However, it could be argued that some of the principles which will have to be considered in the process of the reform of ILEA might also be considered elsewhere. After all, questions of accountability apply everywhere.
I finish with one radical proposal and suggestion which has been put forward by Professor Halsey, who was one of the original architects of the comprehensive system. Professor Halsey has himself called for the,
"demolition of the whole structure of administrative arrangement between Whitehall and the classrooms".
He advocates,
"making every school a direct grant school".
He goes on to argue for,
"A central national administration, but a slimmer one, [which] would remain with three main tasks: to administer the direct grant

321
formula, to collect and disseminate information on the performance of the education system, and to inspect. The LEAs and the apparatus of administration, advice and control over finance and appointments would go."
Such radical measures would certainly increase school accountability to parents and pupils; they could also cut the financial burden now carried by the ratepayer. I therefore find myself in the unusual but happy position of agreeing with Professor Halsey. I must thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for giving us, inter alia, a Motion to debate in which I can conclude on such a happy cross-party note.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I think that I should congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for skilfully making a contribution to an education debate when we are really discussing local government. But I do not blame her for that, because I agree with what she said about ILEA. We said it when the Conservative party created it, as they created the GLC. All that we are talking about tonight has been borne out because of that massive interference by people who had no idea of what local government was about masquerading as a political party known as the Conservatives.
I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, and I have known each other for many years. He is a man who has made a massive contribution to local government and to voluntary services. We served together in the other House, and it has given me immense pleasure not only to know that he has entered this House but to be here when he made his excellent maiden speech. I thought that he was fortunate to be here to listen to a debate opened by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who is now entitled to be known as the Sisyphus of the Conservative party, as he takes upon himself the most hopeless tasks. He pushes the rock right up the hill knowing full well that it is going to come back, because what the Tories propose to do to local government I believe will be defeated by a combination of Liberals, Social Democrats, and Labour councillors and Conservative councillors. That is already on the cards. There is one hope, and I shall come to that at the end of my speech.
When the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, said that local government was illogical, I think he had a point. I suppose that all forms of government are illogical to a degree. When somebody once said that to Winston Churchill he agreed too. Buthe said that it is the best system we have, and it happens to be the best in the world as well. The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, talked about the small number of people and said that it was not real democracy; the small percentage of people who vote in local government elections in Great Britain hardly deserves the title of democracy. Mark you, my Lords, that percentage is much more than the percentage of Americans who elected President Reagan, so we are not doing too badly.
As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, said we are not quite as bad as some try to make us out, and our youth these days is as good, if not better, than ever it was. I will ask the noble Lord, Lord Beloff to consider this. I have known many young men and
322
women who work in social services or are nurses and do all sorts of things. They do not want to go out mugging, or dancing or to go to gambling casinos in Soho. They want to be proud to be known as councillors and stand for their local elections and become Conservative, Labour or Liberal councillors. Is that not a disgraceful thing, a most appalling thing, to work for a local authority and to get so involved in what one is doing, looking after the aged, the crippled, the deformed and people who are not very well off? There are many of these young men and women from our parties in local services. I know a bit about this. They get so imbued that when they see something going wrong they decide to become councillors. So often I have heard them say, "I'd like to get on to this local authority and become a Tory councillor. I would shake that lot up a bit". Sometimes they do a bit of shaking up because they know what they are talking about, having worked in a local authority. Until the day comes when we on this island say, "If you work for Woolworths, Marks and Spencer or your local council you can in no way be elected by your fellow men and women to become councillors of the realm," I hope I shall always win that argument against the noble Lord, Lord Beloff.
When one considers what is happening in other countries, we can be beaten by the Americans with numbers of gangs of muggers. They can blind us with numbers. We do not come anywhere near the Italians, with the development of their youthful Red Brigade. The Germans leave us standing when they can produce the Baader-Meinhof gang. Let us be a bit balanced and sensible about this because some keen young folk read our debates. I hope they will not think that we in this House believe that Britain's youth are not up to much, but that they will agree with me, and the former chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Lewin, that by and large they are a pretty good healthy bunch of young folk. We can thank God for that.
The Government White Paper on the rates (Cmnd. 9008) may become a nefarious paper in years to come. People will talk about it—"Fancy they even thought about implementing all this". It totally fails to grasp an opportunity that the Government could have had. It would have been a wonderful opportunity for constuctive reforms. Many of us have had experience in local government at many levels. I have held most chairs in local government; I have been a school manager and proud to be so. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, will not mind, but I was chariman of a comprehensive school in West London; a most remarkable comprehensive school, Holland Park. We had the children of 11 MPs, five Socialists, four Tories and a couple of independents; bishops' sons and daughters. We had a range from South Kensington of admirals' children, brigadiers' children, colonels' children and pilots' children. From the north of Kensington we had children from ethnic minorities. I can remember the headmaster asking me what we were going to do for Christmas because we had Moslems, Jews, Baptists and all sorts. We put on a Shakespeare play instead. We put on Othello and we were the first school to have an Othello who did not have to make up. He was quite natural. Somewhere there is a great lesson to be learned. We do not need to be told by all these geniuses that the fabric of local

323
government is falling to bits. It needs reform. The Government will destroy it and that is what frightens me.
The Association of District Councils asserts its deep conviction that the maintenance of vigorous elected independent local government is an essential part of the whole democratic fabric of government in Britain. The ADC deeply regrets the unwillingness of the Government to reconsider their proposals to impose selective and general controls.
What I find amazing is that I should have thought that before any Government of any political complexion embarked on a massive change of a vital element of our democratic elected representation they would have talked to those who know something about it. They should have talked to the representatives of local government in all political parties. All parties are fairly well represented and one noble Lord said earlier that one can have a number of councillors—Labour, Liberal, Social Democratic and Conservative—and the great paradox is that the one thing that unifies them, and I am proud to be able to say it, is that they are dead against the Government's proposals. I should have thought that that was something that would make even this Government think again. No, I beg your pardon, my Lords, start thinking, because they have not yet started thinking at all, so they cannot think again. They have done something stupid and left it at that.
The Association of County Councils says that the Government's proposals are really political expediency. That may be going a bit too far. But, I smell something here and, if the Government were honest and fair, they would not talk about the democracy and efficiency of local government. They should say what they believe and it is that they do not want to spend the money on local government. They do not want to start spending more money on what the Royal Commission on Education called "half our future"; that is every boy and girl up to 10 years of age. They do not want to spend so much money on social services, but to reduce and cut. I do not understand why they have done it because what happened when they did that in industry? There was the highest level of bankruptcies in Great Britain's history and four million on the dole—a massive waste.
This is the biggest local government and education waste of all. I am sorry the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, is not here. The graduates with their high status university degrees spend their time in the dole queue to draw their poverty stricken couple of bob. There really is a waste. I think your Lordships will agree that that is an appalling waste. We have to take these things in to consideration.
Another thing that I find perturbing is that local government officials as well as their bosses, the councillors, and representatives in the associations fear that they will fall into the hands of the executive, not so much those of Parliament, and that that will really weaken democracy. The Government's proposal is a rotten means to a dangerous end.
Britain is a unitary and not a federal country. I am glad that it is. Our system of local government, with
324
the little district councils leading right through to the county councils, is much to be preferred to having state boundaries, perhaps even with different laws. By luck or geography, or for some other reason, we have hit on the right answer. We have to consider that national government was born out of local government, local government came first. I believe that we should take full cognisance of that.
Here I should speak parenthetically, if I have not said it before; we must be truly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, not only for the manner in which he opened the debate, but for picking on this subject matter. I am sure the House and ultimately the country will be grateful to him, but I hope that he will be unhappy and perhaps disappointed that he opened this debate. I like him very much, but I still have to wish him that because, at the end of it, we might have made a mark which will cause the Government to think again. The Government should use all the influence they can, as they have a right and a responsibility to do. Where they are overstepping their mark is where they start controlling. The moment they start controlling, a Conservative Government of all Governments should take a tiny bit out of Moscow and put it into our form of democracy and governmental behaviour in this country. I am afraid it has to be as serious as that.
People talk about the fact that they are paying rates and they find it appalling, but it is remarkable what services are provided. I am not going to say for one moment that there is not a need for an examination to look at how we can improve local government. What I am afraid of is this—and I beg your Lordships to listen to this. There was the experience, for example, of the town council of Merthyr in the late 1920s and 1930s. Nearly 90 per cent. of Merthyr were summoned and taken to court on the instructions of the then central Government, which could not understand that if you are out of work for 13 weeks your dole stops; that there is nothing coming in. And then in that great Christian era, along would come the means-test man. I know. My grandparents went through it. This is the story of the means-test man coming in. "How many children do you have?"—"Four". "There is you and your husband; that is six. You have eight chairs; two will have to go". The most awful thing was when the valleys of Wales, they say, were littered with pianos being hidden from the inspector.
I am telling your Lordships this story because local government said to the town of Merthyr: "If your inhabitants on the dole have no entitlement to normal dole, you must provide it out of the rates". It was called "going on the parish". But the town had no rates coming in. This was because nobody had any money. This was a senseless thing. We all know what happened when the men got indignant, when there was the great march from Tonypandy. I am sure that if the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, were here he would back me up. We all know what happened. It was a sad incident in British political history: and it started through central Government not understanding local government because nobody had any knowledge of local government. That, to me, is very very important.
Of course, I believe that there are dangers in limiting expenditure, on the one hand, and there are dangers,

325
on the other hand, in letting some incredibly irresponsible councillors embark on schemes which are not merely frivolous but a complete waste of time, energy and money. Both are wrong. There can be a way, I should have thought, of stopping it without the situation that a noble Lord earlier described by saying: "When two or three children are bad, you do not want the teacher to cane the entire class, so that, in the end, one has to get rid of the teacher". Surely we can find a better way than that.
The difficulty, as I understand it, is that local authorities—and I do not argue that it is right; of course, it is right in the end—have to be accountable to central government both for financial control and to carry out those functions that central government tell them they must carry out. But where are you going when we have a situation where central government says, "If you do not send your children of school age to school, you can be prosecuted and you can be taken to gaol"? Your defence will be nothing even if you can say, "But my local authority provides no schools; there are no schools to send the kids to". That is an absurdity. This is what is going to happen in many other ways and in many other services, because many of the services that local authorities provide have to be provided by them because Parliament says that they must provide them.
Are they going to change this entire fabric and say that Parliament will no more tell the local authorities what they can do but the executive of a particular central Government will issue their diktat? That is what I meant when I said there can be this appalling alliteration—the two CPs, the Conservative Party and the Communist Party! I find it most remarkable, but it happens to be a fact.
I think that we can reform even the rating system. I believe—and I have said so for a number of years—that there is a need for reform and that we ought to set up a committee to examine it—a committee of people with experience in high finance, of people with experience in business and commerce, of people with experience in working on local authorities and of local councillors of all levels. I am convinced that if this were done we could reform the rating system without scourging local government or local government democracy.
I think we ought to acknowledge that local authorities are wealth-creating. In education, they are responsible for all our future. The Royal Commission which was set up reported on the education of children up to nine years old as "half our future" but that from then onwards it is all our future. Look at the skills that are taught. There are so many skills which are taught initially by local government. There is enough knowledge given to youngsters for them to become skilled apprentices in trade, commerce and industry. Let us not forget that that is a contribution to wealth creation. That could never exist without many of the essential local government services which, as I have said, the nation demands through Parliament that local government must give.
I believe that in this whole business there has been a lack of consultation. Too much, too quickly, has been demanded of local authorities by the Government. Many aspects of local authority work have not
326
been taken into consideration. I do not believe, for example, that there has been enough examination of the demographic changes, of the increase in the elderly throughout the land, of the increase in unemployment and of the problems of single parents, of the blind, of the handicapped. They all find their way to the door of the local authority. We have to acknowledge that.
I speak very briefly on the importance of grant-related expenditure. I know that sometimes it can be irritating when one realises the amount of money that goes to some local authorities through the GRE and what goes to others. But that will be so as long as we have boroughs like Hackney, on the one hand, and Bromley, hardly 12 to 15 miles away, on the other hand. There are the gallant efforts of the council in Hackney, where in this year, 1983, you have grinding poverty, you have ethnic problems, you have clashes with the police and you have the local authority spending night after night trying to solve the problems.
I know that Lord Bellwin will understand this, as will the noble Lord, Lord Stewart. Very often there are the various groups, such as the Conservative Party group, or the Labour Party group, in a local council; and as much time is spent in those groups deciding how to react to Government legislation as is spent in the council chamber itself. I would say just this. One would think that those British men and women, the councillors at all levels of our local authorities, through their keenness and the endeavour they give, were earning a couple of hundred pounds an hour. In my day, it cost one money to be a local councillor. It was sometimes a little expensive to be a local government councillor. Thank goodness we have changed some of that. I hope that this will continue and that the Government will really look before they start implementing the proposals, and perhaps even abandon some of them.
There is much to be done in many facets of local government; it is by no means perfect. On the other hand, it is by no means imperfect. I think that its ideas and ideals are really first class. As with every human organisation, you will get some little bits which do not measure up to the proper standards. I think it was Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde—I do not know which—who said:
"If you want to find out what is wrong with any village quartet, ask any one of the four privately".
That applies also to local government. I do not think it should be beyond the wit of the Government, through Parliament, in liaison with representatives of local government, involving their associations, to produce answers that will increase the efficiency of local government, promote its efficiency and spread its civilised social functions and work. If we can do that properly and not threaten the fabric of local government, then I believe that from this threat of the central Government something will emerge which will enhance local government, to the happiness of all of us.
I should like to say this in conclusion. There is one man who can make a big contribution. Many Ministers go into their jobs without ever having been in that sort of thing before in their lives. There are some Ministers who are given their jobs because they

327
were expert in that line long before they came to Parliament. Such a person is the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. We appreciate his knowledge and we also very much appreciate how he got here. We know of his great work in local government and I would say, on behalf, I think, of all parties and of none in this House, that he carries our full confidence—for he, if no one else, can go back to the Government and not necessarily say, "Chuck it" but at least say, "Let us start again and see if we cannot get a better answer which will encourage all our councillors, Conservative, Social Democrat, Labour and Liberal".
The main thing is that, whatever reforms we have to bring about, it ought to be possible for us to do it without causing alarm and despondency among councillors, and perhaps damaging irreparably the democratic fabric of local government.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Raglan: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, over the importance of local government. I also think it right that those who criticise local government should be aware of how much more is expected of it now than used to be the case. Some mention has been made of that today, but I think it is worth underlining. My father was a county councillor for 25 years and it took him about a day a week. When he retired in 1960 it was beginning to take longer, and I think that is perhaps why he retired. Since that time central Government has heaped ever more functions on councils, and particularly on the new districts. Some councillors make their work pretty well a full-time job.
The strictures of the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, notwithstanding, I think these duties are mostly good and useful: a devolution of a useful and practical kind. However, one result of all these duties is that, first, it is difficult to find people who are willing to be councillors and to give all the necessary time. Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said earlier, because the increased work has to be funded, the method of financing is under strain. Thirdly—and this is what I particularly want to speak about—the old framework is not adequate for the increased load which local government has to bear.
On the question of finance, I see the virtue of rates. It has been said today that they are difficult to evade and easy to collect, but that does not make them a just tax for present circumstances. They are, I suppose, a survival of the property rate. I still own a tiny cottage which was bought by a great uncle to give himself a parliamentary vote. In local elections you can still have a vote in another district if you have a home there, but if you have a business in another district from that in which you live, then you pay taxes without representation and are in a way a sitting duck for those councils which know not what they do, some of which have been mentioned this afternoon. So businesses are vulnerable, but so are ratepayers because those who actually do pay rates, as distinct from those who are scheduled to pay rates but are exempt from them, hardly make up a sufficiently large proportion of the voters to affect the outcome of elections.
328
I would shy away from a local income tax, not just for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, but because the proponents of this kind of tax may not be aware of the large and increasing number of people who pay big sums to accountants to haggle with the Inland Revenue. The prospect of haggling with two inspectors I find dismaying. It seems to me that as an alternative to rates, or at any rate as a supplement to a lower rate, a sales tax would be best. All the states in the United States of America operate one and seem to do it quite simply and, moreover, they were doing it long before the days of computers. Now that everyone likely to be affected is fitted up for the payment of VAT, I do not see that a sales tax would be difficult to implement.
Nevertheless, I believe that local government's main weakness is the way it is organised, and I think that the current problems over the rates are very likely something to do with that. The whole set-up is that of the original model of 100 years ago, when local authorities were primarily sanitary authorities and the medical officer of health was the most important person. The councillors gathered every so often for their needs to be ministered to by the clerk, who was left to run the council.
The public face of the council, then as now, was the mayor or chairman, who was chosen by the councillors under "Buggins' turn" to perform the necessary ceremonials, but with no power because he had no need of it. Nowadays, because of the much greater number of functions which a council has to undertake, the clerk has overtaken the MOH in importance, and this has been recognised by calling him the chief executive, no less. He still in effect runs the council because somebody has to, as local government is very largely a service industry, doing things which Parliament says that it must.
However, modern councillors, some of whom are around all day and every day, feel the need to exert political influence over the executive, often of a kind which is difficult to translate into practical administrative action but which may well be expensive in outcome. As your Lordships know, they do this through the leader of their political group; and the leader of the majority group is called the leader of the council, who has also increased greatly in importance.
So here is this triumvirate, which is expected to be responsible for running the council. There is the chief executive—he is in for life, which I do not know is healthy—and he has most of the real power: that is, the administrative power. But he has to make it look as if he has not, because he is not elected. Then there is the leader, who has the political power. He is essentially a "smoke-filled room man", a grey eminence whom the public do not know unless he is something of a self-publicist. Last and least, there is the mayor who wears the chain of office, who gets himself in the news, who has his picture in the papers and who the public are led to believe is important but who really is not.
It seems to me that in the matter of public accountability, of encouraging public accessibility, of knowing who is in charge, of seeing who is responsible, this is a defective arrangement. I am sure that it worked well 100 years ago, but I believe that it is not suited to what the public need today. Neither is it suited to what

329
central Government is responsible for securing for the public, which is a political and administrative structure which is strong enough to take, and practically capable of taking, the burden of modern local government.
For a number of years I was privileged to be able to watch the workings of local government from very close quarters, and to deal with it frequently. It seemed to me that its mechanism seized up very easily because of the diffuseness of authority at the top. The clearest need is for the roles of mayor, chief executive and top politician to be rolled into one—to have one person in charge who the public see is in charge. After all, this is what one finds in some other countries where a mayor or lord mayor is elected under direct franchise for a term of five or even eight years, which encourages continuity of policy and allows continuity, but not too great a continuity, of employment.
This change of bringing the political and administrative functions together at the top in one person would be tremendously helpful in several ways, in addition to the ones that I have already mentioned. It would enable local government to be more effective, and in a more acceptable way than it is now. Power would be less in the hands of officials and of councillors who are faceless or difficult to identify. I am sure that there would be more effective management, because responsibility would be more focused. Because of that, local government would be able to take more responsibility and, at the same time, take more responsible initiatives than it can take, or does take, at present.
At the same time, one might with some confidence hope to see develop stronger links of a more constructive kind between central and local government, more man-to-man than they are now, because at present, although central and local government are tied closely together, one gets the very strong impression that the ties are of necessity very like apron strings. A change at the top such as I have described would allow local government to grow up, and there would be fewer problems with it because of that.
There are some big men in local government, but we badly need more of them. We will get them only if there is a position at the top where their talents can be used and adequately recognised. No measure which this or any Government could take would do more to improve the quality of local government than this, or better help to improve relations between central and local government, or do more to award better recognition to the importance which local government has for everybody.
8.14 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, first, may I thank my noble friend Lord Beloff for initiating this timely debate. Secondly, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Bellwin, but at the same time offering my sympathy because I cannot agree entirely with the two White Papers. But he is so charming and so kind that I am sure he understands that we must each follow our star and say what we believe.
As one who has served in two local authorities, in one as a chief officer, and who has worked as a
330
permanent civil servant in two ministries, I speak in this debate with deep feeling and concern. But I am speaking not only with feeling and emotion, because I have consulted not only with all the local authority associations but with colleagues and staff in three universities—Birmingham, Warwick and Oxford— and have read relevant literature lent to me by the staff, for which I am indeed most grateful.
I have been involved in two reorganisations of local government, first in 1970, when the social services were reorganised, and, secondly, in 1974, when the local government was reorganised. I believe that the reorganisation of the social services was right, although at first the managerial structure was perhaps not as well thought out as it should have been. The Seebohm Committee sat for two and a half years, and there were consultations for at least another year, so that by the time the Local Authority Social Services Act was passed in 1970, although there may not have been total agreement throughout the country, there was a consensus of agreement among those who had to administer that Act.
But, alas!, in 1974 came the reorganisation of local government. The members of the Redcliffe-Maud Committee exhaustively examined every aspect of local government, but the Government of the day did not wholly accept the committee's recommendations. They produced a scheme for reorganisation which was not thought out on a long-term basis, and there was not a consensus of agreement. I suggest that the reorganisation was carried out against a backcloth of disagreement among chief officers, local government employees and, indeed, the electorate, and perhaps we are suffering a great deal from that today.
In the two White Papers which have been referred to throughout this debate we read of further reorganisation only eight years on, which certainly has not the consensus of agreement of either officers or staff, or of the local authority associations. I state quite clearly and categorically that I agree with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, that there must be pruning of local government expenditure in order to deal with the rates. I agree that there must be curtailment of overspending. Perhaps, after all, I can tell my noble friend Lord Bellwin that I find myself in agreement on one point.
But I am bound to ask the Minister various questions. Does he not consider that we are doing the right thing in the wrong way and with undue haste? There are many questions to ask. In the White Paper Streamlining the Cities, the present expenditure of the metropolitan authorities and of the Greater London Council is referred to. But may I ask whether reliable and detailed estimates have been worked out, giving evidence that the abolition of the metropolitan authorities and the shift of work to metropolitan district councils and joint boards will result in a reduction in the short term and in the long term, and in the overall expenditure in the country, bearing in mind that many people may find themselves out of work? What evidence is there that the metropolitan district councils will be, or can be, more economical than the metropolitan county authorities? Is it not true that some of the metropolitan councils have also overspent? Will there not be an unequal financial burden on district authorities?

331
With regard to the Greater London Council, the GLC will be disbanded before the next election. Should not the people of London be given the opportunity to keep or to dismiss their councillors? Will Mr. Livingstone, if removed by, as it would appear, central Government, not then be regarded by some as a martyr?—a strange role, indeed, for Mr. Livingstone.
Has the effect of disbanding some divisions of the GLC been given well-considered thought? I wish to mention just one example—a small, non-political department, the Historic Buildings Division. No political implications are involved and expenditure is small. There are 30,000 listed buildings in London. No single district authority could afford to take on this highly technical division with its small staff, each with a specialised area of knowledge which, combined, gives a service to London that safeguards our heritage. This will go, to the detriment of not only London but the United Kingdom and, indeed, the world. Many doubt that joint boards are a feasible proposition managerially, politically or financially. I suggest that they will be very costly. But how can we tell? We do not know what the cost will be.
Turning to the White Paper on the curtailment of rates, it is agreed that the ratepayers of England and Wales must be safeguarded, but is not the curtailment of rates by central Government a fundamental constitutional change of policy? Are there not other methods whereby, for instance, elected representatives can be made accountable to the ratepayers—perhaps by more frequent elections? Imperceptibly, there is a drift of power from local government to central Government. Is this what Her Majesty's Government really want? In the last five years there have been five Acts of Parliament on finance and eight different grant systems. This was, I believe, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, whose speech we much enjoyed.
In a study of Local Government, the Law and Constitution, Martin Loughlin writes:
"Local authorities are subordinate to but not the agents of central Government. There should be partnership, not overlordship.".
Would not our present Secretary of State for the Environment and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, both men of persuasiveness and peace, welcome partnership rather than overlordship?
Finally, should we not pause to consider the relationship between central and local government? This country needs both stability and—dare I say it?—happiness. Only happy people work well. Any change we make should, in my view, cover the whole realm of local government. It should be able to stand the test of time and be so rooted that it will not need to change with changing administrations. At this stage again I say that one supports the reduction of rates and one agrees that some form of reorganisation is necessary. But I say—and I say again—that it will not succeed unless there is agreement.
There is a mass of existing evidence on local government. I support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, for a detailed survey of what local government should be and the structure that it should take. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who in
332
his delightful speech said that we need to look again at the structure and, maybe or maybe not, think of something quite different. Would the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, and his right honourable friend the Secretary of State consider referring the reorganisation of local government either to an independent committee or, better still, to a Joint Select Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords so that an overall review can be carried out and a structure formulated which is acceptable both to central and local government and to the electorate and which will be of lasting and permanent value to the country?
8.27 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am one of those, of whom a number of noble Lords have spoken, who have to stifle back the words "Mr. Mayor" when rising to their feet in public. I have served on the largest local authority in the country. I have also been an advocate for many years of the small local authorities in the country—the local councils. I am delighted to have had recently the assurance of the support of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when I seek leave to introduce into this House a Bill to extend to urban areas the rights which villagers have in their parishes.
I am not going to make a speech of reminiscence. Instead I am going to make a much more boring speech. I am going to take very seriously the wording of the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the Government's response to it, although I am disappointed to see that neither of them could resist the ritual sticking of pins into Ken Livingstone and the ritual references to lesbianism, babies against the bomb or whatever it might be.
In his speech, the Minister referred to local authority expenditure in the management of the economy. He asserted, in my view quite rightly, that it is central Government which has the responsibility for the management of the economy. He said that the Government were not going to let their policy of reducing inflation be put at risk by local authorities. I want to examine that proposition—the threat which the Government claim comes from local authority expenditure. I want to examine whether local authority expenditure is in fact out of control, as is asserted, or at least whether it is more out of control than central Government expenditure. I want to examine the proposition that local authority expenditure damages business and employment in the various areas of each local authority. Finally, I want to say something, although this has been covered much more fully, about the adequacy of the remedies that are proposed.
First, I take it that it is agreed that local authority expenditure is a special case of public expenditure, and it is public expenditure about which the Government, according to their own economic theories, are concerned, particularly the public sector borrowing requirement, which is a constant obsession of Treasury Ministers. The interesting thing about the PSBR is that our PSBR is perfectly comparable with that of other industrialized nations—our competitors—who do not seem to suffer the same sort of economic difficulties which the Government claim we suffer as a result of excessive PSBR. It is also true, if we accept Conservative economic theory that inflation is closely related to money supply, that no attempt has been made by

333
the Government to claim that there is a relationship between PSBR and the money supply. Indeed, it can be firmly stated that in only one of the last 10 years has PSBR been a major component of changes in money supply. Therefore, the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, concerning the effect on inflation and the Government's economic policies simply does not stand up to argument.
Let us look at the nature of the borrowing of which it is claimed that local authority expenditure is a part. First, it is seldom realised that the public sector borrowing requirement has for virtually every year in the past 20 years been in surplus. In other words, money is being used for investment and other spending, and is being repaid at less worth than the amount first borrowed; in other words, at less than the rate of inflation. It is also true that in this country the national debt is falling in real terms. That is in stark contrast with the situation in countries such as the United States, Japan and above all West Germany, where the national debt has doubled in real terms in recent years.
I have referred to the surplus of the public sector borrowing requirement. That surplus in the last year for which we have evidence—and I refer to the Bank of England quarterly report for April 1981—was around £600 million; nearly as much as the so-called overspend of which the Government make so much. This means that the public sector borrowing requirement is only one part of the total gamut of public expenditure. The same sort of expenditure, when used for private companies—when used for new industrial activities in the same way that local authority expenditure is used for services, to serve the people who create the wealth—is actually encouraged by the Government with the purchase, for example, of commercial bills. There is nothing wrong in borrowing itself; it is the purpose to which that borrowing is put which is really important. So the argument that public sector expenditure itself is something wicked and that local authorities as a component of that have to participate in an endless series of cuts and a cascade of controlling legislation does not hold water.
Now let us look at a comparison between local authority expenditure and central Government expenditure. I tried to get the noble Lord the Minister to say in his opening statement what the comparison was. He told me that he would, but then he did not do so. I will tell him what the comparison is between the years before his Government came to power and the current figures. If one looks at the years 1978–79 and 1983–84, central Government expenditure rose by 101 per cent, and local government expenditure rose by 80 per cent. Central Government did not control their expenditure as effectively as local authorities did,
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, if the noble Lord will permit, can he point out what percentage of that local government figure was capital spending and what was revenue?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not have the Minister's resources available to me but I am sure he can find that figure more easily than I. The comparison I wanted to make was not between capital and revenue but between the taxation levied by local
334
authorities in comparison with expenditure. Here, central Government taxation rose by 94 per cent, and local authority taxation rose by 125 per cent. The conclusion one arrives at is inescapable; that the increase in rates is not due to an increase in local authority expenditure, whether on capital or revenue, but is due to an overall reduction in central Government finance available to local authorities. In other words, it is the direct result of deliberate, conscious Government policy and is not in any way due to overspending by local authorities.
If one returns to the issue of public expenditure for just one moment, and puts local authority expenditure in context, subsidies by central Government to private companies in various ways for investment—including regional policies and so on—amount to about £13 billion; subsidies to council tenants amount to something more than £2 billion a year; and subsidies to owner-occupiers in the form of tax relief amount to something like £5 billion a year. These are very large figures compared with the amounts of expenditure on local government.
I will now turn to the supposed relationship between high rates and industrial and economic decline, and the decline of employment. The first point to be made about that is that rates are high in proportion to other forms of taxation on corporations, not because they are high in themselves but because corporation tax and other forms of corporate taxation have declined—from a figure of 18 per cent, of total taxation in 1946 to about 5 per cent, at the present time, according to the Economist last month. Therefore, it is not surprising that companies complain about rates, because rates are the only form of taxation which they cannot avoid or pass on to their customers.
Even if we accept that companies complain about their rates, they do not complain about their rates all that much. I call in evidence a document published by the Department of the Environment, Industry and Employment in the Inner City, which examined the motivations of inner city employers and their incentives for moving away from supposedly higher rated areas. They told us—and I say "us" because I wrote this report for the Department of the Environment—that rates were only twentieth out of 31 factors which might induce them to be unhappy with a location in the inner city.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, can the noble Lord let us know the date of that report, which so strikingly contradicts the reports referred to by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, from the chambers of commerce?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the date of that report was August 1979. I accept that it is not as recent as I would like it to be, but CIPFA in its response to recent Government White Papers has produced very similar results. I believe it would be constructive to compare those with the rather more anecdotal evidence produced by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
A much more recent piece of evidence is the Department of the Environment's publication on monitoring the enterprise zones; the Year 2 report published this year. Again, I produce this with some

335
confidence because I had some part in the field work. This report shows that the objective of reducing rates, which was indeed achieved, if very selectively, in enterprise zones did not have the effect of encouraging business. What happened was that rents rose to meet the reduction in rates. Therefore, it was the landlords and not the businesses who received the benefit of reduced rates. I put that to the Government as a serious possibility if they are considering what might happen if they forcibly capped rates in inner city areas.
If we look at rate expenditure in relation to the economy of our private industry, it is easy to see that it cannot—despite the loud cries of employers' associations—have the effect that is claimed for it. Again, I apologise to the House for producing figures which are not as up-to-date as they ought to be, but in 1979 rates were 0.6 per cent. of gross output; they were 1.6 per cent. of gross value added; and they were 3 per cent. of wages and salaries. Therefore, it cannot effectively be claimed that any of these measures are required because of the effect of high rates—particularly in the inner city areas; those which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, called "the naughty boys".
I am saying that we have had a phoney problem put to us. It is exaggerated for political reasons and it does not have the economic substance which it would need to justify the very substantial disruption which is proposed by these measures. I want to say only two or three words about the inadequacy of the measures proposed for a problem which has been exaggerated. I want to refer first of all to the claim about overspend. This really is the most ludicrous piece of Aunt Sally. What the Government do is to say, "We will decide entirely on our own in Marsham Street what each authority should be spending. We will have complicated formulas: sometimes they are multiple regression analyses and sometimes not. We will say that what you ought to spend—and we will probably have two or three measures for it—is so and so. If you go above that, you have overspent." Not that there is any evidence that those local authorities in total are spending more of their ratepayers' money, or indeed of public money: simply, they have offended against arbitrary rules produced by Government. Then the Government say, "We have produced these arbitrary results; now we are going to make a great fuss about the fact that we have an overspend"—which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has now given us as an up-to-date figure of £850 million. As Lord Evans told us earlier, even that is only 3.5 per cent., as revised, of the gross domestic product. It is hardly an economic catastrophe, but it cannot be claimed either that it is based on any sound or analytical judgment about the necessity for local authority expenditure, or on any true comparison of local authority expenditure with public expenditure.
I want to say only one final word about joint boards. This seems to me to be the most utterly ludicrous and counter-productive way of reforming local government that one could possibly have, going back 100 years and learning none of the lessons available to this country over that period. I myself served on joint boards; I seved on the Lea Valley Regional Park Authority, I served on the Metropolitan Water Board, as a representative of other local authorities. The first
336
thing I must say is that the decision-making on joint boards is the most protracted, tedious, inefficient thing it could possibly be, because each representative has to go back to his constituent authority in order to get a decision on every issue. That is what it means in practice. And what that means is that in fact the chief executive and the permanent officers run the show and local democracy goes out of the window.
If that were the only complaint, that would be bad enough. But, of course, the issue is much more serious than that. In a multi-purpose local authority, the claims of different departments and services are considered together and the wicked "no-man", the chaiman of the finance committee, or the borough treasurer, or the chief financial officer, has the responsibility of achieving some sort of consensus as to priorities to be given to each service. Under a joint board, which is a single-purpose authority—and the evidence is that there are going to be an awful lot of these single-purpose authorities—there is no way for that assessment of priorities to be made. The people concerned very rapidly become institutionalised, if I may put it that way. They very rapidly, quite understandably, look for the best that their service can provide; if it is a hospital board they want the best hospitals, if it is a fire board they want the best fire services, if it is an education board, a school board, as we know from the United States, they want the best education service. There is nobody to say to them, "you must balance the claims of education against those of the fire service and those of the other authorities". This is the lesson that I would have hoped would have been learned by members of the Government with the experience of local government that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin has, and I would have hoped that he would have been able to give that message to his colleagues in Government. The effect of this is that we have a phoney set of solutions to a phoney problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing this debate, and I hope that it will go some way to clarify the Government's mind in the months to come.
8.47 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to Lord Beloff for not being able to be here for his opening speech, and secondly to apologise also to the noble Lord the Minister for having to be absent when he spoke on behalf of the Government. I am quite sure that both noble Lords will forgive my absence when I tell them that I was away on a speaking engagement the result of which I have no doubt will be that they will transfer from that side of the House to this at a fairly early date.
Not having been able to hear the Minister's opening speech, I do not know whether he took the opportunity to deal with a question which I know is causing a lot of concern in his own party, as well as in the rest of the country, that whereas 10 years ago the right honourable Peter Walker spent a great deal of public money in creating the metropolitan authorities and in reorganising local government in this country, now his successor is apparently going to spend even more money in reversing what the Conservative Government did 10 years ago. If the noble Lord did not deal with that point, I hope he will do so in winding up.

337
I am particularly sorry not to have been here for the opening speech of Lord Beloff, because I should have liked to have been able to take up the cudgels with him on historical grounds. I believe that he did mention the historical background, as he sees it, of this country. My central text would be that one of the principal first priorities in the development of the British constitution has been the phrase, "No taxation without representation". I am quite well aware of the fact that Lord Beloff may, and I believe does, argue that central government representation will fit that bill. I take a totally different view. I believe this is a matter of important political, historical and philosophical argument. If we simply accept that representation is fulfilled in Westminster, then we are taking away a great deal of the personal contact that runs right through our local government traditions, right from the hamlet to the town and the city. I believe that the force of that principle, no taxation without representation, is not fulfilled simply by parliamentary government: it has to extend to a whole web of contacts between local people and local representatives if the superstructure of parliamentary government itself is to be sustained. Perhaps there may be another opportunity for the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and myself to argue this case. But it is really crucial to the whole of this debate and to the whole of the future of the British constitution and the path within that constitution of both local government institutions and parliamentary institutions.
However, I do not profess to be an expert on local government, but I have been astonished since this debate was announced at the amount of literature I have received on the subject, and the real reason that I felt I ought to speak tonight was because my own local authority, the Lincolnshire County Council, has asked me to do so. I believe part of my responsibility is to represent local interest when I have the opportunity to do so. The Lincolnshire County Council has sent me a document which states the reactions of the Association of County Councils to the Government's proposals, and I intend to quote from those who have examined these proposals in a professional way.
The first reaction runs as follows:
"The proposals will result in an unacceptable centralisation of power, in practice in the hands of the Executive not Parliament, and the further weakening of local democratic control. Final 'political' decisions on rate levels will in practice be determined by Civil Servants".
Later on the Association of County Councils has this to say:
"The ACC agrees that the way forward is to increase the accountability of local councils to their electorates".
That is the central text of what I want to add to this debate.
I ask the noble Lord the Minister who is to reply whether he recognises the following quotations. First, to add to what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has been saying about finance, does the Minister recognise this:
"As a percentage of public expenditure, local government expenditure overall has fallen by over 3 per cent. from 1977 to 1983"?
338
Secondly, does he recognise this:
"As a percentage of gross domestic product it has fallen by over 3 per cent, from 1974 to 1983, when in the same period central government expenditure rose by 2 per cent."?
Does he further recognise this quotation, which also seems to bear out the central theme that I am putting to the House:
"The real problem is surely to increase control by those who elect their local representatives and pay the rates. Local expenditure must reflect local priorities, and local policies considered in detail by those with real knowledge of local problems, if they are to be solved with maximum economy"?
Let me give the noble Lord a clue by a further quotation, in case he has not already recognised the source:
"Whitehall setting local needs centrally with admitted rough justice, and then capping the rates, surely ill-accords with our Conservative philosophy of getting government off the backs of people.".
I am certain that by now the noble Lord has recognised that those quotations come from Mr. Lewis Moss, leader and chairman of the Policy Committee of the Conservative-controlled Association of County Councils, speaking at the Conservative Party Conference in Blackpool. If he has not already answered those points in his opening speech, would he care to do so when he winds up?
I have also received correspondence and documentation from the Association of District Councils which seem particularly apposite to my theme. At Clause 2.7 it has this to say about the Government's proposals:
"The Association rejects the Government's claim that there is only a system of limited accountability' in local government. Whilst there are admittedly some weaknesses in the chain of accountability, local government remains the only fully accountable and democratic local institution in the country…
"It is accountable to the man in the street daily not only for the level of its expenditure, but for the service it provides …
"Its members are accountable by election".
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, is not in his seat, as when he made cracks about Ken Livingstone and suggested that he had been losing votes for those of us on this side of the House I wanted to point out that he is, at least apparently, still supported by the electorate. He is the elected leader of the GLC. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he represents his electors.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I was under the impression that at the last GLC election the leader of the Labour members was the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He was the person whom the electors of London expected to lead the council after the election.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is surely not a valid point. Ken Livingstone was elected—
Lord Beloff: Who by?
Lord Hatch of Lusby: By his constituents.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, he was elected to the council; he was not elected leader. The people of London were not told that he was to be leader if they voted for Labour candidates.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I am very sorry, but Ken Livingstone was elected by his constituency and he is representing his constituency on the Greater

339
London Council. Whether he is elected by his constituents as Leader of the council has nothing to do with it. The constituents of Finchley do not elect Mrs. Thatcher as leader of the Conservative Party, and the Conservative Party does not consult its constituents before it elects a leader of its party. The question of whether Ken Livingstone is leader has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of whether he is an elected representative of the constituents within the constituency that he represents.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, am I not right in thinking that at the election on 9th June, of which we were reminded earlier, it was made clear to everyone voting for a Conservative candidate that if the Conservatives were successful Mrs. Thatcher would be Prime Minister? It would have been thought very odd if some other Conservative had suddenly appeared on 10th June and gone to Buckingham Palace.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, that is a totally different case. The electorate of the country was not consulted when Mrs. Thatcher took Mr. Heath's place. This had nothing to do with the electorate. The same is true of the deliberations in County Hall. I do not want to delay the House much longer. If any other noble Lord wants to challenge me on this issue, I am very willing to take up the challenge. It seems perfectly plain to me. Certainly members of the Conservative Party have very thick skins if they are going to talk about the democratic election of leaders. How do they elect their chairman? Who elects the chairman? Who has decided that Mr. Cecil Parkinson is no longer fit or suitable to be chairman and should be replaced by Mr. Gummer? It is not the electorate.
Lord Bellwin: One man, one vote.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, no member of the electorate has been consulted. In the Conservative Party it is one man, no vote.
However, to get back to the subject, if I may, I want to draw the Minister's attention to one further issue which is raised by the Association of District Councils. When it put the Government's proposals into their European context, this is what it had to say:
"In a wider context, the Association also draws attention to the draft European Charter of Local Self Government adopted by the Conference of Local and Regional Authorities in Europe in October 1981. This set out the basic constitutional principles of local self-government including the right for local authorities 'to have adequate financial resources of their own …and to dispose freely of such revenue within the framework of their powers". The Government's proposals are in direct and fundamental violation of the terms of the draft Charter and in the Association's view need also to be scrutinised in the wider context of Europe".
I should be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister if he would address himself—again assuming that he has not already done so—to the proposals so far as they relate to the draft European Charter.
Finally I cannot do better than sum up what I have been trying to say in the words of a leading article in The Times of 16th September of this year. The Times had this to say:
"At all periods of history power in the kingdom has been dispersed, and discretion in its exercise has belonged at many points nearer to the circumference".
340
In a later paragraph The Times summed up its view of the Government's proposals in this way:
"Now, in 1983, a government which is rhetorically committed to respect for the constitution, the diffusion of its responsibility in society, and the reduction of the role of government in its essentials, proposes to substitute its own discretion for that of individual local authorities in setting their levels of both spending and taxing. The proposal is not only a breach of constitutional custom; it throws on to Whitehall and Westminster a mass of local detail and complexity which they are not, and ought not to be, equipped to handle".
In my submission, that is the belief of the Labour Party. We believe in the dispersal of power. We believe in local initiatives, local responsibility, and local accountability. We are not rhetorical in our pretensions.
The party opposite has been elected on false claims as to what it was going to do. Ten years ago it decided to reorganise the whole of the local authority system. This year it decides to "re-reorganise" it. How much of this has been put to the electorate, and what will be the effect in the localities, in the intimate and important relationship between local electors and their local councillors at all stages?
I would ask the Minister, as each of the three authorities that I have quoted is doing, to think again and to think of the historic structure and development of the British constitution before he attempts to do what members of his own party have begged him not to do, and what those authorities controlled by Conservatives have also asked him to refrain from doing, because of the importance of local democracy.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, we are indeed grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for introducing this debate. We are grateful because of the immense importance of this particular subject at this particular time, and grateful, I think, because of the fascination that a great many of us find in it and in the whole subject of how democracy should work at a local level in this country and in the Western world in the future. We are also grateful because of what seems to me the high quality of the speeches that we have had in the course of the debate, matched only possibly by the considerable length which comes from long experience of the council chamber.
Although I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, as I think we all are, I am rather glad that we have not felt it right to follow the ground rules which at one moment it seemed he was suggesting to us. It is absolutely right that, as he said, we should examine the cost and the quality of the services that we receive and the relationship between the two as a hard bargain. But I also think it important that we should look at the quality of our democracy and at how we manage to give people as much power as possible over their own lives. Both those points are important.
In dealing with local elections and local government, it is true to say that turnout is very low in most local government elections. As the noble Lord pointed out, it is also true that people tend to vote according to their view of the central Government at that particular moment. But it seems to me that there are ways to correct those faults. There are ways to improve matters. One way, for instance, is to give to councils more power so that they can actually do more for the

341
voters and be seen to be more relevant to the lives of the ordinary inhabitants of the districts in which they operate.
It seems to me that another way of increasing the amount of interest which people take in local government, and in particular of meeting the objection that people vote accoding to their views of central Government, would be the introduction of proportional repesentation. But the Government propose to take power from the councils, rather than give more power to them, and they have announced their intention of not being prepared to touch proportional representation with a barge pole. It seems to me that that is a very odd way of going about remedying the faults that we all see in local government at the moment.
The trouble is that the grip of central Government is a debilitating influence and historically has always been eschewed by the Conservative party. It is sad to see the change that has overcome that party, and it is good to know from the debate today and from the speeches that we have had from the Benches opposite, that there are still Conservatives who protest against the change. We are seeing what the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, in a notable speech, called the deliberate destruction of local government. This is particularly sad at a moment when there seems to be a greater call for devolving power from the centre down to where people live. We live in an age of growing influence over our lives by international bodies. We have examples today of worry over the power that is exerted by our fellow members of an alliance. Many of us are worried by the power of multinational companies. All of us are agreed that we cannot live in an island. We cannot live to ourselves any longer. We are part of a world that grows smaller every day as communications improve. To a certain extent, this is not to be belittled. To a certain extent it is to be welcomed.
As a member of a party that includes in the preamble to its constitution a belief in world government, I must welcome it. But if that is happening, then it must be balanced, not by the strengthening of the central state but by the fashioning of a continuous chain of responsibility giving powers to people as appropriate. In fact, as power moves up it is appropriate that it should also move down the chain. The answer, surely, to the criticisms that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, rightly put forward, is to give local government more control over what happens and to make it more responsible.
Let me give a couple of examples of developments that would be worth exploring and which I do not think have been touched upon today. The greatest problem we have to deal with in this country on the home front at the moment is unemployment. I do not think that there would be any debate about that. There is general agreement about what will be the future of employment to a large extent. There is general agreement, I think, that one of the ways in which we are going to find employment is by creating real environmental wealth through employing people to do things which improve their surroundings and the bit of the world where they live. That is as good a way of producing wealth as exporting machinery. Both are necessary for different reasons, but both are absolutely necessary.
342
The big bureaucracy of the MSC is probably not the best approach. If you really want to know how to improve your locality, it is the local people who know. Every single member of this House can find, within half a mile or a mile of where he or she lives, things that need to be done and things that would be worth investing in to improve the lives of the people who live there. Most Members of this House—I am not talking about Chatsworth—also can probably discover not only things that need to be done in their neighbourhood but also the people to do them. You can discover the people who are out of work. Most people, in the areas where they live, could evaluate what should be done, one project against another, how it should be amortised and how much money can be put into it. All this is of the essence of local government. These are the tasks that local government may have to tackle in the future.
Another way of looking at this matter was put in an interesting article by Barry Cooper in the April issue of Town and Country Planning, which some noble Lords may have seen, in which he suggests that we should try in local government to divide responsibilities increasingly by areas rather than by functions. Instead of having a roads committee and an education committee, the local village should be able to weigh up ways of spending money on roads as against the closure of its local school. I am not suggesting that these are immediate reforms that can be put into operation now. I am, however, saying that, with the problems we have to face in the country, it is in the direction of giving people more control over their lives at local level that we need to be moving, and not further away from that and more towards central government.
This is something that the Liberal Party has discovered over the last few years and that our allies in the Social Democratic Party are also discovering in the revival of community politics. It is a revival of that kind of approach to the electorate of which the Labour Party had a very strong record in the past. When you canvass and talk to people about something which does not immediately affect them, or over which they feel they have no control, like unemployment, you do not get much response on the doorstep. However, if you talk to them about paving stones—we are always criticised for talking about paving stones—their eyes actually light up. They start to talk about paving stones because someone down the road fell over and damaged himself in the course of the last week and had to be taken off to hospital. What is more they suspect that you can do something about their paving stones, whereas they know very well that you cannot do a thing about their unemployment. So it is at that type of level that local government must be able to take off.
Those are the developments at which we should be working. Instead of which it seems to me that we are seeing totally irrelevant cure-alls—sledge-hammers to kill gnats. I thought that the analogy of the classroom put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, was brilliant. I did not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he said that it did not hold up because the whole business of local government was more complex than a classroom. In my view the classroom seemed a very good comparison indeed.
The cure for overspending authorities is very simple—namely, proportional representation. On the

343
last occasion when I mentioned this matter to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, he told me that it had been tried elsewhere and had failed. I challenged him to produce the evidence for that. I hope that he has it tonight, because I have not yet had the evidence. However, if councils were elected by proportional representation I suspect that we should have none of the rogue councils that have been mentioned this evening. All the rogue councils that we have talked about are single-party councils. If we had proportional representation and electoral reform at that level, we should not get such councils. That is the democratic way of curing the situation. If the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indulges in any more of his sarcastic laughter and suggests—as I think he possibly is suggesting—that this is merely another Liberal Party ploy, let me point out that we do not any longer need proportional representation in order to gain council seats because we gain them all the time in by-elections every week under the present system.
The cure for the overspending authority is simple and it is not the gradual strangulation of local government as a whole: what is needed is the revitalisation of local government by an increase of powers and possibly by the abolition of ultra vires among other things, and the improvement of the mechanism. If that were done then finance would fall into place. It is interesting that not many noble Lords have spoken about finance in the course of our debate this afternoon and this evening. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, was a distinguished exception. I think that what she said was largely accepted by many speakers. However, finance will fall into place once we have got rid of the high spending rogue authorities. I certainly appreciate that point.
How you will raise the taxes and what form they should take is a fascinating subject. It is the type of matter in which many of us can become extremely involved. But it does not go to the root of the matter. The root of the matter is local democracy in this country. The White Paper strikes at the root of that matter. The relationship between central and local government, to which our attention has been drawn by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, today, should not be one of destruction; it should not be one where domination by central Government over local government is the rule It should be one of a healthy and developing symbiosis. That seems to me to be what most of the speakers this evening have been talking about.
We are delighted to find that there is so much general agreement. We hope that that agreement will be reflected in action in this Chamber and in another place over the coming months, because there is a great challenge not so much by the party opposite as a whole but by the Government, by the leaders. They have put out a challenge to local democracy and it is one which must be resisted wherever possible. There probably is enough agreement for us to be able to resist it, and I certainly hope that your Lordships will be able to play your part. We will certainly do our best to play ours.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, for opening this debate today.
344
Whether it has had the results that he expected is another matter, because what has happened is that noble Lords from all parts of the House have expressed their views sincerely on the position of local government and in general not from any party political point of view. They have put forward what they regard as best in the interests of local government, local communities and local action.
I should also like to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Graham—yesterday I had the honour of being one of his supporters—for bringing into this House further local government experience and the ability to express it in a way which will command respect. We look forward to his contributions on this and other subjects in the future.
I am certain that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, did not intend it, but I feel sure that when he reads the Official Report he may reflect that what he actually said could be interpreted as a sad denigration of those who serve as elected representatives in local government, and also as a condemnation of local government as such. That was the impression that was given. Knowing the affection (if I may use that word) which the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has for local government, I hope that he will distance himself from any such interpretation about local government.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, referred to the public as having no sense of affection for local government. Of course, the public has no affection in that sense for Parliament or parliamentarians. There is a love-hate relationship. But heaven help anybody who suggests that they will interfere with the franchise and remove the public's opportunity to vote for their elected representatives!
The noble Lord also said that what concerns people is not the right to vote but the quality of services and economy. I am certain that he did not mean what those words convey, but they are the words that were used; because they would be opening the way for central Government to do what they liked, to have no reference at all to local needs or to local democracy. The noble Lord seems to argue for more central Government control and appears to ignore the accountability that there is for local government representatives.
Local authorities must be responsive to local needs. Not only is there regular accountability through elections—which, incidentally, usually come far more frequently than those for Parliament, and therefore, there is greater accountability—but other factors are involved. Representatives meet electors as "the man in the street"; local authority representatives conduct surgeries. Therefore, there are many ways in which local authority representatives are accountable.
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, also said that constitutional issues are not involved in this matter and in this debate. That depends on the interpretation of constitutional issues. But all three local authority associations are critical and believe that there are constitutional implications. We have the responses from all three of the local authority associations. A consultative process is supposed to be taking place. I should like the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, to say that there will be a thorough response to all the points contained in these three responses from the AMA, the

345
ACC and the District Councils Association. That would be real consultation.
I do not intend to quote from those documents, although there have been some quotations already. We have heard views expressed by the respective presidents of the county councils and the district councils. Although I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, I can also speak as president of the third body, the AMA. The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the issues involved the question of the relationship between central Government and local government. That is why so many noble Lords who have spoken tonight have expressed their concern at the Government's proposals, and that is why all three associations have expressed concern and criticisms. I shall content myself with just one quotation from the AMA:
"It is difficult to recall a time when relations between central and local government have been so low".
That sentiment was echoed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, on behalf of the county councils, by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, on behalf of the district councils, and also, if I may pick out one in particular, by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who expressed this concern based on his long experience.
We know that local government can do nothing for which there is not permission from Parliament, either mandatory or permissive. But there has up to recent years been an accepted relationship. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said in his opening remarks, a central decision on rate levels inevitably removes the right of a local authority to determine local service needs. This is a point that some of us argued on the 1983 Transport Bill. Once you start to have a protected expenditure level, once the Minister decides what shall be the expenditure, then local services, local needs, go out of the window.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that the Government must concern themselves with total local government expenditure. I and a few of my noble friends said, "Yes, total local government expenditure". But the Government under their proposals will be taking powers to lay down spending and rating limits for individual local authorities without taking any responsibility whatever for the effects that may have on local communities and local needs.
I hope that the Government, and the Minister in particular tonight, will take heed of some of the points which have been mentioned. There has been a considerable drop in the proportion of local authority expenditure financed by rate support grant. Put another way, there has been a substantial increase in the amount of local government expenditure which now has to be met by ratepayers. It is clear that the Government themselves have contributed in no small way to the rate rises by cutting their grant from time to time.
The alternative to rate increases would have been the destruction of many local services. This was a point made by a number of noble Lords, and again in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. I hope that the Government will keep in mind that the rates as a proportion of GDP—I am emphasising this because repetition may make the Government appreciate this fact—fell from 15.9 per cent. in 1974–75 to 12.8 per cent. in 1982–83. It cannot be
346
ignored that there has been this increase in central Government expenditure as a proportion of GDP, and yet the blame for financial problems is being laid at the door of local government.
My noble friend Lord McIntosh gave a number of financial details. I should like to ask whether the Government accept that rating finance has only an insignificant effect on public service borrowing requirements. Local authorities contribute to PSBR mainly on capital schemes, and as we all know that type of expenditure and borrowing are strictly controlled already. We would argue that local government expenditure as such, apart from capital schemes, has no real effect on PSBR.
The White Paper indicates that the Secretary of State will decide the criteria for selecting authorities for control. The White Paper goes on to suggest that the main criterion for determining local rate levels will be the grant-related expenditure assessments. It was never intended that GREs would be used for this purpose, and various Ministers gave assurances that the GREs would not be used for such a purpose. Why? Because these assessments cannot be objective, and in practice they produce greatly misleading results, and as a number of noble Lords have said—and it was particularly emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher—this assumes that the needs and demands for services are common throughout the whole of the country. We could give examples of where this has been shown to be foolish and ridiculous. The suggestion is artificial, being based on some 60 statistical indicators. I am not criticising civil servants, but inevitably this is a decision that can be taken only by permanent officials in Marsham Street. The accountability of Parliament must be strictly limited to be able to deal with such matters.
A number of noble Lords emphasised that any expenditure for industry was a cause for concern. It must be emphasised that rates are only a small proportion; just 1 per cent, of manufacturing cost. That cannot be disagreed with. Other decisions taken by central Government, financial or otherwise, bear far more heavily on industry than rates.
Some local authorities already have regular consultations with industry, but, if it is right and proper that we should lay down a statutory requirement that one section of the community must be consulted before certain decisions are taken, there are other very important interests which have no statutory right of that kind.
I shall now deal with a few points that have arisen from the proposals for abolition of the GLC and the six metropolitan counties. These proposals show signs of rather hasty decision, not clearly thought out when the original statements were made, and arguments brought forward subsequently. The proposals have been soundly criticised by a large section of the press and other responsible bodies.
The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, in his opening remarks, commented on the savings that could be secured by reorganisation. On a previous occasion the noble Lord said that before taking a decision on reorganisation we needed to collect all the facts and figures and we must approach the matter responsibly. Yet, when Members challenged the noble Lord on

347
this, he argued that one could not get the figures at this stage. However the White Paper suggests that there will be considerable savings. My noble friend Lady Birk said that the AMA had decided to commission Coopers and Lybrand to conduct an independent survey as to the actual effects. Everybody trusts Coopers and Lybrand because the DOE uses that firm itself. I should like to ask the Minister whether, if that independent report shows that there will not be much in the way of savings, the Government will accept that. If not, then I say the same as I did on the question of the three responses from the three associations: if it is supposed to be a consultative process, that must be done.
There are many detailed points that could be raised on the proposals for abolition. I am sure that noble Lords would be surprised if I made no mention of transport. London Transport is to be reconstituted on the pattern of a small holding company to be renamed London Regional Transport. The White Paper dealing with transport in London uses quotations from the Commons Select Committee quite freely to justify its decision, but strangely makes no reference to that Select Committee's proposal that such a regional body should have representatives of the GLC, the London boroughs and the shire district councils concerned. Strangely, when we come to the metropolitan areas there is to be a limited type of representation on the joint boards that are to be established; but, apparently, that sort of local government representation is not considered suitable for the vast London regional area. I would ask, why?
Instead of revenue support, which is now given by precept from the GLC, in future revenue support will be a grant from the Secretary of State and a further very detailed document has already been issued which shows how to continue contributions from the ratepayers of London by a very complicated system of readjustment of the rate support grant. There is no explanation at all as to why, when a body is directly controlled by the Secretary of State—and that is what the White Paper means—there should still be a contribution made by the ratepayers, who will have no local government input into the new body and no representation on it. Those who live in the London area will know that, if nothing else has been achieved in the last two years, what is appreciated by a vast number of ratepayers—and I am certain that some of those are noble Lords in this House—is the concessionary fares scheme for Greater London, which has enabled many old people to have mobility they would not otherwise have.
We do not know what will happen to the concessionary fares scheme. All that paragraph 20 says is that the Government will consult representatives of London boroughs on the development of a joint scheme to be operated when the boroughs take back responsibility for concessionary fares for the elderly
348
from the GLC. There is no guarantee that there will be a good scheme.
Just a word on the position of transport in the metropolitan area. There we find that there will be a limited form of local government representation on the joint board, as for certain other services; but the White Paper says that this body will take major decisions on revenue support, and I quote:
"hence, on fares and services and the power to precept district authorities".
Yet we find also in the White Paper that, for the first three years, there will be special control by the Secretary of State including approval of the precept. It goes on:
"The Secretary of State will also have power to specify the levels of manpower or manpower expenditure".
The same will apply to the other joint boards. One cannot have that power and yet say that the Secretary of State's decision will not have any effect on local services and whether they will meet local needs. That is absolutely impossible.
It is inevitable that, with this type of transport board, decisions will be taken in isolation from other services; and the same will apply to the other policies to be dealt with by the joint boards. This is a point that was made emphatically by my noble friend Lord McIntosh. It is further emphasised, because the White Paper makes it clear that it is intended that the joint boards shall have power over their expenditure and power to levy precepts. So we would have policies for certain services being discussed in complete isolation from any other services. That will happen with the abolition of the metropolitan counties.
In conclusion, I hope the Government will listen to what the three associations have said, to what has been said from all parts of your Lordships' House, and, as has been urged by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and repeated by many other noble Lords, will have second thoughts. What is essential is that anything that is done must improve the present bad relationships between central Government and local government; and the proposals that have been before us which we have been considering will not do that. We must leave local authorities with the power to levy rates to meet local needs and not a determination made without any regard to the special local circumstances.
Finally, the abolition proposals affect a population of 18 million people and I believe it is being done hastily and without proper thought. Any change in local government structure, as a number of noble Lords have emphasised, should be the subject of most careful review. That has been the practice for local government reorganisation in this country. That is what we ought to do now. We ask the Government to listen to what noble Lords have said tonight, to listen to the associations, and to take back these proposals and have a second look at them.
9.40 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am faced with a great dilemma. How, after some six and three-quarter hours and 21 speeches, can I really respond, as I would dearly like to do, to all the points that have been made? I can only say that I ask forgiveness from the beginning if I do not take on this impossible task. I will certainly try to cover much of what has been said, and certainly the major points; but to do anything else—unless my noble friend Lord Denham will give me permission to speak for not less than one hour, and preferably for two hours—is an impossible task. And, of course, my noble friend Lord Beloff has yet to come.
May I say, first of all, that some noble Lords have said that we have not consulted fully but have rushed in with this matter; but the history of this whole thing shows that this is not something which has been rushed. This has been going on for years. The Government have moved step by step in an attempt to carry local government with us. We have reformed the grants system and have sought to work through it. We have used targets and holdback, and that approach has had some success. Many authorities have accepted it, or made genuine efforts so to do. The fact is that a significant minority continue to spend, employ and tax with total disregard of national policies and priorities, and, if I may say so, with not the slightest scruple for their own ratepayers.
Several noble Lords have tried to say, "Rates are not important; they do not matter". I should like them to go and talk to the people who are concerned. I want them to come and see the shoals of letters—that is not an exaggeration—that reach my desk and those of my colleagues about this whole issue. Really, it is sad to think that Members of your Lordships' House are prepared to stand up and say, "It doesn't matter". The noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, said that in regard to various reports she had people in Birmingham and elsewhere had said that what mattered was not rates. It was not an imposition on business, she said; but loss of orders was what mattered. What does the noble Baroness think leads to loss of orders if it is not excessive rates?
I could develop this at great length, given the time, and I could adduce an absolute mass of evidence—not merely anecdotal or just hearsay, but a mass of evidence—from company after company and from individual after individual—to show that rates do matter. And if rates do not matter, then why did we receive such an overwhelming —
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I intervene?
Lord Bellwin: I have just started.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I think I must say this in the absence of my noble friend Lady Fisher. I listened very carefully to what she said, and I think she was saying that rates—many of them—did not play as important a part in the costings of businesses as the Government have made out. More businesses are in trouble or have gone bankrupt because of the financial and monetary policies of the Government than because of rates.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would expect the noble Baroness to say that, and let me say straight away, so far as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, is concerned, that I absolutely welcome her support for our intentions to abolish the metropolitan counties. She made that point categorically clear. I welcome it, and I would have said many more nice things about her had she been here, but she did drop me a note to explain why she could not stay on. Nevertheless, the point about rates is absolutely valid. The fact is that it is not fair to pretend that it just does not matter and it is not important. It does matter and it is important; and those who pay will confirm that very easily. Even more, do those who would like to say otherwise seriously believe that higher rate increases do not feed into the retail price index or do not feed inflation or do not put up industry's costs and destroy jobs? All I can say is, "Come back to the real world and talk to those who are on the receiving end of the imposition of rates".
I ask the associations, which I hold in the highest regard—and, indeed, I ask anyone who opposes our proposals on this—will they tell us what they would do to stop the overspenders? What suggestions will they make? What steps will they take? Or do they not care? And if they do not care, then let them tell the public, the domestic and industrial ratepayers. Let them tell them. Tell the vast majority who showed at the general election—because we spelled it out loud and clear and it is there for everyone to see—that they support the Government and what the Government will do to protect them.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was very anxious, as were one or two others of your Lordships, to draw comparisons between central Government and local government spending. When they say that local authority spending has fallen as a percentage of the gross domestic product and total public expenditure in real terms, let me remind them that the only reason for that reduction is the fact that local government capital spending has fallen dramatically between 1977–78 and 1982–83—in fact, by more than half. But these problems with which we are faced are all about spending on current account. That is the whole basis of the problem, because local authorities' current expenditure in cost terms increased by 11 per cent, between 1977–78 and 1982–83. Indeed, it is very sad to think of the effect of the reduction in capital spending. It is so dramatic. As I recall, it is almost a quarter of what it was at the time of reorganisation. That has a significant effect. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, wants to interrupt me. I shall sit down and let him do so, but I beg your Lordships to remember that I did not interrupt and would ask that the same applies to me after the noble Lord has interrupted this time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister. I only wanted to ask him whether, with his vastly greater resources, he could give us the same figures of capital versus revenue for central Government.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I shall be very glad to write to the noble Lord and give him information about that. But when they try to compare, I shall have to ask

351
the noble Lord, and anyone else who makes this same point, how they would assess the liability of local government to spend on defence and how they would assess the liability of local government to spend on the National Health Service. You cannot draw exact comparisons. I do not seek to make my case by doing that. I seek to quote figures which are genuinely fair. It is true that you can take all kinds of figures, and shuffle them around and make a case, but I do not want to do that. I want to make our case, because I believe in it, on genuine grounds of fair comparisons.
We mean to discharge our responsibilities to the electorate as a whole and to protect the ratepayers in the way that I have just said. But it does not have to entail confrontation. My noble friend Lady Faithfull was very kind in her remarks about me. I have heard of damning with faint praise, but she praised me so much that I must be totally and utterly damned. Nevertheless, I am appreciative. Her contributions are always worth listening to. They are sincere and based on knowledge, and if she expresses apprehensions then it is up to us to assuage those apprehensions, which I am sure we shall in due course be able to do. But the fact is that those authorities who are in the position of being likely to become selected under the rate limitation proposals still have the chance, by making sensible decisions as to their rates and expenditure next year, of getting right out of that altogether. I am sure that some, at least, will try to do that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked: why the general scheme at all? Why the reserve power? I said that I would make a further comment on this, although I spoke to it in my opening speech. All I can say is that after our bitter experiences in the last few years we just dare not risk, and the country does not expect us to risk, relying only on selective limitations and its wider influence. We feel that it is essential to have a fall-back reserve power of broader application but we are well aware of the implications of implementing such a power and we would not do so without the express agreement of Parliament. I hope that that will at least assuage that concern.
May I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, at this point, although he spoke late in the debate. He said that he was not experienced in local government matters and he went on to prove it by all that he said. But he was hot very kind. He was very sarcastic about the Government, which he said was elected on false claims of what they wanted to do. All I can say is that all we wanted to do we put in our manifesto. There are no false claims and no false anything else.
I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that the Labour Party put its proposals into its manifesto. We saw the result they got. I think that speaks for itself. But I will say to him, because he raised the point of the European charter for local self-government, that our position on this is plain. We in this country do not have a written constitution into which this kind of charter, hitherto in draft, could fit. We could not sacrifice in any way the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. This does not mean that we are opting out of work on the draft charter. We have already devoted much time and effort to helping to produce in the Council of Europe a document to which we could subscribe. We shall continue to do so but we cannot
352
accept that in the process we should compromise our basic principles.
I turn to some of the other remarks which have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that there would be appointed members to joint boards from the Secretary of State in Marsham Street. That is not the position. Appointed members to joint boards will come from the elected members of the borough and district authorities. The noble Baroness shakes her head. If I misunderstood her I am sorry, but I give that information in any case. The noble Baroness spoke about the reduction in the totality of rate support grant from 61 to 53 per cent. I would only remind her that I served in local government at a time when that same rate support grant was reduced from 65 to 56 per cent.—an equally if not more dramatic drop. I trust the noble Baroness was making complaints to her Government when they were doing that. Certainly I was not making much complaint about it; we just lived with it, because we felt that it was all that the Government could afford and that we had to get on with it and make it work. And we did.
Whenever Members of the Opposition appeal to your Lordships to forget party loyalties, to me that means only one thing: vote against the Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, appealed to everyone to do that. I have great respect for the noble Baroness, as she knows. She made a very interesting speech which contained some constructive suggestions. On another occasion I should like to take up with her, and others, their reference to local income tax as an alternative to the rating system. The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, mentioned a sales tax. I have many thoughts about it but I have to ask to be excused tonight for not going into the matter. It is complicated; it is not easy. I ask your Lordships to take it from me that we spent not hours, not days, but weeks and months (and I can go back years) considering these alternatives. For reasons which on another occasion I shall gladly dilate upon, we felt, not without some reluctance, that they were non-starters.
We were asked if we would set up an inquiry into the whole system of local government and its finance. Of course we could do so, but what would be the benefit? We believe that we need change speedily in the metropolitan areas. An inquiry into the whole of local government, whatever else it might produce, would take a long time. Your Lordships would surely have to concede that one could put off every decision if one sent it to a Royal Commission. Would not many people say that doing that in the past on many occasions led to many unhappy and unsatisfactory situations? I would say, however, because the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also mentioned it, that we have been asked to set up an inquiry on the basis of the cost of abolition.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, there was mention of the Coopers and Lybrand Report because the Government said that they would not set up an inquiry. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, will surely concede that although it is true that this is an independent body—I am the first to concede it—you can nevertheless get from surveys and reports the results that you want, depending upon what you feed in, depending upon the assumptions you tell the inquirers that they must start from, and everything

353
else. That is not to denigrate all reports. Clearly there are situations where a report is essential, but I feel that here we do not want to put it that way. We believe sincerely—I am entitled to ask to be received in that way, as I received what everybody else said they believed—that there is an opportunity here for savings.
We really believe that there is opportunity here for savings. Of course, as I said in my opening remarks, it could be done so that it will cost more—of course it could. But some of us lived through the 1972–73 situation; were involved in it and learned a lot of lessons. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, said he had served on a joint board and that it had been awful; that it took ages to get decisions. Let me tell the noble Lord that I, too, have served on joint boards and have chaired joint boards. The particular joint board I have in mind was remarkably successful.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Successful only because of its chairman, my Lords.
Lord Bellwin: The noble Lord is too kind. Quite seriously, my Lords, a joint board does not need to have a big bureaucracy and does not need a lot of premises. It can be made to work effectively and smoothly. I will talk privately with the noble Lord and tell him a little more, and hope that I can persuade him that there are some joint boards which can be really effective.
I should like to join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I mean that seriously. I really did enjoy his speech. I felt that he was someone who really knew what he was about—which is no reflection on anybody else. Clearly, the noble Lord has a special experience, and I welcome it. I look forward to many discussions with him, even though I am sure we shall rarely agree. Nevertheless, it is not a game that we play and I look forward to the noble Lord's future contributions.
I will take up only one point that the noble Lord made, when he commented that people should decide the issues and that they should get the just deserts—that was his term—through the ballot box. If it was like that, then there would be no need for any legislation. The unhappy situation, as the noble Lord knows, is that the percentage of people who pay full rates is small and the interest is relatively little; and those who pay the most rates—in industry and commerce—just do not have votes. Therefore, the ballot box in this case is not able to bring the equity and justice that it ought to do; that is the real problem. The noble Lord knows this, as do many other noble Lords who have made this point previously.
With regard to my noble friend Lord Ridley, I hope that his speech this evening will not be the last that we shall hear from him in this House. My noble friend will realise that I do not say this to patronise him, but his was a very well reasoned speech and very fairly put. I know that he has the concern of the ACC at heart and that the ACC, for which he speaks, is concerned. I can only say that we do not agree with that which the association is saying. We believe that they, of all people, should want to help the Government in dealing with this awful problem of overspending. Indeed, if I were still in local government, I should
354
resent very bitterly that I was trying to do all the things I could and that here I was in a whole new scene and panoply of the kind we see these days, because others were not prepared to play their part. I should resent that very much indeed.
That is the history of local government as it used to be and we discussed today what has happened to the relationship. We were told that it has deteriorated. It has deteriorated, but I do not accept that that is the responsibility of Government. When we came to office in 1979 we asked local government to reduce its spending by 5.6 per cent, from the levels it was projecting to spend then. May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, that the Labour Party in its day had the highest figures ever? He will remember Crosland's "the party's over"; he was having the problems then. It was not we who deliberately set out, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, said, to destroy local government and local democracy. Not at all. We asked for what was not unreasonable. We asked for a 5.6 per cent. reduction over three years.
I would remind your Lordships that in 1976 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Healey, asked local government to reduce spending in one year by 3 per cent. That was the only time it did so. It did so, because it then believed that the Government of the day had to govern. Although it was difficult, and had to be achieved by a lot of cutting of capital spending, it has to be said that—and I guess that is the truth of it—we did it because we were asked to do it. We did not like it, but we did it; that was what local government was all about.
Now we have a new situation entirely: a number of authorities—and only a number; not a great number, but a number—where,unhappily, the totality of what they spend is large enough to be significant, despite what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, said. I cannot simply shrug my shoulders at a mere £850 million. When I think how we used to agonise over spending £ 100 in Leeds City Council, and here we are talking of a mere £850 million, which is only X per cent. of this, that or the other! Whatever it is, it is still £850 million. You cannot as a Government turn your back on that because of all its implications.
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, said that local authorities should be concerned with the redistribution of wealth. May I remind him that the Government's policy, insisting on giving tenants the right to buy their council houses, is the greatest single redistribution of wealth this country has ever seen, and I challenge him or anyone else to deny that. He said that authorities concerned in this likely selective exercise will be those in the inner cities because their needs are greatest. I make only two points: first, that the rate support grant is there precisely to make adjustments for their greater needs; and, secondly, I would ask him to compare what happens in Wandsworth with what happens in Lambeth. Only one street divides them, but the situation there is that one authority achieves so much and the other so little. So there must be something in good management and willingness to face up to the reality of what it is all about. The noble Lord made many other points to which I should like to respond, but we would be here all night if I did.

355
I thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone, who, as usual, was very helpful. He is right about more businessmen being needed on councils. I was one myself in my day, and I have always tried to encourage this. When he expresses concern for certain small towns and villages might I remind him that our proposals do not apply to authorities of that size; they will not be in the picture at all.
My noble friend Lord Sandford welcomed the audit commission. I thought that was a good point, and I am glad he made it. I have very high hopes for it. I really believe, listening to the serious concern expressed by noble Lords, that they, too, in the end, will be pleased with what this very independent body will achieve. Time alone will tell. My noble friend said it was a pity it had taken so long for the Government to decide that rates are here to stay. That is the price of putting out Green Papers and doing other things. We did, and here we are now. His point about who votes and who pays is really the whole nub of the validity of the local mandate argument. I had better not get into that, tempted though I am.
The noble Lord, Lord Evans, made his usual constructive speech. I am sorry he is not in his place. He said that hardly anyone loves White Papers. As he is not here, perhaps he will forgive me, when he reads Hansard, if I do not devote too much time to what he said. Nevertheless, I always enjoy listening to him. He really is a man of experience in this field, and has a lot to contribute.
I also enjoyed the contribution from my noble friend Lady Cox. I thought it a very interesting and serious contribution. Her points on ILEA were well made and I am sure will be well read. I look forward to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Molloy, is very sincere. There are those on my side of your Lordships' House who do not always take kindly to the rather forceful way in which, if I can put it nicely, he makes his case. But he is sincere and he knows about local government. I only wish he would put it in a more temperate way, which might be much more effective. But then he has his own style. He said that the Government do not want to spend the money. All I can say is that we are putting up nearly £12 billion of taxpayers' money. If that is not spending, I do not know what is.
I enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who made an amusing yet thoughtful speech. I loved his reference to the leader of the council in the smoke-filled room. It took me back. His town mayor concept is fascinating. I have looked at it many times. It has all sorts of minuses as well as pluses, but it is interesting.
I have referred to my noble friend Lady Faithfull. I say again that I respect her views. We shall look at them carefully.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, asked whether I would yet again give him an example of why I say that PR is not the solution. PR leads to hung councils and minority control. I have served on minority councils; I have served in minority opposition and minority control. Everybody in the council said that without question it could not operate as effectively as when somebody had the responsibility
356
and had to answer and be challenged. When a council is hung, it is easy to fudge and put things off. I did not mean in any way to belittle what the noble Lord was saying. His was a sincerely held view which I respect, but I equally sincerely give the reason why I feel that it is not the effective way to work.
I shall have to take up with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, many of the points that he made. He obviously sincerely believes them. I equally sincerely think that he is wrong. It is too important for us to leave it at that, and I shall approach him with a view to discussing matters with him. His remarks about the enterprise zone report are not quite fair. This report referred only to the first year of the enterprise zones, when they had to come off the ground. There were certain reservations, but since the time of the report all that has happened in the enterprise zones has been very encouraging. I am sure that he is as anxious as I am that the scheme should be successful. I hope that he will find that that is so when he comes to look at the issue once again.
My noble friend Lord Beloff talked about what was happening in certain local councils. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and every other noble Lord who has spoken in the debate and who is concerned about local government not to shut their minds to what is going on in local government. I have many friends who are leaders of Labour councils who are as concerned as I am at some of the things which are going on and which nobody can be proud of. I beg local government itself to look at this, talk about it and act upon it. I shall not give examples tonight, but, believe me, I have a very thick dossier of things that would make the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, very unhappy indeed. Without going into more detail, I merely ask that people do not turn away from the issue. It would not be good for the future reputation of local government.
We have an obligation which we must carry out. Despite what has been said today, we believe very much that the public, the hard-pressed world of industry and commerce and the domestic ratepayers—those who pay at the end of the day—welcome our intentions. They overwhelmingly approved them at the general election. I reassure them today that we shall not let them down. Our many manifesto promises will be kept.
10.9 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, it is customary, and on this occasion a pleasure, to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in a debate largely directed towards my education. There are only two persons I should like to single out, if I may. One is my noble friend Lady Cox, who, by giving the grounds for my suspicion and dislike of its present management, saved me from the necessity of explaining at length my views on why I believe that ILEA should find a directly elected substitute. In particular, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, whose speech I attended to, as usual, with great interest, will, since he was out of the Chamber at the time, do me the favour of reading the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, because I think that he will then better see why I was making that particular point.
The other person I should like to mention, as so many other noble Lords have, is the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who made his maiden speech.

357
It is not so much because I welcome someone so robust as to defy the normal conventions about being non-controversial: it is rather because he brings to our debates, as one can see, a freshness and an innocence, which are doubly welcome in this jaded assembly. Here is someone who comes from a place—I do not know where Enfield is; it must be a very long way away—where people seek to serve the community as councillors without a thought of preferment, and where officers seek to serve their fellow citizens with no inclination to absorb further authority. That is the ideal world in which all of us would like to live, and it is good that we should have it represented here at last.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, challenged me on my remarks towards the end of my speech. It is indeed possible that the double interruption of his noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, put me off my stride, and that I did not adequately represent what was in my mind. If I may put it very briefly, it is this. It seems to me that there is a difference (to which my noble friend the Minister has alluded in another context) between what the ordinary citizens think about local government, what they believe it should do and what they see as its limitations—as is shown by their unwillingness in very large numbers to take the trouble to vote in elections—and the views of local government itself, whether it be the councils or those employed by them, who see themselves, as it were, as a separate estate of the realm. After all, if we include not merely the policy-making officers in local government but all the employees, we are talking about an estate of the realm; we are talking about over two million people.
It is extremely important that when we are told, "The localities will not stand for this; the citizenry demands democracy or representation; the citizenry wishes to have responsibility", those who make these claims should be quite sure that they are not confusing their natural interests as a group or class with the interests of the country as a whole. It is a danger for all groups that have authority in our society, and I think it is worth pointing out that the very rapid growth of local government has made it a particular concern in that area. That is what I was trying to say, and no more. With those concluding words, with your Lordships' permission I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes past ten o'clock.

British Rail: Objectives for the Chairman
Following is the statement referred to by the Lord Lucas of Chilworth last Monday; col. 46:
DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORT 2 MARSHAM STREET LONDON SW1P 3EB 01–212 3434
R. B. Reid, Esq., CBE,
The Chairman,
British Railways Board,
Rail House,
Euston Square,
LONDON, NW1.
"Dear Chairman, 24th October 1983
"This letter sets out the objectives the Government wishes you to pursue. It supplements the statutory and financial duties of the Board.
"Your guiding objective should be to run an efficient railway, providing good value for money. Services to your customers should be reliable, attractive and punctual, at acceptable fares and charges; and the cost to the taxpayer should be reduced. That is the way to achieve a secure future for the railway, enable worthwhile investment to go ahead and give your employees satisfaction and pride in their work.
"The Board's current Plan shows the requirement for PSO grant from central government falling to about £700m (in 1983 prices) in 1986 and to about £635m in 1988. The Government wants you to go faster than this so as to reduce the requirement for central government grant to £635m (in 1983 prices) in 1986. Your 1984 Plan should show the profile of expenditure and the measures required to achieve this.
"It is not our intention that you should embark on a programme of major route closures. At the same time I should welcome your early views, following the endorsement of the case by the Select Committee on Transport, on the practicability of introducing some guaranteed and subsidised substitute bus services, where they would be appropriate on local transport and value for money grounds.
"I shall want you to work closely with London Regional Transport, when it is set up, and with other public transport operators, to provide a better deal for travellers in and around London and to avoid wasteful duplication.
"It is the Board's responsibility to determine fares. But improved efficiency must make a full contribution to keeping down fares. The railway must not use its market position to raise fares unreasonably.
"The Board's 1983 Corporate Plan shows the Freight Business coming into profit by 1986. You should take the necessary action to ensure that it achieves a current cost operating profit of 5 per cent. in 1988. Within the financial targets set out above, I want you to win as much freight business from road as possible. The objective for the Parcels business should be to continue to earn a proper commercial return. I look forward to receiving the Board's review of the Inter-City business against its commercial target.
"The Government wants you to secure improvements to the railways' present industrial relations machinery, which has hampered good communications and slowed down the necessary pace of change.
"Sealink must be made ready for privatisation as soon as possible. The Government looks to you to obtain from the private sector more supply and support services, including rail and station catering. I shall welcome proposals from you for more private sector finance and participation in the development of stations and railway services. The Board should continue to pursue a vigorous policy of property development and disposal.
"Rationalisation of British Rail Engineering Limited's excess capacity should be completed as soon as possible. You should complete your review by the middle of next year of the options for the future of BREL, including the options for privatisation. Railway rolling stock should be procured wherever possible by competitive tendering; and the railway equipment industry should continue to be allowed the opportunity to offer design solutions to meet BR's requirements.
"Your investment programmes should relate directly to the financial and business objectives set out above. You will clearly wish to give proper priority to cost saving investment which gives an early return; and to carrying forward the improvements which the Board has introduced in management accounting and control.
"I look forward to working with you and your Board to achieve the good quality, efficient railway services which are our common goal and to seeing these objectives reflected in your 1984 Plan.
"Yours sincerely,
(signed) "Nicholas Ridley".