Sitting of 14 June 1984

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS AFTER PRAYERS
    COUNTY OF LANCASHIRE BILL [Lords] (By Order)

      CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
      Orders for consideration, as amended, read.
      To be considered upon Thursday 21 June.

    NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered upon Thursday 21 June.

    DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Monday 25 June at Seven o'clock.

    PIECE HALL, HALIFAX (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Thursday 21 June at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Inflation
    Mr. Leighasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give his latest estimate for inflation over the last three months.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): In February, March and April—the last three months for which figures are available—the annual rate of inflation was a shade above 5 per cent.
    Mr. Leigh: Does the fact that the average RPI figure for the three months ending April 1984 was 5·2 per cent. higher than in the same period last year, and that the annualised rate of inflation was 8·6 per cent., denote any slackening in the Government's determination to curb the ravages of inflation through control of the money supply and public expenditure growth?
    Mr. Lawson: No. Seasonal patterns affect the figures within the year. We are on course for the Budget forecast of 4·5 per cent. inflation by the last quarter of this year.
    It is always dangerous to take three months and annualise them, as the Opposition discovered — or perhaps they even knew at the time—with the notorious incident of the 8·4 per cent.
    1054
    I am glad to reassure my hon. Friend that the Government have the continued battle against inflation at the forefront of their policies, through continued fiscal and monetary discipline. I was especially heartened that that policy was endorsed by all the nations at the recent economic summit in London.
    Sir Paul Bryan: Does my right hon. Friend recall the forecast made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that inflation would be in double figures by the end of 1983?
    Mr. Lawson: I clearly recall that forecast. The right hon. Gentleman was so wrong about that, that that may be the reason why he has been so silent since.
    Mr. Skinner: If the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned about the inflationary movement, not only in this country, but throughout the world, why is he a party to the idea of bailing out Argentine and other bankers, especially as Argentina's inflation rate has recently stood at more than 500 per cent? Why does the right hon. Gentleman not look after British industry?
    Mr. Lawson: I am looking after the British economy, with the great assistance of British industry, but with rather less assistance from the hon. Gentleman. There is no question of a bailing out operation for Argentina. We hope that the Argentine Government can reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund, on the basis of which that Government will have to take measures to put their house in order. If they do not, they will not qualify for assistance from the IMF.
    Mr. Marlow: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will not put the prospects of future low levels of inflation at risk by, in some way or other, bailing out local authorities in such a way as to enable them to meet any increased cost for teachers' pay arising out of arbitration?
    Mr. Lawson: The Government have made clear what can be afforded for teachers' pay. Whatever happens when the issue goes to arbitration, the Government have made plain what can be afforded.

    Development Land Tax
    Mr. Heddleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will state (a) the amount of tax revenue from development land tax and (b) the cost of collection thereof for the year 1983–84.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): In 1983–84 the amount of tax revenue front development land tax was £67·9 million and the cost of collecting the tax is estimated at around £5 million.
    Mr. Heddle: Notwithstanding the considerable reduction in the rate of the tax four years ago from 80 to 60 per cent., does my hon. Friend agree that it is still significantly above the level of corporation tax? Will he give further consideration to treating land held by builders as stock-in-trade?
    Mr. Stewart: I am glad that my hon. Friend welcomes the improvements in development land tax that we have made since 1979 and the reduction of the rate at which the tax is charged. Land held for development is not treated as a trading asset because the gains arise from planning permission not from trading purposes. However, I shall reflect on what my hon. Friend has said.
    Sir William Clark: Does my hon. Friend accept that development land tax collection charges are fairly high at over 7 per cent.? Does he further accept that in some instances the imposition of the tax is an inhibiting factor on development? Would it not be better to abolish the tax and to allow any profit to be subjected to ordinary capital gains taxation?
    Mr. Stewart: The cost of collecting the tax has been falling. The yield has risen over the past four years, but collection costs have not. I cannot encourage my hon. Friend to think that it would be proper to bring development gains under capital tax, any more than to make them a corporation tax charge.

    Industrial Productivity
    Mr. Peter Lloydasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he makes of the effect of his policies on the current rate of increase in industrial productivity.
    The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peter Rees): Output per head in manufacturing rose by 6 per cent. in both 1982 and 1983 and is now at a record level, being 23 per cent. higher than at the end of 1980.
    Mr. Lloyd: That is impressive history, but does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we are reaching the stage in the cycle when various bottlenecks, such as skill shortages, normally begin to make themselves felt?
    Mr. Rees: That is a risk, and it is a factor underlying the notable efforts of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Employment and for Education and Science to try to improve our performance.
    Mr. Hunter: In the light of the most welcome increase in our exports of manufactured goods and the even greater increase in imports of foreign goods, will my right hon. and learned Friend comment on the desirability of a lower overall exchange rate, especially vis-a-vis European currencies, before there has been a significant decrease in our North sea oil revenues?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Government do not believe in a managed exchange rate. Manufactured export volumes are up by 9 per cent. over the year to the three months ending April 1984, which demonstrates that our export performance is still robust.

    Taxation (Anti-avoidance Measures)
    Mr. Rookerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received in respect of the anti-avoidance measures in the Finance (No. 2) Bill.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: Representations have been received on a number of provisions and they are all being studied carefully.
    Mr. Rooker: Does the Economic Secretary accept that the Opposition oppose tax avoidance? When later today in Standing Committee Conservative Members seek to perpetuate tax avoidance in overseas tax havens, the Government will receive the responsible support of the Opposition.
    Mr. Stewart: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about the Opposition's plans for clauses that we shall be discussing in Committee on the Finance Bill. The
    1056
    Government have introduced certain clauses for the important purpose of dealing with tax havens and the abuse of profits in that way. However, we must establish the right balance between necessary legislation and not making it impossible for British industry and companies effectively to operate in the commercial world in competition with those from other countries.

    Value Added Tax (Take-away Food)
    Mr. Freudasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from the take-away food industry about the effect of the imposition of value added tax on hot food since it came into force; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Barney Hayhoe): A number of letters and petitions have been received and the matter has been fully debated in the Finance Bill Committee.
    Mr. Freud: In view of the concern felt by the many fish and chip shop owners and Chinese take-away concerns, and the lunacy of avoidance schemes whereby people are now charging for salt and vinegar and giving away chips, will the Minister look at raising the base level on which VAT will come into being?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The level at which VAT comes into being is established at a little over £18,700. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has raised that level so that it broadly conforms to the rise in prices. I join the hon. Gentleman in condemning the lunacy of some of the absurd avoidance techniques which have been suggested and which largely, I imagine, are wholly ineffective.
    Mr. Rooker: Given that the 1979 Conservative manifesto pledge not to put VAT on food was not repeated in the 1983 Conservative manifesto, will the Minister give a commitment that there will be no further imposition of VAT on food in the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I see that the Leader of the Opposition is joined by some of his flock in trying to get this absurd canard running during the European election campaign. Their actions have been shot to pieces by a characteristically devastating blast from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. Friend has made it absolutely clear on many occasions, including Prime Minister's Question Time this week, that the Government have no intention of putting VAT on food.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman think it wise to quote the Prime Minister in that context, because she seems to be a great stranger to the truth?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I utterly repudiate that suggestion. I have noted the attempts by the Opposition, because they are so devoid of a positive policy in the European election, to run these scare tactics. The reality is that, if the Opposition's policies were put into effect, there would be massive increases in indirect and direct taxation.
    Mr. Pike: Does the Minister recognise the administrative difficulties that VAT on take-away food has caused to many small take-away shops and fish and chip shops, because of the problem of discerning which foods attract the tax? Will the hon. Gentleman now have second thoughts and, even at this late stage, reverse the decision?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I understand that some small shops have run into difficulties, largely because they have not made themselves fully acquainted with the helpful advice that they can obtain from their local Customs and Excise office. Those businesses will find that there are available a number of alternative schemes for dealing with this matter that do not place a heavy administrative load upon them.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Skeetasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the United Kingdom's rate of economic growth compares with those of other European Economic Community countries.
    Mr. Lawson: The United Kingdom rate of growth last year was the fastest in the European Community. I expect us to be at or near the top of the league this year, too.
    Mr. Skeet: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that fine performance, which is due to the monetary and fiscal policies that have been pursued. Is that result due in part to our North sea oil industry and the City of London? However, there is anxiety about manufacturing industry generally. Will that industry be able to maintain its performance in the next 10 years?
    Mr. Lawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his well-deserved tribute to British industry and commerce, manufacturing, investment, the City of London and the North sea oil industry, on which he is such an expert. I have no reason to doubt the strength and robustness of the recovery, not least in British manufacturing industry. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, in the six months to March 1984, manufacturing industry's investment increased by 9·5 per cent., and the most recent survey of the Department of Trade and Industry on the investment intentions of manufacturing industry shows an increase of 12 per cent. this year.
    Mr. Gould: Has the Chancellor seen the excellent report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the deficit in our trade in manufactured goods with the EEC? Is he aware that this year that deficit is already running at over £9 billion? Is that not a definitive judgment on the Government's economic policy? How does the right hon. Gentleman meet the charge of complacency that has been levelled against the Government by that Committee?
    Mr. Lawson: It is absurd for the hon. Gentleman to put such a question. He has a nodding acquaintance with economic matters, unlike many of his right hon. and hon. Friends, and he ought to know better. He is aware that it is absurd to pick one component from the balance of payments. The current account of the balance of payments figures for last year has now been revised. It shows a surplus of nearly £3 billion. We are in surplus this year and expect to remain so.
    Mr. David Howell: If the Americans cut their deficit next year, as everyone has been urging them to, and if that leads to some downturn of the American economy in 1985–86 and the onset of a new recession—albeit a mild one, I hope—has my right hon. Friend any plans to ease some of the monetary constraints here to compensate for the downturn in the United States and Western economies generally that may result?
    Mr. Lawson: It is a little difficult to speculate as to what is likely to happen in 1985, let alone beyond. It is
    1058
    perfectly true that the Americans intend to reduce their budget deficit in 1985 and further to reduce it in 1986 and 1987. That is all to the good. However, it does not follow that there will be any downturn in the American economy. I shall draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the analogy: our recovery began in 1981 in the wake of a Budget which reduced our Budget deficit substantially to one of the lowest in the industrialised world. We have kept it low and the recovery has continued.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essential preconditions of sustaining our present economic recovery are the achievement of stable prices and continued control of public expenditure and the money supply, and that the reduction in unemployment that vie all desire so much can be achieved only by those policies?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. Those are preconditions for continued sustained recovery and the creation of new jobs. There are other ways in which we seek to create new jobs or promote conditions in which they will be created—for example, by making the economy work more efficiently and effectively through fewer impediments and restrictions in markets, deregulation, more competition, more privatisation, and by changing the tax system, as I did in the Budget, in a way that is more favourable to employment.
    Dr. McDonald: How can the Chancellor expect us to believe what he says about anticipated growth rates this year when total production stagnated in the first quarter of this year, is likely to fall in the second, and is, incidentally, below 1979 levels?
    Mr. Lawson: The gross domestic product of the country's total output at present is at an all-time high and markedly above 1979 levels.

    Road Fuels (Revenue)
    Mr. Farrasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has as to the total revenue raised in petrol and diesel tax from rural garages in 1983–84.
    Mr. Hayhoe: As oil duty is collected at an earlier stage of distribution, I am afraid this information is not available.
    Mr. Farr: Is my hon. Friend aware that garages in rural areas are a necessity these days, with the cessation of buses and trains? Will he consider the cost of licences needed to acquire and store petroleum spirit, because it is geared at the moment against the small user?
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am well aware of the anxiety expressed by my hon. Friend about the need for garages in rural areas and the importance of taking into account the interests of the rural motorist. I shall consider the points that he has raised.
    Mr. Kirkwood: I support the view expressed by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). I accept, however, that the Minister is correct when he says that it is difficult to find ways to support rural garages. Will he consider trying to persuade his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to set up a rural development agency, which could have the ability to support some of the people who run distribution points?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The hon. Gentleman is correct when he says that it is difficult to find some practical and sensible

    1059
    means to give relief to rural motorists. Higher petrol prices in remote areas reflect the economics of the market. I have been advised that recently rural fuel prices have tended to come more into line with those of urban areas. I believe that that will be welcome. As I said, I shall take into account the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr).
    Mr. Bill Walker: While my hon. Friend is considering the problems of rural areas, will he bear in mind that in the highlands of Scotland there is a dearth not only of garages but of public transport, and that people living in those areas have no option but to use the private car to get to work? In addition, many of them work in areas where employers are notoriously low payers. Consequently, petrol tax is a penal tax on those employees.
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am sure that all members of the Government will never be allowed to forget the interests of the rural communities in Scotland, particularly when they are so well represented by my hon. Friend.

    Value Added Tax
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will detail gross value added tax yields in real and percentage terms as a proportion of the total tax take for 1972–73, 1978–79 and 1983–84; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Since the answer includes a table of figures I will, with permission, circulate it in the Official Report.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is the Government's intention to reduce direct taxation, and say how they propose to do it?
    Is my hon. Friend aware that the Leader of the Opposition was in his seat on Tuesday when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
    "We have no intention of extending VAT to food." — [Official Report, 12 June 1984; Vol. 169, c. 756.]
    Yet the very next day the Leader of the Opposition asserted that the opposite was the case. It is he who dispensed with the truth—[Interruption]—not the Prime Minister, as asserted by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton).
    Mr. Hayhoe: I am glad to underline and reinforce the sensible comments that my hon. Friend has made about the deplorable behaviour of the Opposition in this matter.
    Following is the information:
    VAT was introduced on 1 April 1973.
    The Information for 1973–74, 1978–79 and 1983–84 at 1983–84 prices is as follows:—

    £ million (1983–84 prices)

    VAT gross receipts

    Total Taxation Revenue*

    Percentage yield

    1973–74

    8,571

    91,388

    9·4

    1978–79

    9,322

    100,513

    9·3

    1983–84

    15,992

    118,012

    13·6

    * Total taxation revenue consists of all direct and indirect taxation including local authority rates and national insurance contributions.

    Economic Recovery
    Mr. Winnickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he now expects to see a substantial economic recovery.
    Mr. Peter Rees: Economic recovery is well under way, with growth at 3 per cent. in 1983 and forecast growth of a further 3 per cent. in 1984.
    Mr. Winnick: Is not unemployment due to rise substantially for a long time to come? Will the Chief Secretary confirm that so far in 1984 unemployment has increased by at least 70,000? Where are all the signs of economic recovery, when millions of people are denied the opportunity to earn their living?
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman makes his own forecast of unemployment, but the employed labour force increased by 200,000 between March and December 1983.
    Mr. Forman: Since non-oil exports are up substantially over the past year, as is industrial productivity, and since there are several other indicators of economic recovery, will my right hon. and learned Friend say whether he has any further measures in mind to reduce interest rates slightly, as that would help to sustain the recovery?
    Mr. Rees: Yes. Our policy of rigorous control of public expenditure perhaps provides the most successful approach to the problem mentioned by my hon. Friend. Indeed, I remind the House of the candid and proper comment of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), that the assertion that a massive increase in effective demand would be a certain and automatic remedy is no longer convincing. We warmly endorse that conversion.
    Mr. Dubs: Is the Chief Secretary pleased or anxious about the fact that a 3 per cent. growth rate appears to be going hand in hand with continuing high levels of unemployment?
    Mr. Rees: Naturally we would prefer to see unemployment going down, but I do not know what conclusion to draw from the hon. Gentleman's proposition. We are content that our growth rate is one of the highest in western Europe.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend satisfied with the performance of the public sector? Does he intend to make further appointments to the Government Accountancy Service to seek further improvements in productivity in the public sector?
    Mr. Rees: As the House will know, the appointment of a very distinguished member of the accountancy profession to the role of Chief Government Accountant has just been announced. I am sure that his influence will be pervasive and that he will be successful. I see no case at the moment for increasing the staff of the Government Accountancy Service, but naturally we keep that aspect of the Government's activity under close review.
    Mr. Hattersley: Will the Chief Secretary tell the House in simple language whether the Government anticipate a substantial fall in unemployment between now and the end of the Parliament? Will he also tell the House whether the Government endorse the Opposition's view that a recovery which is so defined as to exclude putting Britain back to work is a recovery which ought not to be acceptable in a civilised society?
    Mr. Rees: Clearly, we are as concerned as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends to see that unemployment is reduced. The House should recall

    1061
    another telling phrase of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) in a speech which deserves to be studied closely. He said that the country applauds the Labour party's compassion, but doubts its capacity.
    Mr. Hattersley: I rise again simply to ask the Chief Secretary once again the question that I put to him, but which he did not answer. Do the Government expect a substantial fall in unemployment in the lifetime of this Parliament? Yes or no?
    Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman should know that we follow the policy that was adopted by the previous Labour Administration of not making forecasts of unemployment over a long period of time.

    Building Societies (Interest)
    Mr. Sternasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Board of Inland Revenue has any plans to enter into discussions with the Building Societies Association as to the administrative and other implications of applying the provisions of section 17, Taxes Management Act 1970, to building societies.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: There are no such plans at present.
    Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that the application of section 17 to the banks has led to the recovery of substantial amounts of income tax on undeclared income and the recovery of additional tax after the disclosure of the capital behind that income? Does he agree that, if the Inland Revenue were encouraged to extend such inquiries under section 17 to building societies, further substantial tax yields could arise?
    Mr. Stewart: I accept my hon. Friend's analysis of the application of section 17 to the banks. There are no plans to extend it to building societies at present. We aim to keep changes relating to building socieites to a minimum in this year's Finance Bill, but we shall be considering the implications of the composite rate in that case, and information regarding interest paid will be included.

    Inflation
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a further statement on the level of inflation.
    Mr. Lawson: Over the 12 months to April 1984 the retail prices index increased by 5·2 per cent.
    Mr. MacKay: In the light of that impressive figure, does my right hon. Friend perceive any reason why the electors of this country should ever again believe Labour economic spokesmen when, because of their scaremongering, they have been wide of the mark in every projection on inflation and the cost of living?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is correct. There is no reason whatever to believe the statements made by prominent figures on the Labour Front Bench, whose forecasts have regularly proved wrong, not least those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) who, as the House has been reminded, forecast confidently that inflation would be in double figures by the end of 1983.
    Mr. Haynes: When is this cocky Chancellor of the Exchequer going to tell the people of this country exactly
    1062
    what is going on about inflation? He attends many functions and enjoys himself at expensive dinners, but there are people in my constituency who find it hard to live. When will the Chancellor tell them what is going on about inflation? Has he seen the recent report in which inflation is forecast to go 6·6 per cent.? Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, if the Chancellor were made of chocolate, he would eat himself.
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman should not be so gloomy at the fall in inflation. We all want to see it go down much further and we are determined that it shall. I am glad to report that the rate of growth of the money supply over the past six to 12 months has been well within the target ranges. We are on track for a further reduction in inflation. So far from there being signs of any increase in inflation, the latest CBI survey shows a significant decline in the number of firms expecting to increase prices.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: In an earlier reply my right hon. Friend referred to the unanimity of the economic communiqué from last week's summit meeting. Can he confirm that that unanimity included the Socialist President, who has a Socialist Prime Minister and a huge Socialist majority in the French Parliament?
    Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to note that when President Mitterrand and the French Socialist party were campaigning for office they did so on a programme not unlike that espoused by the Labour party in Britain. However, they attempted to put it into practice, and the result was total disaster. They have now turned their policies round by 180 degrees, and they accept that the policies on which we have embarked are the only ones that can bring health and economic strength to their country.
    Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer reconsider the answer that he has just given, as it flies in the face of general economic opinion that there is no relationship at all between the money supply and the level of prices? If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the overwhelming majority of economic opinion, can he explain what the relationship is?
    Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken about the preponderant weight of economic opinion, and that is not surprising. The economic facts are there, and if the hon. Gentleman took the trouble to look over a period of years at the rate of growth in the money supply of various countries, together with the rise in prices, he would find a very clear correlation.

    Private Sector Investment
    Mr. Kenneth Carlisleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent information he has about the level of investment by the private sector.
    Mr. Peter Rees: The estimated level of business investment for the six months ended March 1984 was 7½ per cent. higher than in the corresponding period a year earlier.
    Mr. Carlisle: Does my right hon. and learned Friend accept that those very encouraging figures for investment in industry at last show that the recovery from the recession is strong and is no longer based on a consumer boom? To maintain that progress, is it not essential that industry's costs should be strictly controlled?
    Mr. Rees: I entirely agree that the recovery is very strongly based. Nevertheless, I should emphasise that its continuance must be founded on the containment of unit costs and improved business profitability. That should lead to increased investment, and so, ultimately, to more jobs.
    Mr. Holt: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that although private sector investment is important, we should also ensure that public investment is kept up, particularly in the steel industry, as, thanks to the realism of the work force, the leadership of Mr. MacGregor, and the efficiency of management, we now have a public corporation which is creating world markets which the industry has never before enjoyed?
    Mr. Rees: I certainly applaud the steel industry's efforts and pay tribute to the investment made in it, which is, of course, matched by Government investment in various other public sector enterprises, including the National Coal Board.
    Mr. Terry Davis: If the Chief Secretary is so confident about the strength of the recovery in private investment, can he say whether this year the level of investment will return to what it was in 1979?
    Mr. Rees: I will tell the House that the latest investment intention survey, conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry——
    Dr. McDonald: Answer the question. That is not what was asked.
    Mr. Rees: The hon. Lady evidently wishes to answer for me. However, the investment intention survey points to a 12 per cent. increase in manufacturing investment in 1984, with an 8 per cent. increase by construction, distribution and service industries. Perhaps the hon. Lady would care to cap that.

    Income Tax
    Mr. Pikeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what increase would be needed in the personal allowances to reduce the percentage of direct taxation paid by the average wage earner to the level paid in 1979.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: For 1984–85 the percentage of average earnings taken in income tax is significantly less than in 1978–79.
    Mr. Pike: The Minister tends to forget that, with national insurance, as he said in a reply to me some weeks ago, the total direct taxation is higher than in 1979. Remembering that the Conservative party at the 1979 election said that under the Labour Government taxation paid by the average person was too high, when do the Government intend to take action to reduce the tax paid by average wage earners and by those on lower than average wages? At present it is only the highest paid earners who benefit. I hope that the Minister will not give an answer about the level of wages, but will deal with the question on tax.
    Mr. Stewart: The national insurance contribution is not a tax. It is a contribution towards benefits, the overall costs of which have been rising. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the fact that there has been a substantial rise in earnings under this Government. Average take-home pay since 1979 has risen by about 8
    1064
    per cent. The average earnings taken in income tax has fallen for both married and single taxpayers during that period.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that one can obtain benefits and personal allowances only if one is paying tax, and that the individuals who will be coming to pick raspberries in my constituency shortly are not in the habit of paying tax because they are schoolchildren, yet they will have one third deducted from their earnings for tax purposes under an edict from the Inland Revenue? Is this not nonsense, and does it not put at risk the picking of the berries?
    Mr. Stewart: I doubt whether anything will put at risk the picking of berries in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is clearly important that we should not have tax rates biting so low down the scale. Over the past three years the Government have raised the starting threshold for income tax in each Budget. I am sure that that is the best way to deal with the problem.

    Mobile Home Sites (Operators)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has received from mobile home site operators about his Budget; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Our decision to widen the reliefs available to many holiday site operators under clause 49 of the Finance Bill has been widely welcomed.
    Mr. Adley: In adding my voice to that welcome, may I ask my hon. Friend whether he is aware that I have given up a pleasant day's electioneering in Dorset to come and press the case of my constituents, many of whom are in this business and who still feel that, even as a result of the changes, they are called on to justify their position as both legitimate employers and full-time business operators? As many of my constituents are legitimate business men operating full time in this shpere, will he further scrutinise the proposed changes to make sure that my constituents are not called upon to make themselves appear to be respectable?
    Mr. Hayhoe: The changes announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary in the Finance Bill Committee were widely welcomed, as I said, and are fair and reasonable to all concerned. As he then undertook to take account of any representations that were made to him before he came to propose amendments on Report, I am sure that he will take into account any representations that my hon. Friend would like to make.

    Holiday Lettings
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what additional revenue he expects to receive as a result of the classification of the receipts from holiday lettings as unearned income.
    Mr. Ian Stewart: The Finance Bill provides that receipts from furnished holiday lettings will generally be regarded as earned income.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that the holiday letting industry, which is an important part of the tourist industry, has derived much comfort from the statements made by the Chief Secretary in Committee?

    1065
    Will he ensure that, in drawing up a definition of what qualifies for holiday letting, due regard is paid to the fact that in certain areas, notably in the part of north Wales that I represent, it is sometimes extremely difficult to let these homes for as many as 90 days in the year?
    Mr. Stewart: My right hon. and learned Friend is aware of the problem of the classification of qualifying conditions and he will consider carefully what my hon. Friend has said. I also welcome very much my hon. Friend's comments about the announcement that my right hon. and learned Friend made in June about treating furnished holiday lettings under case 1. This has been widely welcomed in coastal and holiday towns.

    Economic Growth
    Mr. Richard Pageasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what comparisons have been made recently on the rates of economic growth between members of the EEC.
    Mr. Lawson: As I mentioned earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedfordshire, North (Mr. Skeet), Britain's growth rate last year was the highest in the European Community.
    Mr. Page: Do not the excellent figures prove to my right hon. Friend the success of our economic policies? May I ask him most strongly not to yield to the blandishments to spend more borrowed money, because it will only drive up inflation, cause more unemployment and have a detrimental effect, particularly upon small businesses?
    Mr. Lawson: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall not yield to those blandishments, not even when those blandishments are offered by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who has advocated an increase in the public sector borrowing requirement of £6 billion. That is a sure recipe for a rapid resurgence in inflation. Britain now has the best mix of steady growth and low inflation that we have had for a long time and we intend to keep it that way.
    Dr. McDonald: Is the Chancellor not aware that America has already achieved a growth rate of 8 per cent. this year, far in excess of his expectations, by increasing public spending, particularly on welfare?
    Mr. Lawson: There are certain advantages from having an economy and a society which has public expenditure as only 35 per cent. of its GDP and no Socialist party.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Gouldasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Gould: Will the Prime Minister today place in the House of Commons Library a glossary of
    1066
    "Thatcherspeech" which would define terms such as "intervene", as in "I do not intervene in industrial disputes", or "list", as in "There is no list of authorities which have been scheduled for rate-capping", or "towards", as in "The Belgrano was sailing towards the exclusion zone"?
    Would it not save a great deal of trouble in future, not least for her Ministers, if the Prime Minister, like Humpty Dumpty in "Through the Looking-Glass" made it clear that henceforth words are to bear the meaning that she decides to give them?
    The Prime Minister: I am very flattered that the hon. Gentleman can only find such a trivial question to ask. It shows that he has no criticism to make of the Government's present policies. I thank him for the compliment.
    Mr. Thurnham: What message would my right hon. Friend give to those town hall employees who are being instructed by NALGO to flout the intentions of the House and in particular to obstruct the abolition of the metropolitan councils?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that they will carry on with the duties for which they are employed and be loyal to their employers in doing so.
    Mr. Hattersley: Following the breakdown of the pit peace talks, does the Prime Minister propose to continue her pretence that she is simply sitting on the sidelines watching the damage continue, or will she now do all that she possibly can to encourage the honourably negotiated settlement which would clearly be in the national interest?
    The Prime Minister: No, Mr. Speaker. I shall not have a meeting at No. 10 and call both sides together in any way. The strike was always unnecessary. It has gone on too long and I hope that the men on strike will think carefully about their positions and return to work. There must be closures of uneconomic capacity, just as much as there must be development of new and low-cost capacity.
    The longer the strike goes on, the greater the danger to the pits left unworked. More pits could be closed through being damaged beyond repair than are envisaged for closure by the board. The package on offer to the miners is extremely generous. The coal industry has a prosperous future ahead of it and miners should get back to work to take advantage of those excellent prospects.
    Mr. Hattersley: The right hon. Lady flatters herself. Nobody is suggesting for a moment that pit peace talks should be held under her chairmanship or that they could possibly succeed under the chairmanship of someone so pathologically opposed to trade unions. What we are asking, and what I ask her to say today, is that she will not prevent the Coal Board from entering into negotiations with the flexibility that is essential if there is to be lasting peace.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman cannot possibly have read the statement put out by the chairman of the NCB this morning. I do not blame him for that. We cannot all be up to date. Mr. MacGregor said:
    "The board are willing to sit down as a matter of urgency with all the unions to discuss a revision of 'Plan for Coal'''.
    He went on to say:
    "I have already made public statements that if we tackle our current problems sensibly the industry has a good future. We will give high wages and give security."
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. MacKay: Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to commend the way in which our excellent police force has impartially upheld the rule of law on the picket lines during the coal dispute? Will she also strongly condemn those in the Labour party and elsewhere who have used the police as a political football to further their own extreme political ends?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I gladly respond to both parts of my hon. Friend's question. The police have earned the gratitude and admiration of the whole country, including the many miners—some 50,000—who have regularly gone into work, the many members of the steel industry who are trying to protect their jobs, and many in the docks who are trying to ensure that the coal reaches the steel and other industries.
    Since the present Government came to power, the number of police has been increased in England and Wales by over 14,000. The pay, equipment and morale of the police have improved enormously during that time.
    Mr. Freud: As the Prime Minister is so up to date, she will have read the leader in today's Financial Times. Did she notice that that excellent paper advised its readers to vote for the only political party that intended to develop Europe, and that that party was not the right hon. Lady's party?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to hear that I do not always agree with the Financial Times, any more than the hon. Gentleman does when it says the opposite.
    Mr. Stokes: Has my right hon. Friend read of the declaration in Madrid by Spain and Argentina about their claims to the Falklands and Gibraltar? In replying to the Spanish Government, without perhaps mentioning Trafalgar, will my right hon. Friend tell them that we are not frightened by that sort of thing and that if Spain wants our support in its attempt to enter the EEC, that country had better not do it again?
    The Prime Minister: Naturally we take exception to the terms of the joint communiqué in so far as it distorts the true position of Gibraltar and the Falklands. We take particular exception to it because today is the second anniversary of the surrender of Argentina in the Falklands, when white flags were flying over Port Stanley. All my hon. and right hon. Friends would say clearly that we stand as absolutely by our commitment to respect the wishes of the people of Gibraltar as we do by our commitment that the wishes of the people of the Falklands are paramount.
    Mr. Haynes: How can the Prime Minister expect the people of this nation—particularly the electorate—to believe that the Government are not planning to increase VAT on food, bearing in mind that the Prime Minister at that Dispatch Box—[Interruption.] Why will you not listen?
    Mr. Speaker: I am listening.
    Mr. Haynes: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
    The Prime Minister promised at the Dispatch Box that she would not intervene in the coal dispute, but she did.
    1068
    Before the election in 1979 she promised that her Government, if elected, would reduce unemployment. They have more than doubled it. At the same time, she promised that prescription charges would not be increased. They have been increased from 20p to £1·60. I have listed three fibs. Why will the Prime Minister not tell the people exactly what her Government are planning for them?
    The Prime Minister: I have just been asked by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) to intervene in the coal dispute. I have just refused, and will persistently continue to refuse, to do so. On 18 April 1979 I said that I doubted very much whether any responsible Government could say that over a period of five years—regardless of what happened to the value of money — they would not increase prescription charges.
    If the hon. Gentleman wishes to refer to the other points mentioned in the Daily Mirror I shall answer them, but he should not confine his questions to matters that arise from reading the newspapers.
    Mr. Hirstasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Hirst: Will my right hon. Friend take time today to consider the level of the Leader of the Opposition's salary? Does she believe that he deserves an increase for the time that he spends inventing scare stories about Government policy? Does she agree that he would earn his salary better if he spent his time trying to clarify the contradictory policies of the Labour party on the European Community, defence and practically everything else?
    The Prime Minister: I shall not do anything about the Leader of the Opposition's salary, but I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that we are still waiting to learn whether the Labour party wants to stay in or get out of Europe and whether it wants to increase or decrease expenditure on defence.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: In view of recent statements by the Prime Minister inside and outside the House, ranging from the sinking of the General Belgrano to rate-capping in Portsmouth, why should anyone believe one word that she says about anything?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to the sinking of the General Belgrano, I believe that this side of the House believed that its duty lay with our forces.
    Mr. Soames: Will my right hon. Friend take a moment today to reflect on the success of Britain's overseas aid programme, the fact that it is compassionate and extensive and results in a significant return by way of goods purchased from British companies?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. The majority of our aid is tied to orders from Britain, but, with regard to aid that is not tied, we try to concentrate on the poorest countries. We fulfil our obligations under the International Development Association and are prepared to make a supplemental addition to the latest IDA round.
    Mr. Blairasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Blair: How can the Prime Minister credibly maintain that she has not intervened in the coal dispute when British Rail is instructed to settle its wage claim to gain a tactical advantage over the miners and when she talks in terms of no surrender to the miners, as though the coal dispute was a military engagement in the south Atlantic? Does she not realise that the criticism of her is not that she has intervened, but that the nature of her intervention has prolonged rather than settled the dispute?
    The Prime Minister: The people who are responsible for the dispute are those who called out the miners in the first place. Fortunately, one quarter of the miners did not listen to that call and have continued to go to work.
    Mr. Cormack: Is it not a pity that the miners of Staffordshire, who believe in working, cannot look to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) for moral support? Does not his political career make that of the Vicar of Bray seem a model of consistency?
    The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with the last part of my hon. Friend's question. The fact remains that the Labour party will always encourage anyone who is on strike. In the miners' dispute, miners are divided and many continue to go to work. I hope that the rest will soon return to work in view of the excellent pay that has been offered to them. I understand from what Mr. MacGregor said this morning that, already, more miners have applied for voluntary redundancy terms than are needed to meet the target for this year's reduction in manpower. I also hope that the miners will go back to work in view of the industry's excellent future, as the Government have invested more in the coal mines than any other Government because we believe in the future of the coal industry.
    Mr. Terry Davisasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Davis: Will the Prime Minister find time to publish, for the benefit of everyone, all of the letters that have recently been written by her staff to the National Coal Board.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir—but I do not think that they would amount to very many, if any.
    Mr. Yeo: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is overwhelming support throughout the country and in the House for the proper but detached concern that she has shown for public sector wage settlements through correspondence from her office? Does she further agree that such concern has been conspicuous by its absence with regard to the Leader of the Opposition's office and that the leader of the Social Democratic party did not even deign to turn up to the House for the debate on the coal industry, which he had so earnestly requested?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted my hon. Friend's comments. The fact is that the Opposition would have preferred the railwaymen to come out on strike rather than stay at their post and go on earning money, honourably keeping their families. The letter from my office, as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen wall know, said that I agreed with the proposal that was put to me. I did not intervene or interfere in any way.
    Mr. Winnickasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 14 June.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Winnick: Why does the right hon. Lady not recognise that the miners will not be starved into defeat, and why, therefore, does she not tell Mr. MacGregor to drop his hostile and negative attitude and start negotiating properly with the NUM?
    The Prime Minister: One in every four of the miners are continuing to work to keep their families, and that is what the hon. Gentleman cannot get over. It is hardly hostile to the mining industry to invest more in its future than any other previous Government. It is hardly hostile to the mining industry to give subsidies to those who wish to change over from oil to coal to increase possible orders for the mining industry. It is hardly hostile to the mining industry that Mr. MacGregor went and won a large contract from the United States that will keep 1,000 people in Durham going for a long time. The fact is that there is a chairman of the National Coal Board who believes in the future prospects of the mining industry. I hope that the miners will reconsider their position. Many of them are going to work. Strikes and staying away from the pits will lose more pits and more jobs than anything else.

Business of the House
3.30 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18 JUNE AND TUESDAY 19 JUNE—Debate on a motion to approve the statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227.
At the end on Tuesday—motion relating to the control of Harbour Development (Revocation) Order.
WEDNESDAY 20 JUNE—Progress on remaining stages of the Roads (Scotland) Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Rating and Valuation (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 21 JUNE—Opposition Day (16th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on new technology with special reference to Inmos.
Remaining stages of the Housing Defects Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
FRIDAY 22 JUNE—There will be a debate on the civil aviation industry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
MONDAY 25 JUNE — Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Rates Bill and the London Regional Transport Bill.
At seven o'clock the Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration.
Mr. Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House three specific questions? First, can he tell us when we are to have a statement on the Government's attitude towards the New Ireland Forum, and can he say when the House will be able to debate the subject?
Secondly, now that there is an agreement on arbitration to settle the teachers' pay claim, it looks as though the employers and employees will agree a format but that the dispute will be continued because of the Government's refusal to endorse their agreement. May we be assured that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will come to the House next week and explain why the Government choose to prolong the dispute in the teaching profession?
Thirdly, if we stretch credibility to breaking point by accepting the Prime Minister's interpretation of the Portsmouth rate-capping correspondence, it is clear that the Government do not have the faintest idea how they propose to implement their rate-capping legislation. May we have a statement before that Bill becomes law describing what the Government propose to do?
Mr. Biffen: I take note of the three points that the right hon. Gentleman raises. On rate capping, while I give no commitment, he may have noticed that the Rates Bill will be before the House on Monday week.
As to the question of the pay negotiations in the teaching profession, I will of course refer the right hon. Gentleman's observations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
I accept that it is important that there should be a debate in the near future on the New Ireland Forum. I would obviously be happier if I could have been more specific in my statement today, but I recognise the importance that attaches to this topic.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House confirm that next Thursday is an Opposition half day and not, as he said, an Opposition whole day, because at 7 o'clock there is to be private and Government business? If so, and if the official Opposition, the Labour party, have agreed to use only half a day will the right hon. Gentleman at last allow some of the other opposition parties to have some of the days that they deserve for a change?
Mr. Biffen: I assure the hon. Gentleman that in announcing business I used precisely the traditional and accurate form. The matter of Opposition days is governed by an order passed by the House. It is not, therefore, a matter of me being in discussion with him or anyone else.
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: Is my right hon. Friend award of the strong feeling in the House that right hon. and hon. Members who are no longer Members of the House but who have attained the age of 60 with 20 years' service should be entitled to claim a non-actuarially reduced pension, sentiments which are contained in the amendment tabled by the Shadow Leader of the House for discussion tomorrow? Can my right hon. Friend give the House any guidance on this extremely important matter for hon. Members?
Mr. Biffen: Guidance is contained in the amendments that I have put down.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Has the Leader of the House thought of having a debate on the intended acquisition by the Government of Norwegian gas? Is he aware that the Government—I believe that the matter was discussed by the Cabinet today—are in the process of purchasing gas at 28p per therm from the Norwegians, which is equivalent to £80 per tonne of coal? MacGregor, egged on by the Prime Minister, wants to shut pits which are producing coal for £80 or less a tonne. How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the fact that the Government are prepared to pay a massive amount for gas while MacGregor, supported by the Government, is prepared to sack British miners for producing coal which, on a therm equivalent basis, is much cheaper?
Mr. Biffen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to tread the very limits of order in trying to answer the question in the terms in which he put it, since we are dealing with the business for next week. However, at some stage the House might wish to debate the virtues of an energy policy based on a diversity of sources of supply and consumer choice. I regret that that debate cannot take place next week, but when it does occur I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be there arguing the case for monopoly.
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I understand that there has been some correspondence between the right hon. Gentleman and, through the usual channels, this side of the House on statutory instrument No. 553 dealing with the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order, corresponding with early-day motion 766.
[That this House takes note of the Export of Goods (Control) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 553), dated 12th April 1984.]
I appreciate that this type of statutory instrument is not subject to the negative procedure. Because it is an

1073
important and topical subject, will the right hon. Gentleman consider it for an early debate in Standing Committee?
Mr. Biffen: I have replied to the representations that have been made on the point, but if my reply should, by some mishap, appear less than generous, perhaps we can take up the matter again.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend will appreciate, from questions to the Prime Minister and to him, that the various issues involved in the mining dispute and the future of this important part of our energy supply industries is a matter which is exercising the House. Will he find time, if not next week then the week after, in Government time, for a debate on the full issues as to whether, in future, public money for the coal industry should go into productive and profitable investment or continue to be used on unprofitable subsidies for uneconomic and the more dangerous pits?
Mr. Biffen: I recognise my hon. Friend's view, but no time is allotted for such a debate next week and I cannot encourage my hon. Friend to believe that such a debate is possible in the week after next. I shall keep the matter under consideration.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: When is the Home Secretary likely to make a statement on the operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act? Is the Leader of the House aware that one of the candidates for the European Assembly, Mr. Danny Morrison, is subject to an exclusion order under that Act and is therefore unable to travel to England, Wales or Scotland? Why has not the Home Secretary replied to correspondence on that matter? Will the exclusion order be lifted should Mr. Morrison be elected to the European Assembly?
Mr. Biffen: I shall raise those matters with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary and be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Can the Leader of the House explain why after 14 weeks of the coal miners strike, when more than 3,500 arrests have been made, no statement has been made by the Home Secretary on the nature of the arrests? About £2½ million has been spent by the Government on police overtime, buying coal abroad and lost production. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain Ministers' ostrich-like attitude which makes them too scared to come to the House to explain their actions during the dispute?
Mr. Biffen: The House will recollect that earlier in the dispute we had a debate in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary took part. It seems that the hon. Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) is disappointed at the success of and public acclaim for the police in the dispute.

Greater London Council (Expenditure)
3.41 pm
Mr. Neil Thorne: I wish to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a statement on the Government's powers to ensure that there is no political discrimination in the allocation of expenditure by the GLC."
On Tuesday evening during the debate on the Greater London Council (Money) (No. 2) Bill we were given an insight into GLC policy when it was made plain that the constituents of those hon. Members who voted in favour of an instruction limiting the GLC's free spending powers would suffer. It is essential that we now have a statement, followed by a debate, on the Government's power to ensure that there is no political discrimination in the allocation of expenditure by the GLC.
We all know that the GLC is in the scaremongering business and that as a result the people of London have come to expect outlandish claims and statements. That can be particularly worrying, especially for old people. Last night a constituent contacted me and asked whether this meant that the half-completed Ilford town centre scheme would be stopped and what effect it would have on his ability to sell his house nearby if it did. This morning in my constituency I was asked whether old people's bus passes would be limited to those living in Labour-held constituencies. I know of many similar cases in other constituencies.
When a local authority is given power by the Government to raise taxation locally through rating, what power do the Government have to ensure that money is spent regardless of whether or not the people in a particular area support the Government of the day? An entirely new situation now exists. Politicians, in a position of power and responsibility, have to rise above their party's political dogma to ensure that the people who have a right to benefit from general taxation are not penalised because of their representation in Parliament.
We have heard much in recent months about the GLC and its desire to work for London. That obviously now means that it wishes to work for Labour-held constituencies in London and not for London as a whole. That is reprehensible. One of the leaders of the GLC stated in this Chamber that he was prepared to conduct a campaign of what he called "selective vindictiveness." I doubt whether that claim has been used before by any responsible politician.
If the Government did not already have a very good reason for questioning the ability of the present administration at county hall to control the metropolis they certainly have a good reason now. The sooner that they get rid of that administration, the better.
I hope that you will agree now to an emergency debate on the matter, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for a statement on the Government's powers to ensure that there is no political discrimination in the allocation of expenditure by the GLC."
I have listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that

1075
he raised as being appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the course of yesterday's debate, which continued till 2.30 am, I had the opportunity to read The Times, in which you were quoted at length on an important matter. You were quoted as saying that some Conservative Members had got into the House by mistake. It would not be a bad idea if we were provided with a list of those hon. Members.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) was challenged recently by Conservative Members—perhaps some of those who came here by mistake—who threatened to refer my hon. Friend's remarks to an appropriate parliamentary committee. If it is right for Mr. Speaker to suggest that some Conservative Members got into the House by mistake, it must be right for my hon. Friend to challenge those Tories who may, by mistake, have voted the wrong way.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that some light-hearted remarks of mine during a Press Gallery luncheon yesterday were reported today and may have caused offence to some hon. Members. I am deeply sorry about that, and I apologise unreservedly if that is the case.
I assure the House that the burden of my speech was to underline the importance of this Chamber and my dedication to it and to its Members who elected me to the Chair exactly one year ago.

Greater London Council (Expenditure)

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Ordered,
  That the Estimates set out hereunder be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee:—

  Class XV, Vote

  3, Regional and general industrial support, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  4, Manpower Services Commission, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  5, Selective assistance and compensation, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  8, Housing, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  9, New Towns, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  15, Education, Arts, Libraries and Social Work, Scotland.

  Class XV, Vote

  16, Student awards, Scotland.

  —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

  SCOTTISH AFFAIRS
  Ordered,
  "That, in the course of their consideration of Scottish Estimates, the Scottish Grand Committee may meet in Edinburgh on Monday 25th June 1984 at half-past Ten o'clock. " —[Mr. Donald Thompson.]

The Arts and the Heritage
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Donald Thompson.]
[The following documents are relevant: The eighth report from the Education, Science and Arts Committee, Session 1981–82 (H.C. 49-I) on public and private funding of the arts and the Government's reply thereto (Cmnd. 9127).]
3.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): The whole House will be glad that we have an opportunity today to debate the important issue of the arts and heritage. It is perhaps one of our national characteristics that many of us, most of the time, have only a passive awareness of our country's rich heritage. As we walk past buildings that earlier generations created with skill and aesthetic sense, we do not always pause to look at them and to reflect upon their achievement.
Equally characteristic, although numerically much smaller, are those groups in our society that remain vigilant to the cause of our heritage when they see that cause threatened. We in government are well advised to listen to what they say.
I have no doubt that a number of concerns will be voiced in today's important debate. I hope that I can demonstrate that the Government are committed to caring for the arts and heritage. I welcome this opportunity to review the actions that we have taken to bear out that commitment. In a complex society such as ours, however, it is possible—indeed, it is proper—for the Government to play only a partial role in the overall protection of the heritage, and I hope that other contributors to the debate will address themselves, as I shall, to governmental action and to the role that other bodies can and should play.
It may be helpful if I indicate the definition of the term "heritage" that I shall be using for the purpose of the debate. The wording of the motion, the tremendous variety of subjects that come within the term and the overlap between many Government Departments underline the fact that the definition is wide.
There is much which we have inherited from our predecessors and for which we stand as trustees for our successors. In the physical as opposed to the intellectual sphere we all share an environmental inheritance that we must seek to safeguard. The Government, and especially my Department, are conscious of their responsibility for environmental protection, for preserving what is sometimes called the natural heritage, but we are to concern ourselves in this debate with the built heritage and not the natural heritage. However, buildings do not exist in isolation from nature. Many of the most evocative images in Britain are a synthesis of both. For example, we have only to think of the House ranged alongside the river Thames. I shall concentrate on the architectural legacy from the past as well as on the arts.
I shall at the start of my remarks refer to one further distinction. In practice, the arts do not exist independently of the built heritage. The interconnections between them are many and obvious. The built heritage is part of the physical environment and the arts have their place primarily in the realm of the intellect. That distinction and the interconnection of the two spheres are reflected in the allocation of responsibility within Government to two

1077
separate Departments whose policies are always implemented in close co-operation. I am pleased to speak for both today, and I shall follow the terms of the debate in dealing first with the arts, and secondly with the heritage. Thirdly, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, will deal with the many issues that will be raised in the debate.
It is inevitable that much of the interest in the Government's treatment of the arts concerns money. No arts organisation ever has enough money and every organisation always wants more. Costs are a constant worry. However, the Government's record should be considered objectively. There has been a significant increase in the amounts made available to the arts over the past few years. Central Government expenditure, mainly in England, on libraries, museums, galleries and the performing arts has grown from about £150 million in 1979–80 to a planned figure of over £250 million in 1984–85. That is a far from negligible increase and it has more than kept pace with general inflation.
Local authority support for libraries and museums in England adds nearly £400 million a year to the Government's support despite overall constraints on local authority spending. We should remember that these sums do not represent the totality of arts activity.
Happily, there are still large areas of the arts that are self-supporting or, at least, not part of the expenditure programme of my noble Friend the Minister of State. There is, for example, the large arts output of the BBC and independent television companies, which is costed at well over £100 million per annum in respect of the BBC. There are the success stories of record and publishing companies and of professional and amateur arts activities which, for various reasons, do not draw a direct subvention from public funds. This adds up to a completeness of provision which stands comparison with that in any other country. Taken overall, we can legitimately claim to be a world leader in the arts in many areas including literature, the theatre, dance, music and many of the crafts. Our television is generally recognised to be the finest anywhere and the film production industry has recently had remarkable success.
This does not sound like the record of a Government who are failing to honour their commitment or who are unconcerned about the state of the arts. Indeed, the reverse is true. Our general intention, in line with our manifesto commitment, is to safeguard the heritage and to give adequate support to the performing arts. The figures show that that has been done but I am not a supporter of those who argue that the amount spent on the arts should be doubled or trebled almost irrespective of the consequences. The fact remains that we can give only what we can afford.
There is a strong argument for the cost-effectiveness of the arts in that they can generate economic benefits that are greater than the financial input. However, any Government face hard choices over the lack of limited resources and claims that always exceed the sums that are available. It is my contention that within these overall limits distinct improvements have been achieved. Over the past four years, the national heritage memorial fund has proved itself to be a powerful body in support of our heritage. The provision for national museums and galleries has been maintained, and in some respects increased, to
1078
take account of their particular needs, notably in conservation and in the maintenance and improvement of their premises.
I shall deal later with the steps that we have taken in taxation to demonstrate our commitment to the heritage. I stress that the heritage exemptions from capital taxes, provided to facilitate the retention of heritage property in private ownership, are now worth several millions of pounds a year.
Many people have expressed anxieties, particularly about the effect on the arts of the abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. a believe, however, that the recent announcement in the House, and by my noble Friend in another place, of an additional £34 million of central funding in 1986–87, to compensate for the withdrawal of the top tier of local government support for the arts, has significantly reduced that concern.
It is fair to say that the flood of criticism which preceded the announcement has now largely receded. I make it clear that the £34 million is not intended to be a total replacement of the sums at present being spent by the GLC and metropolitan counties on the arts, although it represents a very substantial part of this.
It has always been the Government's intention that the lower tier authorities—district and borough councils—should assume some of that responsibility, especially when they are relieved of the substantial precept from the GLC and the metropolitan counties. It is right that arts activities of an essentially local nature should look to local support. Often, this will be in partnership with other bodies such as the Arts Council or the regional arts associations, which are making great progress.
If that support is not forthcoming, it must, to some extent, call into question the need for the activity. Local support is a necessary part of any arts activity, and this is particularly true in such areas as community and ethnic arts. The Government have secured the viability of arts activities which have a larger significance, often a regional or even a national significance, by ensuring that the finance for them will be available through central mechanisms. Given the extra support now promised, there is no reason why the arts world should any longer feel disturbed about the abolition of the top tier of government.
The Arts Council will play an important role in bridging the gap. It will receive almost half the additional sum to be made available—some £16 million extra in 1986–87. My noble Friend has great confidence in the Arts Council to discharge its enlarged responsibilities effectively. It has already shown how imaginative and forward-looking it can be by the careful strategy review set out in "The Glory of the Garden".
Clearly it is not my duty to defend or support the particular policy decisions involved in that document—they are rightly matters for the council itself. Individual decisions are not yet settled" and the council has given notice in good time for representations to be made.
Mr. Norman Buchan: The hon. Gentleman has said that it is not up to him to make comments on the Arts Council, but a great many of the council's decisions were undertaken after the Government's decision that a certain amount of the grant was to be earmarked. That is, in fact, telling the Arts Council what it should be doing.
Mr. Macfarlane: That is riot a fair comment. Certainly there is a need for close collaboration and co-operation,

1079
as with any organisation funded by the Government. I was saying in the context of the debate that it is not my function to defend or support the Arts Council at this moment. I believe that the way in which the overall exercise has been handled, and the general support for the council's thrust in the direction of more help for the regions, certainly should give every hon. Member much confidence for the future.
Similarly, detailed arrangements are now being settled, as outlined in the recent announcement, for the major provincial museums and galleries directly affected by the abolition of the GLC and metropolitan counties. The differing circumstances of those various institutions call for tailor-made administrative and funding mechanisms, which are to be discussed with all the parties concerned. I cannot yet announce the arrangements in each case, but I can assure the House that, in the Government's view, satisfactory arrangements will be made to maintain the important provincial museums whose sources of funding will have to change with the abolition.
The determination with which the Government have tackled, and will continue to tackle, this issue is not the only side to our commitment. The House will recognise that only a year ago grave concern was being expressed about the deficit problems of the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company.
We had a financial scrutiny of the affairs of those companies which was not only hard-headed but realistic. The scrutiny recognised that they were, if anything, underfunded, and in consequence the Government provided an extra £4·1 million, not merely for those two companies but for four other major opera organisations: English National Opera, Scottish Opera, Welsh National Opera and Opera North. That sum represents a significant addition to the Arts Council's overall base line which in the current year has reached three figures—£100 million—for the first time.
Mr. Tony Banks: Was the Minister surprised at the findings of Priestley? Will he ask the Arts Council to ask Priestley to study other companies in the arts world? He will probably find that they are all cost-effective.
Mr. Macfarlane: I will come to that point later. The hon. Gentleman's comment will be noted. I believe that what I have said so far shows that we have provided further evidence of the Government's support for the arts over the past five years. At the same time, our concern to limit the overall levels of public expenditure remains strong.
It would be unrealistic to expect a substantial increase in arts expenditure in real terms in the near future. Instead we believe that there are significant opportunities for support from other sources, notably business sponsorship. This is a theme my right hon. and noble Friend has eloquently developed on many occasions but more recently he has announced a new scheme to encourage such sponsorship—the business sponsorship incentive scheme.
It is too early yet to see how the incentive scheme will develop, but it is an attempt to encourage business money by an element of matching public funding. Within defined limits my noble Friend has said that he will be prepared to contribute 25 per cent. to every 75 per cent. put down by business. We believe that such a formula could unlock
1080
additional money for the arts from commercial sources which I should have thought would be widely welcomed in the House. Moreover, we are not asking for charity; business sponsorship is a practical proposition, involving advertising possibilities, access to a substantial consumer market, and distinct social and other advantages to the firm concerned.
Business sponsorship in many forms is an important supplement to public arts funding. I commend my noble Friend's initiative and I hope that the House will similarly favour it. The Government have also played their part in other ways by encouraging the development of private support, for example by pump-priming the appeals launched by the Roal Academy and the Courtauld Institute.
There is not time today for me to touch on further themes in the arts. My hon. Friend will do so later. I think we can look at a picture which is developing and improving, and far from deteriorating.
There is an impressive list of achievements in terms of the opening of new museums and facilities at the national institutions alone—for example, the Science museum's national museum of photography in Bradford; the Boiler House and the Henry Cole wing at the Victoria and Albert; the refurbished Egyptian wing at the British museum; and the new Turner gallery under construction at the Tate, generously endowed by the Clore Foundation.
The development of the new British library—and the British Library is a major national asset in itself—is now proceeding apace on the Euston road site. Public lending right has been introduced — another pledge fulfilled — and has been widely welcomed as an important step forward in giving due recognition to authors.
We are determined, as I have said, to maintain and improve our historic assets, just as we wish to encourage development from our roots in the present. In that direction too, through their support for the living and contemporary arts, the Government are determined to maintain this country's leadership. This, we believe, can be done by a plurality of funding, both public and private. Much has already been achieved, but more remains to be done.
I hope that I have said enough to demonstrate the depth of the Government's commitment, and the way in which the arts are being helped to meet the challenge of our present economic circumstances. It is not a negative or a depressing picture.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: I do not believe that I heard my hon. Friend touch on the problems surrounding university art museums. They have a special difficulty, being funded as they are through the university grants. I hope that recognition of their special needs may be taken into account when setting the Government allocation to the University Grants Committee in the future.
Mr. Macfarlane: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I agree that it is a most important dimension which constantly involves the attention of my noble Friend. I fully accept that they are an important aspect of galleries in this country. In so many areas of the arts we can claim not merely national but international success — the standards of the Royal Shakespeare Company and National Theatre; the high esteem in which British contemporary dance is held; the Nobel prize to William

1081
Golding; the success of films like "Gandhi" and "The Draughtsman's Contract", all of which received funding from the British Film Institute; the international acclaim of the standards in our major museums; the importance of exhibitions such as the "Genius of Venice" at the Royal Academy.
Those, and many others, are instances of success, and they rely, for the most part, on the mixture of public and private help which I have talked about. That is the path charted, and one that this Government are determined to follow.
I come now to the heritage, for which my own Department has traditionally carried responsibility within Government. That continues to be the case, despite the establishment this year of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, to which I shall return.
In a period when great restraint has had to be applied to total public expenditure, we have none the less recognised the need to maintain a substantial allocation of resources for heritage purposes. In the first full financial year of this Government 1980–81, my Department's heritage allocation stood at £41 million. The provision in the current financial year, 1984–85, is £64 million, a substantial cash increase which also represents a real increase if price movements are excluded.
At the same time as maintaining our direct commitment, however, we have also acted on our conviction that the Government cannot be the fount of all wisdom and money, and that we must join in a wider partnership with other groups and bodies dedicated to the heritage.
For the past four years, an important influential body has been quietly getting on with the job of giving substantial financial help to the preservation of our heritage. This is the national heritage memorial fund, under the most effective chairmanship of Lord Charteris. In association with the Government, from whom it has received an initial endowment and annual topping-up grants, and yet independent of Government in its own selection of projects on which to spend its money, the fund has acted as an effective long-stop on behalf of the nation in response to particular threats to the heritage.
It played a key role in the action over Canons Ashby, Belton and Calke abbey, and—as its annual report shows—has been active in providing resources for a large and varied range of causes. For example, as hon. Members can see from the annual report, the NHMF was involved in a rescue operation to preserve more than 2,000 acres of the heartland of Exmoor over Warren farm estate, assisted in the purchase of two Gainsborough landscapes, contributed substatially to the exciting recovery of the Mary Rose, and assisted in recovering important relics from our industrial past such as the evocative Quarry bank mill.
The legislation under which the fund was established, the National Heritage Act 1980, also provided for my right hon. Friend and the Minister with responsibility for the arts to allocate resources for accepting property in lieu of tax. Over the past four years, my Department and the Office of Arts and Libraries have jointly administered the acceptance-in-lieu arrangements, and in that period over £6·5 million has been spent on this account.
In the current financial year, 1984–85, the ceiling on acceptance-in-lieu has been doubled from the previous figure of £2 million to £4 million. The House will recall that, on the basis of this increased allocation and also
1082
additional payments to be made to the national heritage memorial fund in 1983–84 and 1984–85, the Government were able earlier this year to agree the acceptance of Calke abbey and its allocation to the National Trust. Here indeed was a remarkable legacy of earlier generations—a "time capsule" has often been the description — which it proved possible to save from being dispersed and lost.
I am aware of the argument, which was heard at times during our consideration of the offer of Calke abbey, that there should be no ceiling placed on acceptances-in-lieu, and that there should be no requirement that the cost of the tax revenue forgone should be matched, as it is now, by payments to the Inland Revenue from the allocation jointly administered by my Department and the Office of Arts and Libraries.
I cannot accept this argument. To forgo tax revenue is equivalent to increasing public expenditure, and it is only proper that it should be controlled in the same way that other forms of public expenditure are.
Acceptance of property in lieu means of course that that property passes out of private ownership. In the case of Calke abbey, the Government have agreed that its future control should rest with the National Trust, and the country is fortunate indeed to benefit from the existence and expertise of the trust, which has long played an important role in the wider partnership of which I have spoken.
Sir David Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that a number of us who have supported him until he made his last point do not agree with him on the narrow Treasury bookkeeping that his Department should be held responsible for in-lieu acceptances? It shows that as always the Treasury is a bookkeeper and not an accountant.
Mr. Macfarlane: I had a feeling that I should not carry my hon. Friend with me knowing the arguments that he has advanced in this matter on many occasions. He must have regard to the wider issues involved. I have no doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if he catches your eye later he will have a chance to try to convince me. I believe that there are many examples now, such as other tax measures, which show that there are attractive possibilities.
In heritage, as in society generally, however, this Government recognise the importance of private ownership. The historic houses were built by families for their own use. The maintenance of private ownership preserves a vital connection with the past, and carries the prospect that the houses will be looked after in future with the sensitivity and dedication that personal responsibility encourages.
We have taken several steps to support private ownership, including the extension of capital taxation exemptions for maintenance funds in the 1980 and 1982 Finance Acts.
Mr. Clement Freud: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be possible for the Minister to read his brief with a little more verve?
Mr. Macfarlane: I was referring to the steps taken to support private ownership, including the extension of capital taxation exemptions for maintenance funds in the 1980 and 1982 Finance Acts, and for gifts to charities in the Finance Act 1983. Those specific measures have been reinforced by other, general, changes which we have

1083
introduced, such as the reduction in the rates of income tax and, most recently, the reduction in the rates of capital transfer tax.
In the past few weeks we have also made known our intention to provide a heritage exemption from VAT. After the announcement in the Budget that VAT was to be extended to building alterations and improvements—it has always applied to repairs and maintenance — widespread concern has been provoked about the implications for historic buildings.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that many of us think that the provision is far from satisfactory. Although we appreciate the sentiment which prompted the announcement, we do not believe that it goes even a tenth of the way that is necessary to meet the problem.
Mr. Macfarlane: There are always arguments to be made. If I may develop my remarks about those elements, I hope that my hon. Friend will see that we have taken some steps in recent weeks, following the various comments from many quarters. I hope that he will see that we have been impressed by the representations. Certainly there were forceful ones from the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which made it very clear to us that the imposition of VAT on alteration work could have an adverse effect on both the amount and the quality of work done to our historic buildings. Therefore, the Government intend to table an amendment to the Finance Bill which will allow substantial relief to the owners and developers of those historic buildings included in the statutory list compiled by my right hon. Friend. I know that the relief does not go as far as some would wish, and clearly my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) is in that category. Certainly the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission would argue that very forcefully.
I know that the relief does not go as far as some would wish, but any case for special relief from taxation has to be considered very carefully in terms of implementation and—if it is not to raise expectations in other cases—the danger that the cumulative effect of a number of concessions may undermine a Budget strategy. But no one should underestimate the quality of tax relief that will flow from the amendment to the Finance Bill. I ask my hon. Friend to contemplate that and to look at the figures closely, because it is a substantial concession of direct benefit to the heritage.
I turn to the major institutional change which we have made in heritage matters and which underlines our determination to remove Government interference from the world of heritage generally. I refer, of course, to the establishment in April this year of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, which is now under the chairmanship of Lord Montagu.
The setting up of the new commission was, of course, provided for by the National Heritage Act 1983. As the Minister with responsibility for taking the legislation through the House, I found it a rewarding experience. I was delighted that the House was united in a constructive concern for the heritage, and many useful amendments to the Bill were made in Committee. Indeed, during the passage of the Bill numerous refinements were introduced,
1084
from changes in the title of the commission to adding a requirement that the commission should have a concern with historic gardens.
The legislation followed on from wide discussions with all the various interested groups. The consultation document had suggested that the activities concerned could best be performed by an agency outside the mainstream of Government Departments, which could unify the various functions, provide a forum for the expert professionalism required, and draw together the public and private sectors in a common cause. Those broad aims were widely supported.
In the course of paliamentary consideration, it was decided that certain major functions would remain with my Department—responsibility for the royal parks and the occupied and unoccupied palaces, such as the Tower of London, Hampton Court and Kensington palace, which themselves attract about 5 million visitors—and that the Secretary of State should have the same responsibility for listed historic buildings, the accelerated re-survey, scheduling ancient monuments and determining appeals and inquiries.
The remit of the commission is none the less an extremely challenging one. It is responsible for giving professional advice to the Secretary of State on listing and scheduling. It is also responsible for making grants for the preservation of historic buildings and ancient monuments, and for rescue archaeology, totalling about £25 million. Those grants go to major buildings, such as the Castle Howard mausoleum and Canons Ashby, to conservation and town schemes, such as those in Liverpool, and to a range of individual archaeological digs. The commission is also responsible directly for the care of about 400 national monuments, spanning the prehistoric at Stonehenge, the legacy of the Roman era in Hadrian's wall, and mediaeval and later buildings, such as the 17th century Audley End. To tackle that remit, the commission has a budget of £52 million in the current year. In the short period of its formal existence, it has already set about its business with verve and determination. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will have seen the publicity launching the commission and the English heritage initiative, which aims to tap the great reservoir of concern for the heritage. It is greatly to be hoped that Lord Montagu and his fellow commissioners will succeed in winning widespread recognition for the activity and effectiveness of the new body.
In this context, I think it appropriate to mention the agreement which has been reached over the future of the historic buildings division of the Greater London council. the Government's proposed abolition of the GLC has given rise to widespread concern in the capital and elsewhere about the future of the council's historic building division.
The care and protection of London's heritage is rooted in the history of our capital city. The Government wish to preserve and enhance London's heritage and have listened sympathetically to the views of those arguing for the retention of the historic buildings division as a unified organisation. The Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission shared that view and my right hon. Friend and I were delighted to be able to reach an agreement in principle with Lord Montagu that the historic division should be absorbed into the commission. There is, of course, a great deal of work to be done on the details of the transfer and working through all its many implications.

1085
The important point is that the Government have responded positively to the views of those intimately concerned and connected with London's heritage, and I am encouraged by the welcome they have given to our decision.
Mr. Mark Fisher: Is the Minister aware that he has now spoken for 12 minutes on historic buildings? Is he further aware that people who work in the arts, who work in the regional arts associations, and who make up the audience for the arts in Britain are looking to the debate for a lead from the Government on the arts? Will he turn his attention to the arts? Is he aware that, according to the Order Paper, the Select Committee report on the arts is considered to be relevant? Will he direct some of his comments to that report rather than to historic buildings?
Mr. Macfarlane: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber all the time——
Mr. Fisher: I have.
Mr. Macfarlane: —but I remind him that this is a wide-ranging debate. It covers many issues within the arts and the heritage. I have also said that my hon. Friend will touch on some of those subjects in his reply to the debate. When we are debating the arts and the heritage, it is clear that there are many subjects requiring coverage by myself and by other right hon. and hon. Members. If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) will wait until he has heard the remainder of my speech, he will see that I have been able to demonstrate to the House that it is a wide-ranging debate. I shall touch upon many subjects. He must understand that the narrow confines of what he wants to discuss will have to be absorbed in the far wider interest outside this House.
In respect of the metropolitan county councils, the Government have received many representations about the future of the archaeological units which have been set up and funded by those authorities. I would not wish to underestimate the importance of those organisations, but I cannot accept that it necessarily takes a whole tier of local government to ensure their continuing operation. This is an excellent example where local authorities can take direct responsibility for assessing the needs and priorities of their own areas. The metropolitan district councils have the power to get together to perform functions which are of concern to them all and to devote resources to those functions accordingly. It is also up to those councils to decide for themselves what they want to do. Meanwhile, project-based finance for individual rescue archaeological projects will continue to be available from the grant programme of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission.
Another of the institutional changes which we introduced through the National Heritage Act 1983 was the setting up of the armouries, as the National Museum of Arms and Armour, under a board of trustees. That, too, is an example of the partnership approach of co-operation between the Government and those who are intimately concerned with that aspect of our heritage.
The Armouries is the oldest public museum in the country and, as well as containing a fine collection of arms and armour, it is an acknowledged centre of world-wide expertise on the subject. There was no overriding reason to keep the museum as an integral part of my Department
1086
and it now has the opportunity to be funded and to manage its own detailed affairs independently of my Department and to bring together whatever experience and expertise may be right and necessary for it to develop and broaden its horizons.
Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is absolutely disgraceful. The entire arts world of Britain has been trying to hear from the Government what they propose to do about the living arts. We are having a debate on the arts and heritage. We have dipped back into history, claiming even the Venetian painters of the 15th and 16th centuries as ours, and have talked about heritage, but we have heard nothing about the main burden of the arts. Having waited 25 years, we are entitled to hear about it, even from this lot.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. The contents of the speech, so long as they are in order, are not a matter for me.
Mr. Macfarlane: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman may not be fully devoted to the arts and heritage and may feel a sense of frustration having to sit and listen to the Government's record. It is the finest ever, since my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) took over, with others of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment. It is a successful record. I well understand why the hon. Gentleman feels disgruntled and dismayed at such a great record.
The Armouries is an illustration of the way in which public and private interests can work together to preserve our heritage. Recently, I was delighted to announce the success of a public appeal to save the Southampton armour. The year before it had been sold at an auction and was destined for America. The Armouries immediately launched an appeal and the public responded magnificently. No less magnificent was the response of the national heritage memorial fund, which contributed half of the sum required, with a further substantial sum coming from the national arts collection fund. Now, and for the future, that superb suit of armour is on display for all to see.
Chatham historic dockyard is one of the most illustrious names in our Navy, but with the announcement that the Royal Navy was to leave Chatham came a general realisation that there, too, was an important and extensively preserved piece of British history. Behind the facade of a working naval dockyard, and underneath the grime of centuries of use, lay an almost intact Georgian dockyard. The vast majority of the British people were not aware of this and might have remained unaware had the departure of the Royal navy led to the destruction of Chatham's historic character
The Government were not prepared to let this happen and, with the advice of a consultant study into the potential of the historic dockyard, and with the ready and welcome co-operation of Kent county council, they have facilitated the setting up of a private trust to manage and promote it under the concept of a living dockyard. The general public should be able to see and appreciate the hustle and bustle of a dockyard in action and watch the actual business of rope, sail and flag making being carried out in the original buildings. Other buildings, such as Medway house, the port admiral's residence and the oldest surviving royal naval building, will need to be adapted to suitable new

1087
uses. In other words, it is not intended to be a dead museum. It is intended to develop it with new uses and industries as a fitting and lasting tribute to our naval heritage. The chairman, General Sir Steuart Pringle, and an impressive board of trustees are setting about this task.
The project is also important in respect of financing. The Government have given the trust an endowment of over £11 million pounds, but there the Government's funding ceases. It will be for the trust to secure its own sources of longer-term commercial and institutional investment. Once again, the guiding principle behind this initiative has been one of partnership, allocating equally important roles to the public and the private sectors.
I have already explained that the setting up of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission has not affected my Department's direct responsibility for the care and management of the royal palaces and the opening of the so called "unoccupied" palaces to the public. They include the Tower of London, Hampton Court palace and Kensington palace. Last year the number of visitors to these palaces was some 5 million, and the income from those admissions was in excess of £6 million—an increase of 9 per cent. on 1982. The palaces are in a sense big business, and we see the need to ensure that their revenue-earning capacity flourishes in order to contribute towards the cost of their upkeep.
I shall shortly be appointing a commercial manager seconded from the private sector to assume responsibility for the trading operation at the palaces, to build on last year's achievement of an increase in sales receipts of about 28 per cent. We hope that he will bring the necessary commercial expertise to enliven display and presentation and to improve the range and profitability of goods sold, consistent with the need to maintain standards of quality and good taste that are so important to that aspect of our heritage.
I should also draw the attention of the House to the number of developments that we have recently made at the royal palaces. The latest and most eye-catching development of recent years is the court dress collection at Kensington palace, which was opened by Her Royal Highness Princess Margaret on 23 May. The public have a unique opportunity of glimpsing something of a world that has largely passed away—the world of dresses and uniform once worn to court. Costume worn to the courts of eight British monarchs is on display, but the nucleus of the collection consists of over 400 items of uniform dating from Queen Victoria's reign.
The magnificent assembly of costume is on loan to Her Majesty the Queen from Mr. and Mrs. Aubrey Bowden and is displayed in rooms at the palace by gracious permission of Her Majesty. In addition to the rooms in which the collection is displayed, there are four rooms that have been restored to appear as they may have been at various times in the 19th century. I was pleased to learn that 800 visitors came to see the collection on the first day that it was open to the public, and that 6,000 have visited in the first two weeks of its opening.
In May 1983, Her Majesty the Queen opened the first phase of a new wall walk at the Tower of London. This adds a new dimension — that of height — to the experience of visiting the tower. On 2 April this year, the second phase was opened. Visitors now obtain new and
1088
fine views of the Thames and of the white tower and other buildings within the tower precints from the top of the inner curtain wall.
The new section of the wall walk enables the visitor to go through the Wakefield tower built by Henry III in the 13th century. Refurbishment of the first floor room of this tower gives the feel of what it might have been like in Henry III's day. From there, visitors walk along the wall to the Lanthorn tower where there are new displays commemorating the Tower of London in the Victorian period.
There is also a model of a Victorian yeoman warder wearing full state dress——
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is treating us to a brief that is purely descriptive and which could have been given by an information officer from his Department. May we please hear about the Government's thinking and philosophy? This is a serious debate and we have been waiting 25 years for it.
Mr. Macfarlane: I hope that I am demonstrating to my hon. Friend that the Government's record in the past five years has ensured that many of these developments and projects are coming to fruition. The policy and philosophy has developed over several years. I hope that it will demonstrate that we are ensuring that such developments attract tourism and interest and are part of this country's heritage. I am certain that everyone must consider his attitude to the philosophy of the arts and heritage, but it is also important to demonstrate what is available in this country, and to harness it.
Mr. Fisher: I have a question for the Minister, arising from that reply. Has he read the Select Committee report and, if so, will he direct his attention to some of its recommendations?
Mr. Macfarlane: If the hon. Gentleman will wait, he will discover that I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West will cover all of those points during the debate. The debate ranges over all the points mentioned in the Select Committee report, as well as the arts and our heritage. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear with me while I try to demonstrate the Government's record. I can understand his frustration. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed.
Mr. Fisher: Have you, or have you not, read the Select Committee report?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not query my reading habits.
Mr. Macfarlane: The royal parks in central London and at Greenwich are an important dimension to a prized part of our heritage. No other western European country has such an area at its heart. The royal parks are more heavily used and deeply appreciated than ever before. This year they look magnificent and I pay tribute to the bailiff and his staff.
There is hardly any need for me to remind the House that the royal parks were all originally the personal property of the Sovereign. They still are. Successive royal owners have improved the parks and the passing years have witnessed different characters emerge for each of them.
Features have been introduced and have become accepted as part of the natural appearance of the parks. Other features and usages have appeared, been a part of

1089
London life for a short while, and have sunk back into oblivion. That fascinating and chequered history presents certain problems for today. As with many of our historic monuments, they are layers of history in the fabric of our parks. Unlike many monuments, however, they are not just to be admired, visited and studied; they are there to be used, if not for hunting deer as originally intended, then for pursuing a love of the countryside and green space.
One major problem affecting our heritage landscape has, of course, been the terrific loss of trees, not least through the depredations of Dutch elm disease. This has, of course, affected the royal parks, too. Our commitment to caring for the heritage can be seen from the fact that while over the past decade some 12,000 trees were lost in the parks, about 13,000 new ones have been planted and are now growing to maturity.
Mr. Tony Banks: Will the Minister acknowledge the GLC's role in creating new parks? I apologise for the fact that I missed some of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but he has been speaking for a very long time about the steps that the Government are taking to lessen the impact of the GLC's abolition. If the Government have their way and the GLC is abolished, who will be responsible for constructing new regional parks in London? We must look to the future as well as living off the past.
Mr. Macfarlane: I am not so sure that the hon. Gentleman is totally convincing when he says that the GLC has taken great care. The GLC's historic buildings division undoubtedly enjoys an enormous reputation, but it was removed from county hall in November 1982 to make way for the organisation covering the women's committee and the ethnic minority groups. I am not 100 per cent. certain whether those in the historic buildings division and local London parks felt that they were desperately wanted by the GLC.
Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and the district and borough councils have a role in developing a policy. Indeed, that is clearly outlined in our policy for streamlining the cities. However, the royal parks are an important part of our heritage.
Mr. Toby Jessel: A moment ago my hon. Friend the Minister referred to royal parks in, I think, central London and Greenwich. I am sure that he would not wish to leave out those in my constituency, such as Bushy park and Home park, Hampton Court, which are certainly not in central London or Greenwich. Indeed, they are further away from central London than Greenwich is.
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was talking about the centre of London, but I certainly acknowledge the important role that all the royal parks play in our heritage. I am certainly glad to have my hon. Friend's approval on that.
I think that the House will be interested to know that we are anxious to preserve the unique character of the royal parks and that we also have to make allowance for appropriate modern developments. We also have to balance those developments and recently my Department commissioned consultants to undertake a series of historic surveys of the royal parks. Most of the reports have now been received—copies are in the Library of the House—and are being diested by my Department.
Mr. Martin Flannery rose——
Mr. Macfarlane: I shall give way in a moment. At the end of the day, following this exercise, we should have a much more up-to-date and sharply defined understanding of the components that make up the individual character of each royal park, and an idea of the priorities for action.
Mr. Flannery: One cannot intervene, because the Minister is speaking so quickly. I wish to return to something that he said about 30 seconds ago, which now seems far in the distance. I refer to the trees that he mentioned. It is a peculiar attitude to adopt to conservation and our heritage that there should be a Wildlife and Countryside Act—which is really an anti-wildlife and countryside Act—and that the countryside should be turned into prairies on a grand scale, so that there are 1,000-acre fields and farmers can do exactly what they want, yet the Minister can say that the Government are deeply concerned about a few trees. That seems to be an almost infinitesimal number to boast about compared with how many have been wantonly destroyed throughout the country.
Mr. Macfarlane: In the context of the royal parks, it is not an infinitesimal number. They are an important dimension to the royal parks, and I was merely providing some statistics which may or may not be of interest to hon. Members. I was trying to demonstrate the Government's role and their record—[Interruption.] The Government have a role in ensuring that the parks are well husbanded and that the trees are replaced in what is, after all, a most important part of our heritage. The same is true elsewhere. That is why my Department, the Scottish Office, and the Welsh Office have been working closely with local authorities to ensure that those parts of the country whose trees have suffered from the various diseases and ravages have them replaced.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my hon. Friend aware that the very serious problem that has been created for the heritage and the environment as a result of Dutch elm disease has given some artists, and particularly sculptors, an advantage. It has released a lot of timber for carving, because that disease affects only the bark. I speak from considerable experience, as my son is a professional sculptor and uses tons of elm for carving. The availability of that wood is a great advantage to sculptors, and I hope that the Government will ensure that it is passed on to them.
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend, as always, has an interesting commentary to make on most facets of the arts and heritage. In the case that he cited, one person's loss is clearly another person's gain. I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that there is much that we must do to restore the great losses that we have suffered over the years. Trees are an important component part of our heritage.
I referred earlier to the support given by the Government to the appeal launched by the Courtauld Institute, which represents another important part of our heritage—[Interruption.] Opposition Members may not think that that is so, but I am glad that I still have the attention of the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), as I had thought that he was a reluctant attender of this debate. The exciting outcome of that initiative is, of course, to be seen in the proposal to house the institute and the fine Courtauld collection in the north block at

1091
Somerset house, which as been accepted by the House. The Fine rooms—which were built in the 18th century to house the Royal Academy, the Royal Society and the Society of Antiquaries—have, sadly, lain empty for over a decade.
In order that the splendid rooms in the north block of this impressive building can again be used in a way similar to that originally intended by its architect, Sir William Chambers, the Government have agreed in principle to lease the north block to the University of London, restricting the use of the Fine rooms to artistic or cultural purposes. Hon. Members will know that a Bill has recently passed through the House to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to do just that.
The Courtauld Institute intends to install 80 per cent. of its excellent art collection in the Fine rooms, and the rest of the north block will be used to house its libraries. Other rooms are to be used for teaching and as offices. The institute will eventually be opening the Fine rooms to the public, who will be able to appreciate not only the artistic and cultural pearls offered by the institute, but the interior of this important part of Somerset house. But there is no question that the Courtauld Institute will do other than justice to one of the most historic and beautiful buildings in London.
I have spoken of the major examples of our built heritage such as the royal palaces, the Tower of London, Castle Howard and Stonehenge, but that heritage also consists of a much larger number of smaller and less conspicuous buildings from all periods of our history—buildings which serve as ordinary family homes, or are used for commercial or industrial purposes. If their place in our heritage history is to be properly appreciated, it is necessary that they should be properly identified and protected.
That is the purpose of the statutory list of buildings of special architectural or historic interest, the compilation of which remains the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The first listing survey of this country was carried out in the 1950s and 1960s. During the course of its completion, however, there was a shift in perception of what constituted our architectural heritage. In particular, greater importance was attached to the more ordinary dwellings of the 17th and 18th centuries, as well as to the great variety of architecture produced in the Victorian period. In 1970, the Historic Buildings Council proposed new criteria for selecting buildings, and these were approved by Government, with the result that a second national survey, a resurvey, was set in hand.
When we came into office five years ago, only about a third of the country had been resurveyed. Lack of progress was beginning to jeopardise the usefulness of the exercise. We therefore decided on an acceleration of the resurvey, which should secure its completion within the next three years—some 20 years earlier than would otherwise have been the case.
The exercise is a major undertaking in terms of staff effort, and we decided that the programme should draw on the resources of both the public and private sectors. About half the field work is being carried out by the staff of 20 county councils and two metropolitan districts which had the expertise, and the staff available, to make a quick start. This phase of the programme began in 1982, and is already about half complete. The second phase began work this
1092
year, using 11 private sector firms of architects to carry out the field work in 22 counties and to prepare draft lists. In each case the field workers are supervised by the Historic Buildings Inspectorate of the new commission and the draft lists are considered by the inspectorate and my Department before being issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
This use of private firms is, indeed, an innovation in this field. Hitherto all listing work had been carried out by public officials — professionals who had built up considerable expertise over many years in the evaluation of historic buildings. But private sector architects include among their number many who have for years been closely involved in conservation work, bringing new life to old buildings by updating them for today's needs while preserving their historic interest and painstakingly restoring architectural or historic features.
Mr. Robert Banks: Will my hon. Friend recognise that it is essential to be selective in the process of preservation? There is a danger that we may preserve so much that we become fossilised by our own history, to the detriment of putting up new and exciting modern buildings.
Mr. Macfarlane: I am aware of the anxiety that many people have expressed and I shall come to that in a moment.
It is impossible to say exactly how many buildings will be listed by the time the whole exercise is complete, but it is likely that the total will be in the region of 400,000. This would represent an increase of over 40 per cent. in the number of listed buildings at the start of our accelerated programme. The completion of the resurvey is of particular importance. Much of our heritage is lost through lack of knowledge, and greater awareness can bring benefits to owners and to the wider public who see listed buildings in our towns and villages.
The inclusion of a building in the statutory list has the effect that no significant alterations or extensions to that building and no demolition may be carried out without obtaining listed building consent. During the past five years, my Department has continued to encourage local planning authorities to be diligent in using their powers in respect of listed building consent.
We have also implemented a strengthening of the powers safeguarding scheduled ancient monuments and areas of archaeological importance. There is already a system of scheduled monument consent, introduced by the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979 which replaced the previous system of notification.
I have also stressed the importance of proper identification and assessment of the many examples of our built heritage, and this purpose underlies the compilation of the statutory list of historic buildings and the schedule of ancient monuments. In this context, I must also mention the work of the Royal Commission on historical monuments, which was established just over 75 years ago wth the remit of making an inventory of ancient and historical monuments and constructions.
In the years since its establishment, the Royal Commission has gained a high reputation for its scholarly recording of the heritage. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Royal Commission's chairman from 1972, Lord Adeane, and to say how saddened I was by the news of his death on 30 April of this year.

1093
Lord Adeane gave unstinting service to his country, and it was indeed fortunate that a very formative and challenging period in the history of the Royal Commission coincided with his chairmanship. I am glad that the important work of the Royal Commission continues to progress, helped particularly by the computerisation of the national monuments record.
I have addressed the theme of today's debate so far from a national perspective, but we should not forget that our artistic and historic legacy is of world-wide interest.
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend has been speaking now for six minutes short of an hour. He has not yet mentioned the report of the Select Committee, which some of us spent two years slaving over.
Mr. Macfarlane: My hon. Friend must surely understand that there are many hours to go in the debate and many things to be discussed.
Mr. Cormack rose——
Mr. Macfarlane: I shall give way again in a moment, but I must point out to my hon. Friend that the Government have responded fully to that report.
Mr. Cormack: After 18 months the Government gave a brief reply to the report. It has not yet been debated in the House and we have had no reference at all from my hon. Friend to the Government's reply. It is not good enough. It is treating the Select Committee with total contempt.
Mr. Macfarlane: I am sorry if my hon. Friend feels aggrieved, but he must be fully aware that the Government have responded to that report. No doubt my hon. Friend will have an opportunity, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to advance his concern about it. He must understand that there are many important issues. I am anxious to demonstrate the Government's record in the arts and heritage generally. While the Select Committee no doubt fulfilled a most important role, he must understand that we have many responsibilities, most of which I am anxious that the House should hear about this afternoon.
We should not forget that tourism is an important and growing sector of the economy. In 1983 its turnover amounted to some £9 billion and it provided employment for around 1 million people. Foreign exchange earnings, excluding fares paid to carriers, came to nearly £4 billion. As tourism grows in its importance to our economy, so does the value of our heritage as an economic as well as a cultural asset. It is a massive selling point for this country. I hope that the hon. Member for Paisley, South, with his jaundiced approach, will acknowledge that the people who work in tourism create perhaps 1 million jobs.
In 1982 it is estimated that some 43 million visits were made to historic properties and some 52 million visits to museums and galleries. Surveys carried out by the British Tourist Authority showed that nearly 80 per cent. of overseas visitors visit historic properties while in Britain—a rich part of our heritage.
The historic richness of our country has been adopted by the British Tourist Authority as the central theme for encouraging tourism to Britain this year. This theme, promoted under the banner of "Heritage '84", has attracted considerable support from within the industry, and the coming months will see a wide range of special events.
There is a significant economic dimension to the protection of our heritage and to the fostering of the arts
1094
which we recognise and welcome warmly. But the amenity movement in this country, the realisation within our society that our history is a finite resource that must be properly husbanded, pre-dates the age of mass tourism, as does the Government response to this movement which we continue to develop today. We emphasise that the Government's responsibility does not mean domination. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my noble Friend retain important individual responsibilities for the arts and heritage.
At the same time, however, through the launch of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, for example, we have acted on our belief that the wider interest of bodies in this sphere is a strength, not a weakness.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford began the dynamic approach to the arts. It was continued by my noble Friend and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. We in Government are vigilant and shall continue to fulfil that responsibility, which we recognise. I hope that in so doing we can widen and strengthen the partnership with those other groups in society who form such a valuable component in the arts and heritage. They also share our concern. I hope that everyone in the House, of whatever party, will be vigilant and act in any way possible to ensure that the arts and the heritage continue to thrive.
4.46 pm
Mr. Norman Buchan: We have waited 58 minutes for the end of this tawdry speech. I was angry when I heard that the debate would coincide with the European election. My anger was shared throughout the arts in Britain.
We have waited 25 years to have a full-scale debate on the arts. Among other things we have had the largest and deepest analysis of the arts by a Select Committee. There have been sheaves of comments about its report and about the crisis that is facing the arts. Yet this debate is taking place on a day when it was known that many of those who are most concerned could not be here. It is being held on a day when it is impossible for people concerned with the arts to come to lobby their Members of Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because there are so few Members here. The fact that some Conservative Members have been dragooned to sit still for 58 minutes of tawdriness is a sign that what I am saying is true. There are some hon. Members here who are concerned, including the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) who is keen that there should be more Dutch elm disease so that his son can get wood for his sculpture.
I am not sure whether the Government are playing a deliberate joke on the House. If they are, it is an insult to the House. I am not sure whether a civil servant in the Department responsible for the arts, libraries and museums is playing a trick upon the Minister. If so, the Minister has fallen for it enthusiastically.
The only other time I have heard a brief being read in the way that the Minister read his brief was the famous occasion in another place when a Minister turned over to the last page and read aloud, "The above argument will not hold water, but it will do for their Lordships." The Minister's speech was an absolute disgrace.
We are interested and concerned about the heritage, but only in so far as it stimulates and develops the present. It is not enough to say that the arts in this country are

1095
concerned with court dress in royal palaces in the 18th century. We are concerned not just about the number of trees that have been replanted in parks, but about young people who seek provision to express themselves. If there were any period in our history when it was important for us to have a debate on the arts, it is this period.
Two years ago I visited a local factory which produced aero-engines. Engines came along on a conveyor belt about 15 ft high—the shining steel glittering pillar of the central core of the aero-engine. I saw a new machine tool which I did not understand and I asked what it was. They said that it was called the library. It was a round drum, not far off the height of the bottom of the Gallery, with pieces of metal sticking out. I was allowed to see it at work. One man was supervising with a screen and a white coat. As the pillar came along an arm went down into the machine tool, took out one particular tool, cut a strip with it, returned it, chose another tool which automatically bored, returned it and chose another tool which automatically ground. The operation was entirely automated. There was a man there doing nothing but watching a screen. He was no longer using his hands to turn and twist metal, but watching a machine. I asked how many people had worked on that operation previously. I was told 73. Because of that machine tool, 73 people were out of a job.
The enormous development of technology can make for us a society in which our leisure can profitably be used. That used to be the hallmark of the Tories. The Tory gentleman was marked by his concern with the enhancement of leisure. There were gentleman then. In the Cabinet of this Government all the gentlemen have been sacked. Indeed, one of them is present. The Government are not concerned about the arts because it does not profit them. The Government only understand profit and loss accounts. To know the price of everything and the value of nothing is the hallmark of this Government.
We have waited 25 years to see whether the Government would begin to understand the nature of the society which they are corrupting and so shoddily treating, but there is not a glimmer. We have heard nearly 60 minutes of rubbish. Moreover, there was no sign that the Minister had read his brief in advance. It was not even well read. It was disgraceful.
I heard the anger of the arts this morning when 200 arts organisations came to discuss the arts with us. We heard anger about the cutbacks in support for the arts. There was no praise for what the Government are spending on the arts. Had they been able to do so, they would have strangled the Minister, and for once in my pacifist life I would have agreed with such a course.
This has been an appalling, shoddy, tawdry, ignoble day for the House of Commons. It is a disgrace. The Government are treating the arts with contempt. Furthermore, they are treating democracy with contempt by having this debate on the same day as an important election.
Mr. Flannery: Like the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), I was on the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. I have listened to the Minister reading his brief for 58 minutes with a completely detached bureaucratic lack of interest and seen the way in which the Government have been
1096
glorified. It made me think of one particular instance when we were working hard to ensure that there would be a national theatre museum in Covent Garden. The Rayner report came out and we sent for Derek Rayner. All he wanted to do was to cut, cut and cut. He was an expert in that. There was no dispute in the Committee about the struggle that we put up for that museum. But that has not been mentioned by the Minister, who gave the impression that all was well in the world of the arts. In fact, the submissions that we received were so heavy that to carry them from home—up north in my case—was difficult. They showed the worry of the whole of the arts world about the break-up of the GLC and the metropolitan counties. That is the situation, and it is utterly contrary to what the Minister has so bureaucratically read out, without even reading it in advance.
Mr. Buchan: I agree with every word of that. Indeed, in a sense, my hon. Friend has taken the words out of my mouth.
There was a response to the Select Committee report, but it was shoddy and brief. It was like the 10 commandments — thou shalt not spend more money; thou shalt not give special concessions to business people. The recommendations say that there should be a Ministry for the arts, heritage and tourism. No, said the Government. The Minister should produce an annual White Paper for discussion. No, said the Government. Local authorities should be given a statutory responsibility and each local authority should make an annual return. No, said the Government. There was a whole set of recommendations relating to local authorities which in each case were rejected on the simple ground that the giving of statutory responsibilities to local authorities is not a matter for the Government.
But, of course, that is precisely a matter for the Government. It was suggested that every publicly subsidised organisation should give at least one free performance. That was rejected. It was suggested that businesses should be exempt from tax on a percentage of their pre-tax profits for all donations to the arts. Rejected. It was suggested that companies should devote up to 1 per cent. of new building budgets to purchases of works of art. Rejected. It was suggested that businesses should provide facilities for the display of works of art. Rejected. Even the propositions to advance their arguments on sponsorship have been rejected. It is a disgrace.
We are facing a number of specific problems, some of which the Select Committee explored and would have at least given us an opportunity to discuss to find a way forward. They have been rejected. We could have had the most fruitful of debates today if the Minister had at least instructed his office to give him a brief on the Committee's report. That would have been helpful.
Why are the arts so angry and why will they be so angry after this display today? First, there is the problem of money. The Minister boasted that for the first time the funding of the arts in millions of pounds is running into three figures. It is about £101 million. What he forgot was that part of that figure has already been earmarked by the Government for what they call prestigious national institutions and centres of excellence—to be precise, opera. That has been imposed on the Arts Council by the Government, and the Minister said that it would not be proper for him to discuss it today. Then when the hell is it proper to discuss that matter? That means that support

1097
for the rest of the arts has been cut. Other than the four national institutions for which the Government have earmarked funds, funding for the arts has been cut. There has been an increase of about 3 per cent.—only slightly more than half the rate of inflation.
I shall discuss the Arts Council report. We, the Parliament of Britain, are entitled to discuss that report. I should have thought that it was the Minister's duty to discuss the Arts Council report. That report fully accepts the Government's argument. When it comes to opera it says that it cannot intervene because the Government have decided that the money should be earmarked for national opera, and therefore the council cannot say that that area should be cut back. The very fact of earmarking has not only given more money to one section, which therefore means less to the rest, but that of itself has dictated the nature of the Arts Council's behaviour.
Hitherto we have believed in the arm's-length principle for the arts. We do not want the Government to intervene directly in the arts. We believe that we should have a buffer between the Government and arts organisations—the Arts Council. This is the first time that there has been such a direct intervention, and it means that there will be less money for the arts. A principle has also been established, that the Arts Council states in its report that it cannot interfere with something if it is clearly what the Government want. That is the heresy of the cracking of the arm's-length principle.
Two other heresies are involved. The first is connected with what is being done in relation to the local authorities. As we all know, the motive behind the scrapping of the metropolitan county councils and the GLC is personal political pique. In order to get rid of Ken Livingstone, the Government decided to scrap the GLC, and in order to appear consistent they had to scrap the MCCs, too.
On that cheap basis, all the arts have been thrown into fearful dificulty. The Arts Council states that its entire development programme depends upon matching money, and the matching funds can come from only two sources. The first source is business. There is an attempt to induce business to provide a little more money, because not enough money is being offered. The cigarette companies, which are fighting to stay in business, like to be generous to good causes. However, sponsorship from such a source may not do the good causes much good. Apart from that, business sponsorship is not working, so Government money has to he advanced to encourage it.
The real area in which matching funds are to be sought, so that the Arts Council can provide support, is that of the local authorities. Even though the local authorities are being cut, capped or abolished, "The Glory of the Garden" states:
"the success of the development programme will depend, in large measure, on the extent to which it attracts funds from other sources, in many instances on the matching basis referred to above."
The development adumbrated by the Arts Council—limited as it is by Government earmarking—depends upon matching funds. On page 11, we learn more about the matching funds:
"To finance many of its proposals"—
if the Minister had had the grace to look at the Arts Council report, he could have claimed credit for those developments—
"the Council will issue challenges to local communities to match its funding, at least in part, whether from local authority resources or other locally-raised funds."
1098
Local authorities are being given less money and they are being capped if they try to raise money themselves. None the less, if they do not match the Arts Council funds, the developments will not take place. The authorities do not have the money. They will be in an intolerable dilemma. They will have to decide whether to save an old people's home or a quartet, whether to build a nursery school or a theatre. That is what the cutting and capping will mean.
The question will no longer be one of priorities; it will be one of dictated priorities. Yet, rightly, the Government were willing to earmark funds centrally for opera. The earmarking of funds for opera should have been allied to an understanding of the necessity for our national institutions to play their role not as static centres of excellence, but as touring powerhouses for the regions, in areas whose local authorities have been enough given money to welcome them.
There is another heresy. The Government turned against Ken Livingstone in a fit of political pique, but they did not have an atom of understanding of what structures were to take the place of those that are to be abolished. They still do not know, and the arts, above all, will suffer, because the arts require wider support and organisation.
For instance, the Eden Court theatre in Inverness was supported by the Highland region. The relationship between regional and district authorities in Scotland was roughly equivalent to that between the metropolitan councils and the borough councils. That theatre was supported by the regional council and backed by three out of 10 district councils. There has now been a change in Scotland. When we predict what will happen after the abolition of the MCCs and the GLC, we base our prediction on what has already happened in Scotland. We can see the results of the removal of funding for the arts in Scotland from the regions to the districts. Local authority support for the Scottish national orchestra has been reduced by about one sixth already over the year because of this.
In order to save the theatre, the Highland region proposed to transfer its ownership and the loan fund charges which it is paying to its education department, so that the region could continue to support the theatre. One of the councils has taken Highland region to court to prevent that, so that it will not have to contribute to the regional funds to support the theatre. If the case goes against Highland region, the whole cost will fall upon one district council—Inverness.
If rates are raised over a wide area, the whole area contributes to the theatre. When the area is hacked into its constituent parts, only the district council is whose area the theatre is set will be regarded as the body which should support it. Funding will collapse. We are not making predictions. We are talking about what is happening in Scotland.
The Government propose to deal with the problem by setting up a joint board of some kind. They have not given the matter much thought. They have been thinking only about their scrap with Ken Livingstone. They have not thought this through. If they do that, we shall be confronted by the second heresy — taxation without representation. Even if the £34 million is and continues to be provided, there will be no democratic basis for that provision. In no sense will the wishes of the community be reflected. The amount will be dictated by the Government.

1099
One of the few hard nuggets in the Minister's speech was that £34 million was to be provided to replace local authority funding. A number of problems are involved here. If the £16 million for local authority arts is provided on a continuing basis for district councils which were constituent parts of the abolished authorities, what will the other district councils say? If the Government continue to provide money for district councils which were formerly constituents of MCCs, but not for the rest of England and Wales, the other district councils will stop producing money—and rightly so, because all the councils will be on a par. The Government have not considered that dilemma. Do they mean to continue to provide £34 million for all the district councils chopped out of the MCCs or the GLC?
The arts are fearful about the consequences of rate-capping, cuts and abolition. They are also worried about the distaste felt by the present chairman of the Arts Council—and perhaps by the Government—for certain theatres. The list of theatres whose funding is to be withdrawn makes interesting reading. Among the touring companies, CAST Presentations, M6 Theatre Company, Mikron Theatre Company, 7:84 Theatre Company and Temba Theatre Company are all to be cut. All those theatres produce socially involved plays — what Conservative Members would call political plays. Temba Theatre Company is perhaps the most significant, professional, and best-known black theatre company in the country. The Arts Council document states that we must pay attention to the ethnic arts, but the Arts Council's one overt action—apart from pious words—is to cut funding for that theatre company. They are all touring companies, yet the Government and the Arts Council claim that they are embarking on a policy of regionalisation. There can be no regional development without touring companies.
Mr. Tim Brinton: Although the hon. Gentleman has expressed an opinion on Arts Council policy, with which I do not necessarily agree, he is about to touch on a fundamental problem with all arts funding — that ultimately someone, at arm's length or otherwise, must take a decision on taste. If the hon. Gentleman is being critical of the present system — I suggest that the system faces more difficulties under budgetary constraint than under budgetary affluence — would he like to say what he would put in its place to secure the mutual balance that he seeks?
Mr. Buchan: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient, I shall deal with that at the end of my speech. The Opposition do not merely criticise. We have views and values that are not merely to do with price.
The Arts Council claims to be developing the regions. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent London constituencies were wrong to argue that London alone has been attacked to pay for the regions. The regions are also being attacked. The Arts Council has been accused of robbing Peter to pay Paul because it is doing precisely that—or, rather, robbing Peter to rob Paul.
What in the name of heaven is the justification given, by a Government and an Arts Council which have earmarked special funds for national opera, for cutting funding to Opera 80? Until this year the Arts Council has sung the praises of Opera 80. It is a small group comprising 15 musicians and 10 singers who alternate
1100
between forming the chorus or being the principals. It should be remembered that the Arts Council has praised Opera 80's touring policy. When the company asked whether the council wanted it to change that policy, the council said that it did not. The Arts Council's justification for cutting Opera 80's funding is as follows:
"Of the medium-scale and other small-scale opera companies which receive Arts Council subsidy—Glyndebourne Touring Opera, Kent Opera and Opera 80"—
the council says—
"the first two have maintained high artistic standards".
There is a nice little smear, bearing in mind the fact that every piece of Arts Council literature that I have seen on Opera 80 has said the opposite. The justification continues:
"partly through the Council's own influence, they have developed valuable links with specific regions. Opera 80 on the other hand tours nationally".
The Arts Council does not have the courage to criticise Opera 80's standards, because it cannot justify such an allegation so it criticises Opera 80 for touring nationally and
"spending only a few nights in any one place and serving some venues no more often than for three performances every two years."
Read with a different tone, that would be high praise. Opera 80 clearly gets around. That is what touring is all about. It is appalling that an attempt at arts strategy should be so blocked by elitist thinking and a failure to understand what purports to be the strategy. I welcome the fact that the Arts Council has produced a strategy. It has not got it right and does not understand regionalisation, but at least it pays lip service to regionalisation, so we might be able to build on that.
My right hon. and hon. Friends might be surprised to learn that I believe that the case for the arts, which the Government have so abjectly surrendered to the monetarism of the Prime Minister, should not just be based on the value and merit of the arts. The 73 men I mentioned at the beginning of my speech who are to become unemployed are symptomatic of the leisured society that we can and shall have and in which the arts will play an important part.
The economic argument might appeal better to Conservative Members. It has been used in regard to our heritage and should be used in regard to the theatres and music that are rejected by this most philistine of Governments. The arts pay. Some Conservative Members might have read an article in Stage and Television Today by Terence Frisby, who wrote "There's a Girl in my Soup", pointing out what happened to a £14,000 grant that he received from the Arts Council to put on a production. Actors are often unemployed for most of the year, but suddenly they now had jobs so they paid their national insurance stamp, from which the Government got revenue. They also paid VAT, from which the Government also got revenue. They paid income tax, from which the Government got revenue. Having received a £14,000 grant, £44,000 was paid back to the Government. That is the type of accounting that the leaderene understands—money in, money out. The arts are profitable, therefore, and they stimulate local economies. People are given jobs in theatres, even as cleaners.
Perhaps I should pick up the favourite argument in regard to the arts—tourism. Raymond Williams once asked why, every time we try to defend the arts, we start with the tourism argument. The answer is that when we

1101
are living with the forces of darkness we have to quote money at them or they will not listen. The arts generate an enormous income by way of tourism. I shall take the example of the Edinburgh festival. Industry and commerce provide £200,000. For each £1 that is put into the festival, £20 comes back through increased business because of the festival. It is worth noting that the local authority is being attacked for not putting in more money, although it is being hammered by the Government who are cutting the rates and capping local authority spending. Last year, London's arts were responsible for about £2 billion in tourism. It is suggested that tourism in London generates £4 billion and that half of that is stimulated by the arts. One of the greatest tourist countries is America, where people happen to speak English. Virtually every American who visits Europe spends some time in Britain because of the language. Americans go to Rome, Athens and Florence to see the past, and they come to London or other parts of Britain to hear music and see plays.
I was asked what Labour would do. We would respond to the Select Committee. I do not agree with a great deal in its report, but it should still be discussed so that, out of the argument, we might get a reasonably harmonious view of what should be done. We do not regard art and the heritage as isolated from the rest of our existence. The Minister for the Arts—who has now gone—said that we should be taking politics out of the arts.
Mr. Crouch: He was not here.
Mr. Buchan: Perhaps that was always the case. That is the answer—he was never here. That is a pity, because we could do with a Minister for the Arts. By the way, we could do with a Minister for the Arts rather than the Minister we have heard this afternoon. Above all, there should be a Minister for the Arts in the House.
We do not regard art as separate from life, nor do we think that it is sharply party political. The arts sharpen our awareness; they fray away at the nerve edge of our understanding and make us think and look. The one piece of activity that made people understand the desperate problem of homelessness in the country was not the do-good societies, the Labour party or the trade unions arguing about the percentage of houses being built, but a television play called "Cathy Come Home." Almost overnight it sharpened our awareness. It gave no answers, but it made us aware of the problem. It is up to us to produce answers. As to unemployment, a play, "Boys from the Blackstuff", was the most important political event.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): Near the beginning of his speech, the hon. Gentleman delivered a great attack on everything that the Arts Council had done. The first item was a defence of the arm's-length principle. I thought that the end of his speech would therefore be interesting, because I wanted to debate with him how we could ensure that the Arts Council did exactly what he wanted at arm's-length, or what new institution he would propose that would be under political control. That is an interesting point that my hon. Friends will wish to debate.
Mr. Buchan: I said that it was a major heresy. I accept that the breaching of the arm's length principle was a major heresy. As next Minister for the Arts, I do not want to tell theatre or music companies what to do. When the
1102
Arts Council fails to understand the import of some of its own policies, and when it can close down, for example, a black theatre, which was the leading black theatre in the country, I am entitled to intervene and say that it should be supported. It is they who have breached the heresy. As Shylock said,
"it shall go hard, but I will better the instruction."
I would not intervene, but we must keep in reservation the right to protect and support the ethnic and community arts. One of the ways in which we can do this without intervention is to allow local authorities to take that kind of initiative. That is the answer that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mr. Crouch: The intervention of my hon. Friend has raised an important point. We would like to know where the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), as a future Minister for the Arts one day perhaps, would stand on the question of the attitude of the Government towards the Arts Council as the impartial arbiter of decisions about what should be shown, and the use of Government expenditure to back the arts. For example, the Prince of Wales recently criticised modern architecture. He criticised piles of bricks in the form of modern buildings. Where does the hon. Gentleman stand as regards a recent pile of bricks exhibited in the Tate Gallery? Does he realise that there was one defender of that pile of bricks—myself?
Mr. Buchan: That does not surpise me. At least the speech of the Prince of Wales was more important for the arts in this country than the speech of the Minister this afternoon.
The real indictment of the Government is their failure to understand what is happening. No Government but the present Government could have put into the middle of the last Budget the capital tax allowance proposal without understanding what they were doing to the film industry. The film industry has been dealt a body blow by this announcement. The film industry awaits with intense apprehension what will happen. There is also the proposal to do away with the Eady levy instead of developing and using it for British-based productions. This country has the best film making and film-making techniques, yet we are helping to support the blockbuster American productions while ours have been gaining Oscars on smaller budgets, and that is likely to be evaporated by the Government. We cannot go on expecting cultural and commercial success from an industry which will be further starved of resources. I understand that Sir Richard Attenborough is having to go to America to seek finance for a film on Biko and the South African incident. I hope that at this late stage the Government may be persuaded to find a substantial source of long-term finance that will give the industry a sound base for future developments.
I wish to deal briefly with how we see the future. Under the Government, we see the future as grim. I want to give the Minister a word of advice on one point relating to heritage—the export of works of art. The Government should listen to some of the words of wisdom that came: out from the recent debate in the Lords. It can be done simply in one way if the period of time for which the Minister prevented a work from being exported were considerably extended. The Minister should also consider the French experience. The French, when any particular work of art comes up for sale, say that it shall not be exported, and this brings down the price immediately.

1103
While there is a danger that this might lead to smuggling, it should be examined. Not one word of the Minister's speech referred to this matter. It was not a speech, but an inventory. The hon. Gentleman might at least have mentioned it in his list.
As to the future, we think it is nonsense that the Minister with responsibility for sport should be present ostensibly to talk about the arts, while in fact he talked about royal palaces. Is there any worse indictment of the nonsense of departmental responsibilities than that? It is nonsense to have this variety of Departments. At present, the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Trade and Industry are involved and, in the case of broadcasting, the Home Office is involved. The film industry is involved I believe with the Board of Trade, because Mr. Harold Wilson, as he was, was president in 1947. We intend to pull these Departments together. The cultural implications are not separate from the financial problems for films. The Home Office responsibility in regard to broadcasting is untenable. We intend to deal with that by establishing a Ministry for the Arts and Communications in the widest sense, covering theatre, music, dance — at all levels — and broadcasting, television and films. For the first time, there would be what we have abysmally missed this afternoon — a powerful Ministry in defence and support of the arts, because the Minister would be in the Cabinet.
On the structure of the Arts Council, a simple proposition can be made. It is necessary to project two simple elements of democracy into the Arts Council. First, it should be made more representative. It should include elected representatives of various types of activity in the country from local authorities and the arts. Advisory panels should have the power to elect their own chairmen. I have been following with great anxiety what has been happening to the literature panel, which has a full-time director and a chairman who does not really believe in what is being done. That is intolerable. It could be avoided by giving the advisory panels the power to elect their own chairmen. The structure should be made more democratic and representative by means of such elections.
Secondly, the decisions made by the Arts Council should be made openly, and reasons for the decisions should be given. How could it have closed the black theatre if it had been required publicly to defend its decision? I believe in the democracy of public opinion. The discussions should have been public, and the decision should have been arrived at openly. Appeals should also be publicly and openly decided.
I am in favour of devolution to the arts associations. I think that art is civic and regional. It is not a kind of amorphous capital-based structure. All great art has been civic, whether it has related to Florence, Rome or Athens, or, indeed, at one time to London, until the Government started to break it up. Therefore, I should like to see it devolved to the regions in that way, and regional associations, too, should be made more democratic.
By a swift means we could double the money available to the arts—that is, by abolishing VAT on the arts. It is nonsense for us to charge VAT and then to lob subsidies at the arts. The abolition of VAT on that sector would immediately add £100 million to the arts. At present, central funding is costing £101 million. At a stroke—to
1104
quote the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—we could double the funds available to the arts, and that is what we shall do.
Of the eight European countries mentioned in the Select Committee's report, we come bottom of the league. America, with its massive business sponsorship of the arts, comes lowest of all, but let us concentrate on Europe. Austria spends twice as much per head of the population as we do; Denmark, one and a half times more; France, twice as much; and West Germany, five times as much. That is a shameful record for any Government.
The Labour Government, in the days when we started the Ministry for the Arts with Jennie Lee as Minister, trebled the amount spent on the arts. Unfortunately, the arts have fallen into philistine hands. In wanting to double the arts, what we propose is not a particularly ambitious project. After all, having done that, we shall be level with only the second lowest spending country on the arts.
Mr. Christopher Murphy: We recognise that the hon. Gentleman believes that he would be assisting the arts by implementing the proposals that he has put forward. How would he make up for the loss of revenue to the Treasury?
Mr. Buchan: Very simply. If we require revenue to pay for things, we must raise taxes, and there are more fair and socially just ways than VAT of doing that, such as by income tax. Incidentally, we are waiting to hear how the Government intend to respond to the demands of the Common Market to widen the VAT base. Will VAT be imposed on children's clothes and food? We shall see after today's voting in the Euro-elections what attitude the Government take on that. Conservative Members have no right to taunt us with the imposition of VAT. We shall have proper socially based taxes, and there are other wasteful expenditures in Britain that we could well do without.
I have taken slightly longer than I had intended over my speech, although only about half the time taken by the Minister. At least I have said something about the arts, while, with respect, he said nothing about them. The arts have been necessary for mankind since the beginning of time, and we have waited 25 years in this House to say so. The people who carved and painted bison and buffalo in the caves of Lascaux did not receive an Arts Council grant. There is something endemic in mankind that requires this form of expression.
The arts are important because people have more leisure time. They are important because, through the arts, people can sharpen their awareness of nature and life around them. It is often through the arts that people come to understand the meaning of life around them. We must respond to that. This is the country of Shakespeare, though it has fallen among thieves.
I shall not recite it, but I should like to tell the House of a poem by McDiarmid about returning to Glasgow after a long exile. He sees the buses and trams packed with excited people returning from Ibrox stadium, where Rangers play. He asks the conductor who gives him his ticket, "Has a big game been played?" The conductor replies, "Where have you been? There has been no big game. A big debate has been going on in Ibrox stadium. Professor Macfadyen has been having an argument with a Spanish character about some abstract principle of philosophy." Having been told that, he looks at the excited

1105
crowd and notices a newsboy, who is shouting, "Read all about it. Turkish poet's abstruse new poem". McDiarmid commented:
"…and holy snakes.
The papers were selling like hot cakes."
It is possible to think of a community and society which has rather higher interests in life than some of the things that have been shipped for money. I do not believe that work is the end or purpose of man. The vision that I have of 73 men who were sacked when an aero-engine factory closed down, is a vision of the future, and in that the arts must play a part.
5.35 pm
Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: It is indeed rare to have the opportunity to debate the arts in this House at length. It is unfortunate that the debate coincides with the European elections, but there is, perhaps, even an appropriateness or symmetry about that, for both matters are of crucial importance to the future of the nation and to the continuance of civilised life, though that is not how the general public always perceive it.
I am glad, too, that we have an opportunity to debate the important report "Public and Private Funding of the Arts" and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) on the extremely important part that he played in drawing up that report, which continues to be of seminal importance in all discussions of art policy.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: The right hon. Gentleman may agree, in his usual fair and equitable fashion, that he has perhaps forgotten to mention the extremely valuable contribution that was made to the Select Committee by a colleague of ours, now sadly departed, Christopher Price.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I welcome that addendum to my tribute.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—he was on the wing but has momentarily roosted on hearing the sound of his name—should accept that it is a pity if, in these debates on the arts, too much acrimony—too much party politics, too much exaggeration—is injected. There are few enough hon. Members concerned about the arts. If we spend our time bickering among ourselves, we are not doing the cause of the arts a great service. There is a case for a certain amount of self-restraint in these matters.
Mr. Buchan: I do not want us to bicker among ourselves. We are not bickering with ourselves but with Conservative Members. The right hon. Gentleman is on the side of the angels, which is why he was sacked.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Whoever the hon. Gentleman is bickering with, I am delighted to know that he is not bickering with me, and I shall follow his example.
The scope and range of this debate is wide and one could make a lengthy speech. Indeed, they appear to be in fashion. I shall, however, be selective and confine myself to a limited number of points, though they are of major importance. The first concerns the manner in which central Government responsibilities for the arts are organised.
There are, mercifully, few in this House—I think none in the Government — who deny that the Government should have a major role in promoting the arts. In the early days of Conservative rule in 1979 there
1106
were some in the Government who argued that support for the arts should be phased out. That point of view dad not receive any support or encouragement from the Prime Minister.
There is no case for drawing the conclusion from Government policy of rolling back the frontiers of the state that Government support for the arts should cease. The frontiers of the state should be turned back from those places where it is inappropriate for the state to be. There must be permanent, continuing and widening state support for the arts. We cannot have great museums, a British Library or a great national opera house unless they are financed from central funds. The shape and form of the Government's role is a matter of great concern and interest to us all.
I have always believed that the Arts Minister should be in the Cabinet—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is necessary if the arts are to be treated with the respect and importance that they deserve in Westminster and, even more perhaps, in Whitehall. Indeed, it was that conviction that led me to decline the position of Arts Minister outside the Cabinet when the Prime Minister offered it to me in 1981.
How are we to achieve that role for an Arts Minister? The Select Committee report shows the way. I was interested and pleased to hear the hon. Member for Paisley, South commit his party to appointing a Cabinet Minister with responsibility for the arts in the next Labour Government, whenever that may be formed. That is a slightly shadowy comfort, but I am pleased that the commitment has been made.
The Select Committee explained how the Arts Minister could be given a new role by bringing together responsibility for the arts, the heritage, tourism, libraries, films and broadcasting. Such responsibilities would fully justify a Cabinet position and representation at that level.
No one wants a politically interventionist Arts Minister. The delegation of powers to the Arts Council would continue if we had a full Arts Ministry. Detailed matters would be dealt with by the national heritage foundation. It is important to stress that, because the arm's-length principle is important and should be preserved. We do not want party political considerations to interfere with the administration of arts funds.
I should have welcomed a more positive and considered response to the Select Committee report by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. 'The report is an important document and the initial Government response to it was inadequate. I had hoped for a more detailed response to it today. We hope to hear more in the Government's reply to the debate. We had to wait 18 months for the Government's inadequate response to the report. I hope that we shall have a fuller and speedier response to such documents in future.
It is preferable for the Arts Minister to sit in the House of Commons — [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The House of Commons is the centre of our political life. An Arts Minister without a seat in the Commons or in the Cabinet is doubly devalued. I hasten to say that my remarks are not intended as a personal criticism of my noble Friend Lord Gowrie, whom the Under-Secretary so ably represents here. My noble Friend has not done too badly in difficult circumstances. I do not agree with the judgment passed upon his performance by the hon. Member for Paisley, South. After an initial disastrous decision to abolish the theatre museum, he changed his

1107
mind and it has been reinstated. It is not a sign of weakness for a Minister to change his mind when he sees that strong opinions go the other way.
Mr. Cormack: Would that it were more common.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree. I wish that it would spread to other spheres. I shall not detail which spheres I am thinking of.
Lord Gowrie has achieved a considerable increase in the Arts Council grant. I congratulate him on that. He has rescued the Government from some of the consequences of proposing to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan councils without having thought through the consequences of such a step. I was particularly worried about the effect on the arts of that action. My noble Friend has succeeded in obtaining substitute finance of £34 million, which will go much of the way to fill the gap left by the proposed abolition of those councils. I joined in the campaign. I joined ecumenically the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and Mr. Ken Livingstone.
Mr. Buchan: Good company.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I do not know whether it is good company, but it is a good cause—which is not quite the same thing.
A lesson can be drawn from recent events. If the arts world wants its voice to be heard it must use that voice and fight for the causes in which it believes. If that had not been done in relation to the GLC we should have faced a major crisis in arts financing that would have affected the whole course of arts in Britain.
My second argument relates to the Arts Council. I have no doubt that it is right for the Arts Council to review its strategy from time to time. The present chairman and secretary of the Arts Council have done that with more tact and finesse than some of their predecessors. We deceive ourselves if we obscure the basic problem. It is not the problem of devising strategy, but of increasing inadequate resources for the arts. That is the basic problem and no talk about strategy, aims or modifications can alter that fact. I agree with the excellent article by Lord Goodman which appeared some months ago in The Observer.
I hope that the Arts Council and the Arts Minister will continue to press for more resources. The Arts Minister has never been a political figure, from the time of Jennie Lee onwards, in the party political sense. The secret of being a good Arts Minister is to put the arts first, to abandon political prejudices and doctrines and to fight for the arts. We look to the present Minister responsible for the arts to continue that tradition.
We need resources, not only for the arts themselves, but because we should invest in success. Our great post-war successes have been in the arts. Successes in the arts reverberate in the balance of payment figures, but that is not the primary reason for supporting the arts.
I want to examine the strategy in the Arts Council document and make a number of criticisms. It is called "The Glory of the Garden", but there are some fairly deep shadows in it. I regret the reduction in the support for literature that is outlined in the strategy. In all conscience, it was small enough to begin with—1·5 per cent. of the entire Arts Council budget. That is why I was so keen to introduce public lending right, which did something directly to help authors.
1108
My first criticism is that the Arts Council is proposing a really drastic reduction of virtually 50 per cent. in support for literature, and there are some especially mean economies. What is the point of withdrawing the grant for the English branch of Pen, and so reducing, out of all proportion to the savings, our influence in the wider international literary world? What is the point of reducing by 25 per cent. the grant to the National Book League, when we should be spending more not less on the effort to popularise and circulate books and to get people to buy and read them?
After all, literature is our primary art. In literature there has been an extraordinary flow of genius throughout the centuries from Anglo-Saxon times to the present day, and that flow has never dried up. It is extraordinary that the English language, which was a tongue originally spoken by a few thousand savages living on a fog-encrusted island on the edge of the North sea, should have become the language of the entire world in the age of communications. That is a tremendous, natural advantage to us and we should use it.
I strongly disapprove of certain other false economies, such as the attempt to cut the money allocated to the British Council or the money used to bring foreign students to Britain. Power in the 19th century sense has gone from us, and will never return—but influence remains, and it would be tragic if we failed to see where the strength of our influence lies. The time to become worried is not when we have too many foreign students coming to Britain—it is when they stop coming.
My second criticism, in which I am in entire agreement with the hon. Member for Paisley, South, is about the monstrous treatment of Opera 80 by the Arts Council. The avowed intent of the document has been to shift resources from the centre to the regions. Opera 80 serves the regions; it is virtually the only operatic body that does that and nothing else. It does it on a small and reasonable scale. It has about 50 people engaged in different capacities and it works exclusively in the regions. The company travels continually. That is not a reproach — we should be grateful for that. The idea that travelling around provincial English cities is some form of self-indulgence cannot be entertained by anyone who has travelled either north or south of Watford.
The Arts Council created Opera 80 and, in this financial year, increased its grant. What on earth is the point of suddenly turning around in the following year and saying that the company should have no support? The Arts Council certainly must operate independently, but it is not a vice-regal body that is immune from public criticism or opinion. I hope that the members of the Arts Council will follow the debate and pay attention to the views that have been expressed in the House and elsewhere in the arts world about the value of Opera 80.
Mr. Faulds: I entirely endorse the right hon. Gentleman's arguments in this sad case, but is it not a fact that a consideration that may have entered the Arts Council's decision in this unfortunate matter is that the local authorities in which touring took place were extraordinarily mean and reluctant to contribute any, or very little, funding to the project?
Mr. St. John-Stevas: I certainly agree with the hon. Gentlman's general point that local authorities should do

1109
very much more to support the arts. I am reluctant to criticise particular authorities because the record is so varied. Some are excellent, but some are not so good.
My third criticism concerns music and orchestras. The grant for music is to be reduced by £750,000. Those excellent activities and festivals at Harrogate, King's Lynn, Stroud, Leeds and York are all to lose their support. Half of the cut is to fall on them, and the other half on the London orchestral concert board. What is to be put in its place? It is a crackbrained scheme to set up an eastern counties-based orchestra. That would deal a devastating blow to the sponsorship of the orchestra forced into that role. The sponsorship comes largely, if not entirely, because the orchestras are London-based, although they may travel to the regions.
If that policy is pursued, there will be a major deprivation to London musical life. It is rumoured—no more — that the Royal Philharmonic orchestra will be cast in the unenviable role of being turned into the eastern counties orchestra. I hope that it will not happen because the RPO has made more progress than any other orchestra during recent years. It has once again reached the high standards present under Thomas Beecham. It is the most popular of the four major orchestras and is in continual demand. It is hard-working and, last season, had 650 three-hour working sessions. It has raised audience figures at the Festival hall by 20 per cent. It has given 60 concerts in the regions and has a magnificent record on foreign touring. All that is a great achievement and should be rewarded by something better than being pushed into a dubious siding.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it would be impossible for the Arts Council to force out the RPO, if that is the intended orchestra? We can only surmise that it is. The RPO will stay in London and the only effect of the Arts Council proposal will be to reduce the LOCB grant by £280,000.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: The effects of the policy remain extremely clouded. I am against the principle of the policy. I am opposed to the cut in grant to the LOCB, which will put unfair financial pressure on the London orchestras.
My fourth criticism involves the Royal Court. Before the report appeared, a great deal of fuss was made about its future. That has subsided, but quite unjustifiably because the threat still exists. Sentence of death has been only temporarily postponed. It would be a major tragedy if the home of so much creative and innovative work in the theatre were to be abolished. It is to lose support from the GLC—although the GLC did not support it to any great extent — and the Arts Council now suggests that the Kensington and Chelsea council should come forward and support it. That is just a pious aspiration. That council has never given a penny to the Royal Court. [Interruption.] If people have behaved disgracefully in the past, there is no reason to believe that they will behave any better in future. We cannot base a policy for the Royal Court on the hope of some sort of metanoia in the Kensington and Chelsea council, especially in view of the way it has treated its own town hall. The council must face the implications of its policies and it should be in no doubt about the strength of feeling that has been aroused.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State devoted a great part of his speech to the heritage. The national
1110
heritage fund is working extremely well and I had the privilege of introducing the Bill that created it. I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he took it through Committee so ably. The fund has been a major success in its concept and in its chairman. Lord Charteris of Amisfield is one of the outstanding servants of the arts and it is right that we should pay tribute to him.
If the fund is to continue its work, it should receive moneys regularly. At present it receives ad hoc funding and it never knows what sum it will receive the following year. It needs a regular subvention of about £10 million a year. If it decides to keep money in the bank, it should not be penalised for doing so. The retention of funds is not a reason for reducing the grant. It must look ahead. It must be prudent for it does not know what demands may suddenly be made upon it. It is good housekeeping to retain some reserves in the bank. If I may so put it, it is Thatcherism in practice. I hope that the habit of putting savings aside for an emergency will not penalise the future funding of the national heritage fund. Let us never forget that if the money had not been filched from the national land fund in the 1940s, the resources of the national heritage fund would by now be akin to those of the Getty foundation and we should be in an entirely differeni position.
I shall make two brief but general reflections. First, the arts are more necessary now in our society than ever before. There is material affluence in certain parts of the country but as a nation we are suffering from spiritual starvation. The arts are playing the role in our society that religion played in other ages. They remind people of the higher values of which the hon. Member for Paisley, South spoke. They bring truth and beauty into people's lives. They bring knowledge and insight into human conduct. It is possible to learn more about the glories and miseries of old age by looking at a portrait by Rembrandt or by reading or watching King Lear than by reading a host of Government Blue Books. That is why it is so important that the Government should concentrate on arts education in the schools. So many parents want their children to have the opportunity that they were not able to enjoy.
Secondly, I direct a question to the Government in general and to the Prime Minister in particular. What good is the power without the glory? That question was clearly answered, even by Machiavelli, who did not think that it was worth much. What do succeeding ages remember of their predecessors? What survives as a living reality, defying the tides of time, change and decay? The answer is the arts. No Government can create artistic genius, which comes as a gift, which is uncovenanted and unheralded. We can merely appreciate it and stand in front of it in gratitude. But the Government can create a framework for the arts in which artistic genius and talent can flourish. Having originally set their hand to that task, I hope that the Government will now resume it with an even greater vigour and dedication than before.
6.4 pm
Mr. Michael Foot: It is a great privilege to be able to take up the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). No one can doubt the sincerity, high intelligence and eloquence with which he has sustained his case both as a Minister and since he left the Government. The way in which he has

1111
spoken this afternoon has raised the debate to the level at which it should have started when it was introduced by the Minister.
My hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) made a most brilliant, subtle and skilful speech in showing how the Labour party approaches these matters. I do not think that there should be any shame in approaching the arts on a party basis. The most charitable thing that we can imagine about the right hon. Member for Chelmsford is that it was not because of his qualities in terms of the arts that he was sacked from the Cabinet. As his speech continued, the case for suggesting that that is exactly why he was sacked became ever more formidable. Every fresh and telling point showed how unfitted he would be to sit upon the Treasury Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we should not return to party politics, and on that score I offer him my sympathy. Those who say that there should be no indulgence in party politics are usually those who have no party to which to turn. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is in that unlikely and unhappy situation. In any event, we were glad to listen to him. I believe that it can be said that his contribution was of benefit to the entire House.
The Government made a grave mistake when they chose to hold the debate today. No Government, whatever their majority, should treat the House of Commons with subterfuge and derision. Many right hon. and hon. Members feel that they must be in their constituencies today and I believe that it was an insult to the House to arrange for the debate to take place today. That message should be taken back by Ministers to the Government with the request that we should have another fresh debate on the arts to cover many of the subjects that will not be covered properly today.
Mr. Cecil Franks: Would the right hon. Gentleman care to suggest what we should be discussing today?
Mr. Foot: Many right hon. and hon. Members wanted to engage in the European elections by travelling to various parts of the country. It would have been better not to sit today. Instead of having one debate on the arts today, the Government should have arranged for a series of such debates to take place.
The Minister referred to the abolition of the GLC. The House will be aware that the GLC has control over some of the great London parks. I am especially interested in Hampstead heath because I live near it. I do not believe that the Government have given any thought to the future of the heath and the several other areas that are to be placed in the same position. When they made their fatal, miserable and squalid decision to abolish the GLC, they had no idea of what would he the future of the great London parks. What is to happen to Hampstead heath is a matter of no consequence to them.
The organisations that have protected Hampstead heath in the past, which have said that every inch of it is, in effect, holy territory and not to be invaded, destroyed or vandalised, will fight once more to protect it. They think that it is shocking and shameful that powers should be taken away from the GLC and that no consideration should be given to London's heath and park land. They do not think it satisfactory that powers should be distributed between various local authorities that do not have a
1112
common interest. The Government have found an answer to the problem. They know that they cannot produce a reputable answer for the House and the country. The community spirit that has protected areas such as Hampstead heath in the past will once more fight to sustain them.
Wales is another part of the country that is being grossly ill used by the Minister and his Department. There is to be a meeting on 21 June of the members of the Welsh arts council. They will deal with some of the dilemmas to which my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South referred and elaborated upon. It is reported in today's edition of the Western Mail that documents exist that reveal the discussions that are the taking place in the Welsh arts council and in the Government on how the allocation for Wales is to be determined.
Some organisations, especially the Wales Association for the Performing Arts, which has played a notable part in the way in which the arts in Wales have been built up over many years, have not been consulted about how this fresh, different distribution is to take place. As the Western Mail shows and as the Minister knows—he is no great friend of the Labour party — some associations are worried about the upheaval that is facing the arts in Wales. That upheaval is made all the more offensive by the fact that there have been no proper consultations. I hope that Ministers will assure the people of Wales that, before any action is taken, detailed discusions will occur so that all those bodies have every chance to shape the future of the arts. In the past, they have played a notable part in shaping the arts.
If the Government push that idea aside, they will add to the effects of the problems. The trouble is that a strong streak of barbarism runs through the Government which is illustrated by their elevation of money to the highest place in their estimate of what should be done. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment stressed the fact—the right hon. Member for Chelmsford underlined this point — that the market place should determine those matters.
At moments of crisis, financial stringency, cuts in public expenditure, to which the Labour party is usually strongly opposed, and great upheavals in our society—there can be no greater upheaval than 4 million unemployed and no prospect of jobs for young people leaving school—the Government should not say that the allocation of money to the arts or sport should remain the same and that the cuts imposed on the arts should be at the same level as those inflicted on other organisations. The very opposite should be the case. At times of stress and strain, when people's lives are being uprooted, the Government should increase support, especially when they have at their disposal all the facilities that have been proved in practice. That is exactly what intelligent Governments have done in the past.
That is not a wild Socialist theory. There was intelligent Socialist community action at times of great stress in our country's history—for example, during the war, when greater pressure was placed on our resources than perhaps ever before. At that time, the sums of money spent on the arts, the provision of music, theatres and other facilities were vastly increased, because people could understand the point of such facilities. They wanted to live their lives to the full and, therefore, the Government said, "We shall go ahead with the expansion of those facilities."

1113
The same occurred under Jennie Lee. She was the first and — I say this in the presence of the right hon. Member for Chelmsford—the greatest Minister of State responsible for the arts. She was operating at a time of great pressure. She was being told by everybody, including the Cabinet, that resources would not be spent on the things for which she was fighting, especially the Open University. She was told to fight the new fight, but the pressure for resources on the Labour Government were being piled up all the time. She had to fight to establish the Open University at a time when people were saying, "You should spend the money on other aspects, including other places in the education system." She fought and won, and we shall fight again and win to sustain the Open University, which was one of the great innovations in education of the post-war period. I hope that we shall receive guarantees from the Government that there will be no reductions in that respect
Mr. Buchan: My right hon. Friend may be interested to know that Jennie wrote to those who were present at our meeting this morning. She made the point that she had it easier, because she had a Government and a Prime Minister who allowed her to cover funding for the arts. That is not the case with the situation that we are facing now.
Mr. Foot: That is perfectly true, and we shall return to that point repeatedly. We are not prepared to see the Open University killed by a thousand cuts, as the Under-Secretary of State may wish to do. We know that the Conservative party was not an enthusiastic supporter of the Open University when it was established. We are determined to protect it and to ensure that it has the necessary money.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Chelmsford referred to the cuts in expenditure on books and the facilities in university, polytechnic and college libraries. I ask the House to put what has happened in the context of the statement by the Under-Secretary of State about what the Government have done for the arts with "total success".
It is beyond my comprehension how Ministers who lead comparatively easy lives and top civil servants can put their names to a document that says that there will be cuts in the allocation of books to other people. The facts have been stated:
"In the 1978–79 academic year, the average expenditure on books and periodicals per student (full-time equivalent) in the UK's 53 university and university college libraries was £57·50. Four years later, in 1981–82, the figure for average expenditure on books and periodicals had risen by 20 per cent. to £69·06. During that period, however, the Retail Price Index for books rose by 53 per cent. and a comparable index for periodicals … by 45 per cent."
Those are not my words, but are from the official account from those in charge.
"All this amounts to an effective reduction in real expenditure on books and periodicals of over 19 per cent."
That is in the period to which the Under-Secretary of State referred as a "total success". That is why I do not overstate the case by saying that there is a strong streak of barbarism in the Government.
No Government at a time when young people are crying out for education and the right to be taught and to learn what the world is about should do such a thing. Every Government that did so should be ashamed of themselves for instituting such measures.
Mr. George Walden: Will the right hon. Gentleman read, for the benefit of the House, the statistics on the cost of the administration of education during the same period?
Mr. Foot: I do not believe that that would alter the case. I am against most of the other cuts as well. The hon. Gentleman may defend in the House or anywhere else the cut in the supply of books to people in universities, but anyone who advocates that approach is a barbarian. That practice is barbaric. The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), will have a chance to respond at the end of the debate, and I hope that he will give a proper answer to the representations made by the National Book League and those who have detailed knowledge of how these matters work in practice.
Mr. Waldegrave: I am sorry that we have perhaps lost some of the atmosphere that was created by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). The right hon. Gentleman has made tough remarks about Ministers and civil servants who put their names to documents. Is he sure that there was no year in which the allocation of books was cut when the Labour Government, of which he was a member, were in office?
Mr. Foot: I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman, with all the resources of his Department at his disposal, could obtain figures comparable to those that I recited showing that in three years there was a reduction in real expenditure on books and periodicals of about 20 per cent.. I am willing to apologise to the hon. Gentleman if he can obtain such figures. I shall go into those figures carefully. If the hon. Gentleman cannot produce those figures, he had better return to the Cabinet and fight to get the allocation of money restored so that the number of books supplied is restored to the 1979 level. The hon. Gentleman should start to work on that matter in his Department.
I wish to raise one further matter, not because I believe that it is of prime importance, but because it has been raised in the House before and there have been arguments about it. The difficulty with a debate such as this is that we want to cover many different matters. We have had no opportunity to debate the Parthenon marbles, although questions have been asked in the House. The Government have said that they are not prepared to consider returning the Parthenon marbles as requested by the Greek Government.
The Minister referred to some of the great historic emblems and buildings in this country, but I will tell the House what was said by Alan Brien in an article a few months ago on this matter. He asked what we would think and how we would react if most of Stonehenge was re-erected in a special Hirohito annexe in Tokyo, if Nelson's column was by the Nile, if the Magna Carta was in the Hermitage in Leningrad, if bits of Blenheim palace and the Tower of London were scattered across Texas, if the frontage of the British museum had been evacuated to New York during the blitz for its safety and never returned, and if some of the Crown jewels were dispersed among Buenos Aires, Paris, Berlin and Harare.
When these matters were raised, instead of treating them seriously, and the Parthenon marbles are a serious matter to Greece, we had interruptions from the Conservative Back Benches—I am not accusing any

1115
hon. Members unless they wish to qualify—amounting to what I can only describe as sniggering vulgarities. They were reported in Greece and insult was added to injury.
The Government will have to think about those matters again. Much wider issues are involved. Our relations with democracy in Greece could be greatly improved if the Government could show the intelligence and magnanimity to deal with that matter in the same way as others have dealt with similar problems. I am aware that many other complicated issues are bound up in the problem, but they can all be dealt with if the Government have the imagination to do something. I do not expect that from this Government. Their attitude is all part of their streak of barbarism, but I expect a solution from the next civilised Government that we have, a Government who I believe will be able to tackle all the great issues that we have been discussing, in a truly imaginative manner.
If the Government wish to make some approach to us, I ask them to allocate time for a series of debates on the interlocking subjects that we are discussing today so that they can all be explored fully in the coming months, instead of offering us only the trumpery debate that we are having today.
6.23 pm
Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is an honour to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) who, although advancing different points of view, have spoken with great eloquence and have raised the tone of the debate. I was delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford could take part, and I shall comment on his brilliant speech.
It is good, too, to see the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent taking part in an arts debate. He would not expect me to agree with everything that he said, but no one is better qualified to speak on these matters. He is a master of the written as well as the spoken word. When history comes to be written, he will be remembered for his literature. I shall think always with particular affection of some of his splendid essays, in particular one on the good Disraeli.
My reaction was mixed when I heard that we were to have this debate. I was glad that we were at last to debate the arts. Important and enduring matters are so often neglected in the House. I could not help but think of the remark of T. S. Eliot that our only memorial may well be the asphalt road and a thousand lost golf balls. But I was angry, as was the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, that this day had been chosen. I have spent the last 10 days on the hustings in the European campaign. It is not the easiest of tasks to generate enthusiasm and interest in it, but it has been an important task. It is one in which every hon. Member has not simply the right, but the duty to be involved. I believe that it is an insult to the electorate that the House did not rise for the day so that we could all be taking part in the elections in our constituencies.
I also felt extremely sad—and it grieves me to have to say this—that we were treated to that extraordinary diatribe from my hon. Friend the Minister. The Government have done the arts a double disservice today. I want to say some complimentary things about the Government—and that is what makes me all the sadder.
1116
It is sad, first, that they chose today to debate this subject, and, secondly, that they sent my hon. Friend, for whom I have a high regard and who I am sure is an excellent Minister for sport, to read for almost an hour at breakneck speed. While he was doing so, I could not help but reflect on that dear, departed man, John Betjeman, whom we all mourn and who did so much for the arts and heritage in this country. I thought of one of my favourite poems and I wrote a little parody of it, "I am a junior Minister; no tongue than mine is slicker. I have a hefty briefing, and I'll try to read it quicker." That is what we had this afternoon from my hon. Friend. He did himself a disservice, because when he helped to pilot the National Heritage Bill through the House last year he took care to master his brief, take an interest in the subject and debate the merits of the case. None of that was in evidence today.
This is an important subject and I should like to touch upon what I consider to be some of the salient facts. I said that I would say some complimentary things about the Government, and I want to set the facts in the context of a Government who have done good things for the arts and the heritage. I believe that we have had two exceptionally distinguished Ministers for the arts in my right hon. Friends the Members for Chelmsford and for Southend, West (Mr. Channon). They were men of different styles but of passionate conviction and commitment. Neither of them brought the arts into the party political arena. They both fought doughty battles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford had the advantage in that he was in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West also fought a valiant fight. He was highly regarded by all those with whom he came into contact, whatever their political complexion.
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, I do not want to be critical of the right hon. and noble Lord Gowrie. There are matters to his credit. I echo the remarks made in another place the other day by the noble Lord Birkett who thanked Lord Gowrie for what he had done to try to rescue the Government from their problems over the GLC. Nevertheless, other problems remain.
The Government have not done justice to their record because there are many matters to which they should be turning their mind. I should like to concentrate many of my remarks on the Select Committee report with which I had much to do, but right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that the heritage is an abiding interest of mine. I was proud to play a small part in taking the NHMF and the National Heritage Bill through the House. I played a fairly active part in Committee, and I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on those two measures. They had the general and genuine support of hon. Members in all parts of the House. The measures were in no sense debated on anything other than their merits. Party politics did not—as it never should in these matters—enter into it. But although it is right to acknowledge with satisfaction that we have established the national heritage memorial fund, and although it is right to say that we can take credit for establishing the new commission, we have not thereby solved all the problems.
The memorial fund is, financially speaking, but a shadow of what it should have been had the resources of the land fund been properly transferred and incorporated. We have only to mention—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford did—the word Getty to realise the fragility of the safety net, which is all that it is.

1117
Tribute should be paid to the present Secretary of State for Defence, because it was his initiative which led to the setting up of the commission. He was another Minister of passionate convictions in heritage matters. The commission has been set up but all the problems have not been solved. Briefing documents have been circulated to hon. Members taking part in the debate. The commission, while grateful for the significant demonstration of Government support that it has received, nevertheless makes a number of points. If it is to carry the responsibilities placed upon it, to meet public expectations, and undertake possible new activities such as those relating to the GLC's historic buildings division, it will need increased financial support in the future. The abolition of the metropolitan counties could leave a vacuum in heritage matters. Those are important points, and I hope that they will be taken into account. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave), when he replies to the debate, will touch on them.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept—I intervened on this question during the Minister's speech—that the recently announced concession on VAT does not amount to very much. Inasmuch as it is a recognition by Government that historic buildings have particular and peculiar problems, it is welcome. I went to see Ministers when VAT was first debated in the House. I urged that repairs should be exempt, or zero-rated. We have fought that battle against successive Labour and Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer. Even at this late stage, while the Finance Bill is still in Committee, I urge the Government to give thought to the danger that the tax poses to our heritage—a heritage to which we all, Front Bench and Back Bench Members alike, pledge our affection and support.
I speak among other things as a trustee of the Historic Churches Preservation Trust, the largest private charity concerned with helping historic churches; indeed, it is probably the largest charity helping historic buildings. It is galling when we think that the money we give to historic churches—all of it given out of generosity, concern and commitment—is cut by 15 per cent. in its effectiveness, because 15 per cent. of the money that we give to the churches goes to pay the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Fifteen per cent. of the money that the Government give to the commission goes to pay the Chancellor. It is nonsense. Something should be done about it—and very quickly. I urge my hon. Friend to think about it and to say something about it at the end of the debate.
With regard to the general issues of the arts, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made some extremely telling points when he was talking about the Arts Council's recent document. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic—there is no logic—in the decision on Opera 80. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Arts Council remains deaf to the requests from Wolverhampton for help for its theatre, which at considerable cost, and with great dedication by local people, has recently been restored. It is now receiving companies and bringing much-needed cultural entertainment to the people of Wolverhampton and beyond.
It is a great insult to the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts in particular, and to the House of Commons in general, that the Committee's unanimous report has been treated with such scant attention and respect. The Committee embraced all wings of both the major parties and had on it an eloquent
1118
representative from one of the minority parties, whom I am glad to see in his place this afternoon. His constituency escapes me for the moment but it has a most delightful and euphonious Welsh name. [Interruption.] I refer, of course, to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Thomas). The members of the Select Committee worked closely together—my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Brinton) was greatly involved—for almost two years. We received reams of evidence and we saw multitudes of witnesses.
My friend — I am pleased to call him that — Christopher Price, who asked me to chair most of the Committee's sittings, nevertheless took the closest possible interest and played the most constructive part in our deliberations. Together the nine of us sought to examine the evidence, written and oral, on its merits. We produced a report in which there are over 70 recommendations. I do not for a moment claim that it is an infallible document; of course it is not. The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) was right to say that there are things in the report with which he might disagree. Nevertheless, nine Members of the House of Commons, after careful, close, detailed and long scrutiny, were able to come to certain unanimous conclusions which firmly kept the arts out of party politics and made suggestions for the future. But answer came there none for month after month.
The Parliament which had spawned the Select Committee died. Another Parliament was elected. Another Select Committee was appointed. But still there was no answer. It was not until January of this year, almost 18 months after we had published our report —and and well over 18 months after we had concluded our deliberations—that the Government produced a pathetic document. One can call it nothing else. It was pathetic, alas, and not prophetic.
The document—Cmnd. 9127—began with one or two flattering remarks. It said:
"The Eighth Report from the Committee is an encyclopaedic document, its subject matter interwoven with many aspects of the country's economic, social and personal life … The Government welcomes the Committee's report as providing, perhaps for the first time, a serious and informed discussion of the whole area of arts funding and of the views and wishes expressed by the many authorities, public and private bodies, interest groups and individuals who are connected with the arts."
That was fine. My heart leapt as I read it and I thought, "Here we are going to have something." But what was it? All the document says is no, no, no; every recommendation of substance was turned down.
It may well be, I accept, that there are recommendations in the Select Committee report which perhaps should have been turned down, but not every recommendation; surely there should not have been a consistent litany of negatives in reply to the 77 recommendations. From a Government who have produced such excellent Ministers for the arts, and from a Government who have very real achievements to their credit, it is depressing to find, when they are given a Select Committee report which recommends a number of things which should be music to the ears of a Tory Government—dare I say it, to a monetarist Government—such as tax incentives and special encouragement to business sponsorship — suggestions endorsed from the Labour Front Bench this afternoon - that the response is no, no, no. It is

1119
appalling that that should be the case. Even when we asked for an annual White Paper, the Government's reply was no.
It is important to stress that the Select Committee made it plain that the bulk of funding should remain the responsibility of Government and local authorities. We had a very interesting session in which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) came before the Committee as a witness. We talked about those matters. We accepted that the arts have always been subsidised, whether by 18th century German princes, 19th century industrialists, or 20th century Governments. There has always been a balance and a return.
I do not want to drag the matter down to a low and mercenary level, but the Committee felt it only right to underline the contribution of the arts and our heritage to tourism. I am glad that the Minister included a short passage about that in his long speech. If he could make the point from the Dispatch Box, why cannot he draw the lesson from the report? Why cannot the Government accept that if the arts and our heritage are far more responsible than our weather and our cuisine for drawing people to these shores, that should be recognised. It is not simply a question of paying out money. Would London be such an attractive place without its west end theatres or its south bank? Would Stratford, where the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) lives, be anything other than a sleepy English town without Shakespeare and its theatrical associations? Of course, our heritage invites tourists who bring money. That money generates prosperity. I am sick and tired of people talking as if "giving" money to the arts is to dole out something for no return. In fact, that is often the most cost-effective way of helping the arts.
The report contains many suggestions for maximising the economic as well as the cultural efficiency of the arts. I shall quote some recommendations from the report. Recommendation 55 reads:
"Business companies should be exempted from tax on a percentage of their pre-tax profits for all donations to the arts."
In addition,
"Donations from individuals to non-profit arts organisations of up to 10 per cent. of pre-tax income should be tax-deductible on an annual basis."
That is done to good effect in Germany, where the Select Committee went to take evidence. Why cannot it be done here? The Treasury should produce a document on tax deductibility and the purchase of works of art which outlines the appropriate arrangements to be made by the Inland Revenue for its introduction in order to avoid abuse.
If we are not to stagger from crisis to crisis—from Calke to Belton, or from Belton to Calke, and perhaps even to Blenheim or somewhere else in the future—we must do one of two things, and preferably a bit of both. We should either give massive encouragement to individuals and corporations, as happens in the United States of America, or there must be a massive injection of public funds. Perhaps there should be, in the true British spirit, some of both. That is what the Committee recommended, and that is why the report was unanimous. That is why it is a great pity—I put it no higher than that, and choose my words with care and restraint—that the Minister did not deal with the report in his opening speech so that we could debate the matter against the background of the philosophy underlying the Government's reply.
1120
The central recommendation has been proved correct in our debate so far. The Committee said that we should bring together arts and heritage and films and tourism under a Cabinet Minister. I echo the belief of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford that the Minister should be answerable to the House of Commons and have overall responsibility for strategic thinking and should fight in Cabinet.
There are two junior Ministers who deal with the arts. I yield to no one in my personal affection for both of them, but they are not sufficient unto the job and cannot cope between them, because they come from two Departments that have many other responsibilities.
Sir David Price: They come from the same Department.
Mr. Cormack: My hon. Friend is right. But they do not have the clout of a Minister in the Cabinet. I apologise for my slip about the number of Departments which have responsibilities for the arts, but until recently there was a Minister for the arts in the Department of the Environment as well as in the Department of Education and Science.
Provision for administration of the arts is not working well. I hope that the Prime Minister will read reports of the debate, or at least will have it drawn to her attention. I urge my right hon. Friend, when she reshuffles her Government, to give thought to the Commmittee's sensible recommendations and realise that the economic logic behind them is consistent with the good housekeeping of dear old Grantham. Let us have a Minister of Cabinet rank who can bring the strands together and argue in Cabinet and who can prove that we are being far too dismal if we imagine that T. S. Eliot's prophecy will ever come true.
We are a great and rich nation in terms of the arts and heritage. There is much to preserve and enjoy, and much still to create, albeit from dead elm trees. Heritage should never be regarded as a museum object.
Mr. Crouch: My hon. Friend might criticise the status and place of Ministers answering the debate, but he has raised a much more important question. I am sorry that our right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) is not here, because 14 new departmental Select Committees were created through his inspiration. Those Select Committees—my hon. Friend is a member of one of them—are servants not of the Cabinet, but of the House. They report to the House on specific matters of concern to the House as a whole. The debate has not yet finished and I hope that the Government have not had the last word on a subject referred to on the Order Paper as "relevant" — what is contained in the Select Committee report to which my hon. Friend has referred. This is a question of the new dimension and dynamic of this Parliament at work — the work of the Select Committees. I hope that the momentum will not be lost.
Mr. Cormack: I hope so, too. I am sure that my hon. Friend, whose interventions are always timely, relevant and pertinent, will forgive me if I do not follow him too far. I hope that my remarks have shown the importance that I attach to the document.
I must not be too lengthy in perorating or those right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate will acknowledge my interest but castigate my long-windedness. These matters are of great importance. They

1121
are of far greater consequence than many of the contentious issues that divide us from time to time. We have a collective custodial responsibility for our rich heritage and for the lively and vibrant arts of this country. I hope that this debate will not, because of the sorry circumstances in which it has been called, be the last debate of this Parliament on the arts. There is much more to do and much more to discuss. I hope that the Government's reply will be a beacon, not something to be lamented as some of us have lamented the way in which the debate began.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been of a very high level, but I should point out that those hon. Members who have been in the Chamber since the beginning of the debate are anxious to take part in it, and if hon. Members make very long speeches that will prove impossible.
6.50 pm
Mr. Clement Freud: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for your guidance.
I do not disagree with anything that has been said following the Minister's opening speech. Indeed, I join hon. Members in their eloquent condemnation of what the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) so rightly called the "lack of clout" of the two junior Ministers appointed to present the debate. I should make it clear that I am not in any way making a personal attack on them. All hon. Members admire and respect them both, but it is an insult and a signal contempt of the House by its Leader or the Prime Minister that the Government's side of the argument should be presented by the Minister responsible for sport. In "Who's Who", he has placed on record that his hobbies or recreations are swimming, golf, cricket and watching cricket. This debate should have been properly presented by someone with a deep and recognised affection for the arts.
There was a feeling on this side of the House, and perhaps on the other side, too, that as this day had been chosen for an important debate for which many of us had been waiting for years, hon. Members would feel it their duty to spend the day helping their political colleagues in the European election. There was a rumour on this side of the House that the debate might fall. Consequently, we made it our duty to prepare enough notes to ensure that there would be sufficient conversation to last at least until 10 pm. Following your request however, Mr. Speaker, I shall shorten my speech.
I was going to raise the need to accept, and to be seen to accept, the very real fact that mass unemployment is with us to stay. More people will have a lot more leisure, so this is the time when there should be massive investment in the arts, and not a contraction. I was going to raise the fact that a political lead is needed not only in financial terms, but in accepting that a fundamental change has taken place in the way in which we live and work. Unless that is accepted, we can expect more violence and vandalism, because there will be little alternative for those who have no job. I was going to argue for more money to be made available either through grants or through our voucher system, which is carefully set out in the Liberal arts policy document.
Those existing institutions that receive the lion's share of present finance are those that the majority of people do
1122
not attend. The Royal Opera House receives £20,000 as budgetary leeway on one single production. That sum could keep two or three provincial theatres or arts groups afloat. There is a need to tap the reserves of initiative and intelligence that are around. Those are the resources that people should be thinking of using. I was going to mention the wide range of exciting things that are around such as poetry readings in stations, which the Government should support.
The attitude in "The Glory of the Garden" is fraudulent, and at the beginning of a new era in arts provision, it must be shown up for the fraud that it is in providing no new money. The amounts being transferred to the regional bodies are minuscule. Instead of making greater use of democracy within the arts world, the regions are merely being asked to act as bank managers, dispensing funds in a centrally directed manner.
I welcome the fact that the Eastern Arts Association is given some recognition in "The Glory of the Garden", and that it is at last accepted that it is the least well provided for of the 12 arts associations. But if the Eastern Arts Association got the £2·2 million that is earmarked as development money over the next two years that would simply put it on a par with the average funding for the other regions, provided that they remain stationary.
However, I wish to discuss a phrase, which is inscribed in "The Glory of the Garden":
"we can dung and we can water, but we cannot create a single flower."
I believe that the Government can create the climate for fertility: by rethinking their policy on VAT and its abolition and by looking at genuine tax concessions for sponsorship. I am a member of the new Select Committee which looked carefully at the possibilities of sponsorship and spoke to the Minister for the Arts about them. I have great respect for the noble Lord, and he has received insufficient praise for obtaining the money that he has from central Government. We all know how desperately difficult it must be to get money out of any Government, particularly this one. Our Committee found that, at best, business sponsorship could be doubled, which would mean an increase from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent. That would, at best, be a welcome irrelevance. The Government should also think about youth opportunity programmes and job creation in the theatre.
I listened carefully when the former Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was asked how the money was to be raised. Let me make a suggestion: every Government Department has more press officers than it knows what to do with, and press officers even bombard junior Ministers' local newspapers with details of what they were doing on a certain day, what they said and how eloquently. Without any cost to anyone, those departmental press officers could be allocated to the regions, for the regions are perhaps worst at marketing, and the press officers are perhaps best at doing just that.
In "The Glory of the Garden" the benefits that will accrue to this country appear in heavy print. Paragraph 42 states:
"In the first phase of the development strategy"——
which is backed by substantial funds in respect of dance—
"the Council will be allocating £500,000 to Art in support of the programme outlined above."

1123
Half a million pounds might sound good, but it is about £800 for every constituency. In my case, it would be enough to have five dancers, three musicians and a minibus for one performance; certainly welcome, but I simply do not accept that it is enough.
The poor Royal Philharmonic Orchestra we hear may be shunted to Nottingham to serve the eastern void. That would be a total disaster. I represent an East Anglia constitutency, so I know; and I ask the Minister merely to look at the map to see the geographic disaster of that projected move. Not only is Nottingham 130 miles away from Chelmsford, 120 miles away from Ipswich and 140 miles away from Norwich, but there is no centre of music in Nottingham, and there will not be one. Will talented musicians leave the centre of the music industry and go to the provinces? Of course not. Standards in the provinces will be different and the Royal Philharmonic, which is such an admirable orchestra, will lose quality. It used to be rather unkindly said that the difference between Sir John Gielgud and Sir Donald Wolfitt was that one was a tour de force and the other was forced to tour. I am frightened that a concept of shunting a great orchestra into the provinces will result in a consequent loss of quality.
I want to give one instance of a theatre about which I know, because my wife worked in it and friends of ours run it. That theatre, in Harrogate, will have its whole six-figure grant cut. The reason for the cut—it is down in black and white in "The Glory of the Garden"—is that the development of drama provision is increasingly focused on Leeds and York, for which reason Harrogate will suffer. There is no mention of quality or of demand. It does not seem to be realised that by cutting this grant from Harrogate, a prospering local theatrical company will be reduced to housing second-class tours when such tours come along. That is why I want the Government to consider this again.
Let us discuss the bedrock of theatre—second-class or even third-class tours. The economics are important: people will no longer go out to see whatever rubbish is on, because they can watch considerable rubbish on television. So there has to be a reasonably qualitative input into theatre. The economics are that if a company does a tour, it will get about two thirds back from the box office and various sponsorships. The other third will come only from subsidy, because the British theatregoer is not prepared to pay more than a certain amount for a seat. That again, is why I ask the Government to consider the concept of "The Glory of the Garden" — without the glory of extra finance.
The poem at the beginning of the Arts Council document comes from Kipling, who is not my favourite poet politically, though onomatipoeically and patriotically there is much to be said for him. That poem could more properly have said:
"Our England is a wasteland and such wastelands come about By Governments of arrogance who know without a doubt That they are right and we are wrong — whatever are our views—
And in arts the Tory's talent is the talent to abuse."
7.2 pm
Sir David Price: I shall come back to Kipling at the end of my remarks. My first point may appeal to the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud). Like every other right hon. and hon.
1124
Gentleman, apart from the Minister who opened the debate, I deeply regret that we are meeting here today at all. Because of the European election, this should have been a dies non. I do not make any constitutional point, but it would have been no more and no less than good manners towards the many people who are standing for election and to the electors.
Because you would like us to be brief, Mr. Speaker, I should like to concentrate on the national heritage aspect and ask straight away, what do we mean by the national heritage? This is a question to which the trustees of the national heritage memorial fund addressed themselves in their first report; they decided that it was unanswerable. That, incidentally, was much the same conclusion as was reached by those of us who were members of the Standing Committee which considered the Bill that set up that admirable body. The trustees decided wisely that they would let the national heritage define itself. That is what emerges from all our debates.
In their first report the trustees made a clear statement which is useful to the House in considering what we should do about the national heritage. I should like to quote in full what they said:
"The national heritage of this country is remarkably broad and rich. It is simultaneously a representation of the development of asethetic expression and a testimony to the role played by the nation in world history. The national heritage also improves the natural riches of Britain—the great scenic areas, the fauna and flora — which could so easily be lost by thoughtless development. Its potential for enjoyment must be maintained, its educational value for succeeding generations must be enriched and its economic value in attracting tourists to this country must be appreciated and developed. But this national heritage is constantly under threat."
That is a statement of description and object round which I hope the whole House will unite and upon which any Government within the foreseeable future should basetheir policy.
The last sentence in that statement warns that the national heritage is constantly under threat. But it was ever thus. This is nothing new, when we consider the ravages of the first industrial revolution and when I think in my part of the world of the great railway going through the middle of the New Forest. People become annoyed about motorways. If there were no railway through the New Forest and the London and South-Western Railway Company were to propose putting a railway through the middle of it, it would today be laughed out of court. Yet that happened and some people now regard it as part of our heritage. So long as a thing is old enough, even if it has despoiled the countryside it becomes acceptable.
Let us consider current threats to the national heritage.In their first three reports the trustees have increasingly analysed and identified contemporary threats. They have also pointed out ways of countering them. I invite the House to support the various remedies of the trustees. Equally, I am encouraged that the threats to the national heritage are more and more widely recognised by Government at all levels and by the people.
Part of the wider recognition is an acceptance of the simple economic fact of life that the state alone cannot possibly make itself responsible for the upkeep of the entire national heritage, even under the most high-spending Government. The difference between a high-spending and a low-spending Government is marginal when we consider the total threat. Therefore, a partnership

1125
at all levels on a permanent basis is required between the public and the private sector. Indeed, as the trustees point out:
"the pressures which threaten heritage items apply to both the public and the private sectors, to institutional and individual owners alike."
Therefore, I hope that a clear message will go out from the House that the preservation and the nourishment of our national heritage is a partnership of us all, all the people of Britain across the generations, townsmen and countrymen alike.
One of the most obvious features of the national heritage is our historic buildings and monuments. Here may I offer to my noble Friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, chairman of the new Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission, our very best wishes for the future work ofthe commission. I am particularly attracted by its creation of a popular body of friends of the commission, appropriately entiled, "English Heritage". This has been one of the commission's first acts. Clearly the commission recognises the need for continuing popular support for its work.
Beyond the scope of the commission there is the ever-present problem of the cost and maintenance of privately owned historic houses to which my colleagues on the Select Committee drew attention. Again, I should like to refer to what the trustees said in their third annual report which came out recently:
"The future of the great house and its historically associated contents still poses the greatest problem so far as the man-made heritage is concerned. The cost of keeping such properties well-maintained and intact is very high. Many would have become unviable without considerable devotion on the part of their owners. It is our belief and wish that as far as possible such houses should remain in private ownership. We have previously stated our view that the most effective and most economical guardians of the national heritage are its private owners."
The major problem here is taxation. Calke abbey has been saved, but the future of Kedleston is far from certain. We must alter the details of our capital taxation system if we are to make it possible for owners to pass the responsibility for preserving historic houses on to the next generation without a major crisis at every owner's death. I do not suggest that the system of acceptances in lieu of capital transfer tax is a failure, but I assert that it can and must be improved.
I also disagree strongly with the Treasury insistence that acceptances in lieu by the Inland Revenue must involve concomitant payments by the heritage departments to the Inland Revenue, in particular the smaller ones with tight budgets. That narrow book-keeping of such a mean nature, which is typical of the Treasury, has the effect of diluting considerably the potential strength of the in lieu provisions. I wish that the Treasury would learn to become accountants and cease to be purely book-keepers.
On paintings and other works of art there is no doubt, as the Trustees tell us, that
"The private treaty purchase is a very potent weapon in the defence of our national heritage giving a public collection an effective purchasing power well beyond the limit of its actual annual purchase grant."
I am convinced, as many of my hon. Friends are, that the route of private treaty purchase could be followed more than it is. But it would assist that process if the douceur to the taxpayer could be improved from the current 25 per cent. to at least 50 per cent., as has been recommended by the Museum and Galleries Commission and by the Select Committee.
1126
There is no doubt in my mind that the most important component of our national heritage is the natural countryside and coastline of Britain. Little of our countryside is raw nature. Most of it has had the imprint of man upon it over many centuries. I think immediately of the Chilterns, with their splendid beech woods, or the Peak District with its sturdy stone walls and farms. Much is worthy of conservation. In the immediate context of conservation we think of land management and planning controls. In the wider context we must involve ourselves in the whole range of environmental and ecological issues. They are central to the preservation of our national heritage.
We have received from the European Commission a document entitled "Ten years of Community environment policy." Its conclusion bears directly on the point that I am trying to make. A multitude of conclusions can be drawn from the report but the commission settled on one. It says:
"This is quite simply that the environment is the basic substrate on which we and everything we do or wish to do depends. We ignore or abuse it at our peril."
That is the experience of Britain and of our European neighbours. The issues are mainstream, not peripheral—heaven knows, if I were to dilate on them, I should detain the House for the weekend because they are numerous arid important—to the conservation and the nourishment of our natural heritage.
Finally, let me say a brief word about the arts. As a provincial Member of Parliament I am pleased with the new strategy of the Arts Council which aims to strengthen the artistic life of provincial Britain. I agree strongly with a passage in the chairman's introduction to the new Arts Council's document:
"The arguments for the arts are either universal or they are untrue. If the support we give to the arts in London is justified—and I believe that it is abundantly justified—then so is comparable support for the arts in the other great areas of population."
Artistic genius, as I have said before, is not a London monopoly, nor is the appreciation of the arts. So I look forward with hope — unlike the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East, who is in less than his habitually generous mood today—to the implementation of the Arts Council's new strategy. I want us all to share in "The Glory of the Garden". But may I offer the House another and equally relevant quotation from Rudyard Kipling to that selected by the Arts Council?
"Oh, Adam was a gardener, and God who made him sees That half a proper gardener's work is done upon his knees."
I add a further offering from Horace Walpole.
"Art and life ought to be hurriedly remarried and brought to live together."
The Arts Council is trying to do just that and it has my enthusiastic support in that strategic purpose.
7.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Faulds: We have been extraordinarily fortunate today, which does not apply to other debates on other occasions on other matters, in that we have had a series of excellent contributions. We are delighted to welcome my highly regarded, much respected and much loved right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) to these counsels today. We have had an excellent contribution, as we would have expected, from the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), whom I always thought was the best Minister with responsibility for the arts that we have ever had, and it is a pity that he lost the job.
Mr. Tony Banks: That is what he thought.
Mr. Faulds: He thought it rightly. His judgment of himself was more than justified.
We also had an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) who has always taken a most sustained and informed interest in matters to do with the arts and the heritage.
I trust that the House will forgive me if I develop a somewhat autobiographical approach to the debate this evening, without, I hope, becoming too egocentric. In the long distant past the then right hon. Member for Huyton—if the House remembers him—took one of his more important policy decisions. He appointed me as spokesman for the arts for the Opposition. It was one of his best judged decisions, too. I think that it happened because I had fortuitously mentioned to his secretary who is now Lady Falkender that I had just picked up a rather rare figure of Gladstone made at the Watcombe potteries late last century. A couple of days later I was summoned to his office, and thus Mr. Speaker, are great decisions come to.
I served in that important post from 1970 to 1973 in opposition. During those three years I did on my own a great deal of policy preparation. I stress that because there was not much party support, although there were a few hon. Members who were profoundly concerned with the arts, let me say hastily. I am thinking of the hierarchy of the party. The outcome of those deliberations was the remarkable document "A practical arts policy". It was so titled because I did not adopt the approach that a magic wave of the arts wand would transform our society. I thought that it was a bit more difficult than that.
That paper concerned itself with a practical approach to some of the immediate and pressing problems of the arts and some of the means whereby arts and heritage matters in our rich country might be better pursued. That paper, published in 1973, argued the need to reorganise responsibility for the arts and the heritage into a new and enlarged Ministry. It is some validation of that document that the Select Committee made just such a recommendation nine years later in 1982. Had I become arts Minister, things might well have been somewhat different.
Mr. Crouch: In the Cabinet?
Mr. Faulds: Why not? How it needed a contribution such as mine, especially in foreign affairs considerations. But we shall not pursue that today.
One wonders, sadly, if it will be another nine years before that excellent recommendation of mine and the Select Committee takes place and that enlarged Ministry ever evolves. Other suggestions in my practical arts policy document have been carried out under subsequent Ministers with responsibility for the arts. There have been five of them since those days. Some of those suggestions are now also enshrined in the recommendations of the Select Committee, which did such excellent work—it has been referred to before—under Christopher Price and the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South.
However, in 1973—I continue my autobiographical thoughts—I was somewhat peremptorily sacked by Lord Rievaulx when he kept a promise that he had made to Mrs. Golda Meir at a dinner in Jerusalem that I should go from my shadow appointment because I had, in a quip of an intervention in a debate on the middle east, asked one of
1128
my colleagues—perhaps with more good humour than good sense—whether he was a Member of this House or of the Knesset. It is well known that our then colleague who is now in the Lords—and his final honours list proved the case—was open to certain powerful external pressure groups.
I then returned to the wilderness for a sojourn of some years. I refer to these Back Benches. However, in 1978, the admirable Callaghan, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) reappointed me as shadow spokesman. I got my just desserts.
By that time moneys had been made available to the Opposition party to assist shadow spokesmen. Well, I applied for a small helping. A year passed, so I applied again. I did not think that I was being too demanding. After two years, and with the helpful intervention of some leading supporters of a group called Arts for Labour, I was granted enough to pay for a research assistant whom I wanted to do a specific job in the arts and heritage area. In the interim, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent had done me the honour of reconfirming my appointment, thus showing his renowned concern for and knowledge of the arts.
The purpose of my research was to include in the document that I planned to write — "A Long-Term Practical Arts Policy", or, in other words, the second volume—an examination of the fractionalised, indeed fissiparous set-up of the whole range of heritage and arts administration and funding and facilities provision with a view to organising a more coherent and constant national and regional structure.
I am not too sure that my attractive research assistant quite understood my intentions. Attractive fellows have their own particular brand of problems. The very matter that I was after was raised later in the Select Committee's recommendation 7 on the gathering of
"comprehensive statistical information on all aspects of arts funding and provision in the UK".
So the job was done and perhaps better than I would have done it by the Select Committee, but I had intended to do that job before the findings were published.
I also intended to include in that, my second arts directive, to reiterate, on the basis of the examination that I have just referred to, the need for an enlarged Ministry to take the responsibility for all aspects of the heritage—the performing arts, museums, art galleries, films the entertainment aspects of the media — but not the information aspects; that would be very dangerous—and also tourism, because of its enormous and vital dependence upon the treasury of riches which this country possesses.
Subsequently the Select Committee came out with just that roll-call in its recommendations. I also intended to urge the need for much greater devolvement to the regions of the responsibilities for running and maintaining the range of heritage properties and sites. I wanted to see the setting up of more powerful regional bodies to run such responsibilities, and to conduct the support of arts and museum activities of all types, independent both in decision-taking and in funding, under boards of arts and heritage experts, with an infusion of local authority personnel—that would be essential. I envisaged the funding as provided 50–50 by national Government and the local authorities. That would have required the imposition of a very small mandatory rate for arts and heritage

1129
purposes on every local authority. We shall have to come to that one day, because so many local authorities are so remiss in their support of these issues.
Mr. Robert Key: Hear, hear.
Mr. Faulds: I am delighted to hear "Hear, hear". I hope that it came from the Conservative Benches.
That is a matter that we shall have to consider and I hope that it will not take another nine years before it is introduced. It would have been an extension, long overdue, of Nye Bevan's permissive sixpence, which so very few authorities ever raised.
There were other matters that I wished to discuss in my long term practical arts policy. Some of them appear—to my relief and delight— in the Select Committee's recommendations. However, my important document was never put together because history intervened and personal integrity demanded an honest response. In other words—some of my colleagues will recall it—the Prime Minister launched the avoidable lunacy of the Falklands exercise in which the British military had yet again to rescue the politicians from their failures— which they did superbly. But my party erroneously and, I think, ignominiously—I must say this, although my ex-leader is present—decided not to oppose the operation.
Knowing somewhat more about the history of South America than most of my colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party, I resolved to vote against the pursuit of such an unnecessary and misguided operation. I was actually on my feet in the Chamber at last, speaking against the war—having failed for some strange reason to catch the somewhat evasive eye of Mr. Speaker's feeble predecessor for five successive debates—when the PLP was taking that decision not to oppose the operation. I voted—and if I had known of the PLP's prohibition I should have done the same—as I had decided to do. I suppose that I merited the historic distinction of being sacked, with two of my colleagues, by that great libertarian my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent. I say that with great affection and warmness. It was an historic achievement. I understand how such things sometimes have to happen.
Mr. Foot: I would do the same again.
Mr. Faulds: I had hoped that my long fondness for our greatly respected colleague, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, and my detailed explanation of my reasons for opposing the party's erroneous decision—in other words, my greater knowledge of those matters—might have convinced him, but sadly I still have some work to do on him. I may pursue it on other occasions.
Once again, the outcome was that I was placed back, on the ample shelf which I still occupy. I recite this personal history Sir because nowhere else is it on the record. I may of course enlarge on all these issues when I come to compose my memoirs, where the art of sketching in acid will be much deployed. I make these claims to explain why I feel entitled to enlarge on a number of issues, on some of which I want to comment.
The Arts Council has received some stick because of the recent decisions spelt out in "The Glory of the Garden", the little pamphlet which I hope that most of my colleagues have read. I personally do not believe that the Arts Council's policy of giving regional gardeners more seed and fertiliser should be criticised. That is something
1130
that the Arts Council should have proceeded to years before. However, the weeding has been injudicious and misguided. The House has made its view on that clear this afternoon.
But the greatest flaw in the policy has been the Government's reluctance to provide greater horticultural funding to continue that image both for urban patios and regional allotments throughout the country. To change the figure, it is totally irresponsible of the Government to enforce on the Arts Council by financial restraints a policy of robbing Peter to pay Paul—in the phrase of my old and distinguished friend Hugh Manning, now president of British Actors Equity. Great damage is bound to ensue from such misjudged pressure from the Government on the Arts Council.
The abolition of the GLC and the metropolitan counties has appalling implications for the arts world and the heritage. It appears that, in their anti-democratic desire to remove Labour control from large areas of the country, the Government have not thought through the effects on the conduct of arts and heritage issues. The civil servants, poor fellows, have had to cobble together a set of collanders to contain the damage. The provision of £34 million, partly from the Arts Council, to replace the funding for a series of operations and organisations that will be destroyed in the demolition will not meet the need. Most of my colleagues understand that. Nor will it replace the excellent functions conducted by the metropolitan counties.
In regard to the Government's despoiling intentions on local government, abolition of the metropolitan counties will leave a vacuum in the heritage field. Their functions usually require a single integrated team and are not susceptible to being broken up and re-established as fragmented units at disrict level. That is especially true for the sites and monuments records and rescue archaeology. Archaeology is one of the matters that has largely been disregarded in this nonsensical reorganisation. The districts have come to rely on the expertise of the counties' conservation teams and archaeological units. It is extremely unlikely that any district will be able to afford to take over those teams on its own. Moreover, projects that have already been embarked upon are at risk. The sites and monuments records require continuing input to be of service to strategic planning. Current archaeological investigations will be left incomplete and unrecorded. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that point in his reply.
So far, the Government have made no real comment on co-ordinated work in this archaeological and the heritage field within the metropolitan counties, other than in Greater London. No proposals have been made to ensure that the archaeological work continues, other than statements that such work will be something for the districts to organise. In the rest of the country, however, such work is almost entirely carried out on a county basis. How can those integrated services be retained in the event of abolition? The districts have already declared their unwillingness or inability to support the continuance of that type and size of establishment. The support of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission is based on projects, not the direct funding of staff. If the Government dislike the establishment of a local joint board, may I suggest that they consider allotting £300,000 to enable continuation of the present service, perhaps operating as an independent trust in close contact with the districts?

1131
I had intended to deal with the damaging implications of the imposition of 15 per cent. VAT on historic buildings repairs but the subject has already been dealt with. Having given a little on this issue, the Government must re-examine two aspects—the 75 per cent. requirement, and the external walls of the original structure requirement. The Minister will know what I am talking about, or at least I hope he knows what I am talking about—I am not too sure after this afternoon's performance. Unless those changes are made the result might be encouragement of unnecessary demolition and alteration rather than sensitive preservation. That is an important issue that has not yet been raised today.
We must also consider the ridiculous anomaly of imposing VAT on purchases of works of art for public collections. I can do no better than quote a letter sent to The Times by Lord Normanby, chairman of the national art collections fund, which has done a remarkable job over the years to keep treasures in Britain. He wrote:
"I doubt whether many people are aware that when a national or university museum or gallery buys a work of art at auction or through a dealer VAT has to be paid on the auction or dealer's commission. The only exception to this are municipal galleries. In the case of an overseas buyer, no VAT is payable.
In effect, the tax is designed to favour the overseas over the domestic buyer, even when the latter is purchasing for the national patrimony. In the case of expensive works of art the tax payable runs into many thousands of pounds and reduces the chances of our public galleries competing successfully against, overseas buyers … The solution is simple—zero-rate VAT on purchases by all public museums and galleries.
That action has been urged on the Government for months.
The change is obviously necessary. Why are the Government so reluctant to make the necessary change? It is a small requirement that would make a world of difference.
All who are anxious about our national treasures know only too well the threat posed by the vast vacuum cleaner of the Getty museum. Each year, £70 million has to be spent because of American tax regulations. No outstanding masterpiece that comes on the market can avoid the risk of being bought up, regardless of cost because the funds are well nigh unlimited, for the Malibu collections. We shall have to re-examine our means of retaining such treasures because the number of properties coming up for consideration by the Export of Works of Art Committee, on the basis of the Waverley criteria, is increasing at a frightening rate. I believe that this year there have been more applications than in any other—about double. More treasures are bound to be lost abroad if new approaches are not adopted by the Government who must consider either the French and Italian method of forbidding the export of certain works of art or change our tax laws to tempt owners to leave or give such treasures to our national collections.
Sir David Price: Will the hon. Gentleman add to his category of fears about the Getty purchases the fact that the items go to Malibu, which is in an area of high risk for earthquakes? Great treasures could be lost to the world because of that. I have done quite a study of the earthquake risk there, and it is serious.
Mr. Faulds: I have made no such study, but I entirely accept the hon. Gentleman's point. That is an additional, if somewhat peripheral, reason for resisting the Malibu collections. I am sure that what the hon. Gentleman has
1132
said is right, but I do not want the treasures to go to Malibu, Massachusetts, Manhattan or anywhere else but to remain in Britain. Although my argument is strengthened by the hon. Gentleman's point, it is based on somewhat profounder reasons. The threat to the treasures is immediate, and the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench knows this as well as I do, and so must be the Government's action.
I must state my profound concern that the Government have treated with such disregard the excellent conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee. Its members knew what they were talking about. One wonders — I think with justification — whether the Government and the Minister have either such knowledge or such concern. It is highly regrettable that they do not.
7.38 pm
Mr. Toby Jessel: Several right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the European elections. I do not propose to be drawn into whether we should be sitting today but, as today is the day of those elections, I should like to refer to European music year, 1985. It celebrates the tercentenary of the birth of Bach, Handel and Scarlatti, all of whom were born in 1685. Therefore, 1985 has been designated a great festival year for music throughout Europe. It applies to the 10 countries of the European Community, all 22 members of the Council of Europe, Finland and Yugoslavia.
It would be nonsense to have a European music year for European Community countries only, leaving out other European countries with musical traditions like Austria, Spain and Norway. Thus, it is to be a joint venture between the European Community and the Council of Europe, the first of its kind. Plans are advanced. I believe that everyone will be fully aware of the year from when it begins next winter. The broadcasting and other media are already involved, professional musicians individually and through their orchestras. Organisations are alerted and making plans, and the Post Offices in all the countries have agreed to issue special stamps. I hope that every school throughout Europe, and in particular every school throughout the United Kingdom, will make a special effort with some concerts and other musical events in 1985. I hope that hon. Members will encourage their constituents, schools and musical organisations in their constituencies to participate. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) has already begun to initiate this in his part of Hampshire.
A large number of new projects, international and national, needs supporting funds whether these are received from bodies like the Arts Council, the Government or other sponsors such as commercial sponsors. Two that have been proposed from the United Kingdom are, first, a Handel festival, because we have great links with Handel, who spent the bulk of his professional life in the United Kingdom, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, and, secondly, the European baroque orchestra which is to be set up. I hope that these find sponsors because it would be a great pity if the European music year were to consist only of events that were going to take place in any case. I am glad to be able to tell the House that I have been able to persuade the French Minister of Culture to invite the British Army band to perform in the open air in the Palais Royale in Paris in June 1985.

1133
While on the subject of European matters, I wish to refer to the Elgin marbles, because the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), who has been present in the Chamber for most of the debate, but has temporarily left the Chamber—out of respect for his seniority, we must forgive that—said that the Elgin marbles ought to be returned to Greece. Many Conservative Members cannot accept that. The Elgin marbles were saved by British people from vandalism and decay. They were purchased legally. They now form an essential part of a great international collection. If they were returned to Greece, they could not be put up in the original place from which they originally came, the Parthenon. They are well looked after by the British museum, which will not part with them unless it is forced by legislation. A large proportion of us would never agree to forcing the hand of the British museum in that way, and I believe that our Greek friends will simply have to accept that one cannot always have what one wants, and that applies to them in this case.
Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman must take on board the fact that there are certain—I think comparatively few—treasures in the world which are of immensely more significance, whether for the psyche, the religion or the history of a country, than their purely aesthetic value. Into that small category the Elgin marbles must come. I do not wish to go into the history. I know the history well. Incidentally, the Elgin marbles have suffered damage in the British museum. I do not blame the museum for that, because it knew not what it was doing in 1939. But that is not the argument. They were protected and respected by the British museum. However, they mean infinitely more to the Greek people than they do to us. Any study that we want to do, we can do there. Their aesthetic value will remain there, and the national value is something that we should he honoured to return to the Greeks.
Mr. Jessel: That is a matter of opinion. The Elgin marbles were falling to bits where they were in Greece. They were being pulled about by vandals, and they were saved, brought here, put together and kept.
Sir David Price: Can the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) give any evidence that, during the wars of Greek independence against the Turks, the Parthenon marbles, as a symbol, played any part at all? Indeed, all the historical records show the contrary. Can the hon. Gentleman show any direct racial connection between the Greeks who revolted with our help, and with great emotion in this country, against their Turkish oppressors and the Athenian Greeks at the time of Pericles?
Mr. Jessel: My hon. Friend is correct. If I may add a further point of history, the increasing disrepair of the Elgin marbles, and the neglect in which they had fallen, took place not only under the Turkish regime, which was in the early part of the last century, but hundreds of years before that, under groups of those Greeks who were there at that time. The Elgin marbles had been neglected through the centuries not only by the Turks, but by the Greeks, and it is the British who have looked after them, kept them in repair, cherished them and made them available for millions of people to see every year. They are a major asset to the museums of London.
Mr. Faulds rose——
Mr. Jessel: London is one of the arts centres of the world, visited by more people than any other centre in the world. Indeed, London is the arts capital of the world, and it will continue to remain so after the abolition of the: Greater London council.
There is no reason why the arts should not continue to flourish in London. A certain amount of nonsense has been talked about this matter in the debate. Everybody knew., of course, when it was suggested that the GLC was going to be abolished, that the arts would have to be organised and provided for in a different way from hitherto. However, it was necessary to have a consultation period on it, that consultation period went on for months, and consultation means uncertainty. If there is not to be uncertainty, one cannot have a consultation period. The consultation period went on through the winter, the results were received, the Government decided, and funds are being provided. Plans for sponsorship of the arts through the Arts Council are going ahead. That was always the intention, and it is nonsense to say that it was not thought of.
Mr. Faulds: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, even if somewhat reluctantly and tardily. I had meant to comment on the earlier issue before he launched off into the other matter.
The question, not only of the Elgin marbles, but of a range of other national treasures in foreign possession, will have to be seriously examined at some stage by some British Government. There is no way in which the problem will go away. It is unrealistic of hon. Members on either side of the House to think that if they say no, no, no, often enough, other nations will not say, "We want that specific object, because it has particular cultural, religious or national significance to our country." When the situation arises, as it will do, that some of the countries are in a position to make requirements in terms of economic deals with certain resources, these matters will come up again, and we will have to be more realistic in our response. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that hon. Members who have already addressed the House will bear in mind that their interventions are at the expense of the time of other hon. Members.
Mr. Jessel: I think that I was wrong to give way to the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), but I respect him and I thought that he was going to make an interesting point. He said that the problem will not go away. I say to him that the Elgin marbles are not going to go away.
I wish to make two more points, the first concerning Hampton Court palace in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State who introduced the debate, and who has among his other jobs responsibility for sport, and the old Ministry of Works job in the Department of the Environment, which includes royal palaces and parks, has been criticised for the length of his speech, and I must say frankly that he did try to pack rather a lot into it. Hampton Court palace and the two royal parks, Home park and Bushey park, as well as Hampton Court green, are well looked after by his Department. The buildings and the parks give enormous pleasure, not only to a large number of my constituents, but to huge numbers of people from all over the country and all over the world.

1135
It is a good effort, and the palace is well kept. The garden looked the best ever this spring, and I wrote to congratulate the Secretary of State.
The Minister will not like my final point so much. It is that one aspect of the arts which is in a bad way is poetry. My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) spoke of how sadly missed will be Sir John Betjeman. We delight in his poetry. It makes wonderful reading. There has been much talk of the appointment of the next poet laureate. In my view, none of the names suggested is nearly good enough. They produce poetry which is largely tripe; it is not worth reading and it is not edifying in any way. A poet laureate should not be appointed for now and the post should be held in abeyance.
7.50 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I shall, wherever possible, avoid reference to the GLC. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear".] I thought that would cheer up Conservative Members. In view of the exceedingly lengthy opening speech by the Minister, the whole debate has been somewhat constrained in that a large number of hon. Members still wish to speak. That demonstrates the need for much more time to be made available to discuss the arts. I hope that we shall not have to wait another 25 years for the next debate.
We are not indulging in frippery, because the arts are significant and not simply a minority interest. Tens of millions of people each year attend the theatre, cinema, ballet and concerts. Millions more involve themselves in arts activities in the home, school, evening classes and arts centres. Television and radio, and latterly video, bring a rich variety of art forms to the majority of citizens.
We are therefore discussing a subject that touches the majority, if not all, of our citizens. It is not a minority interest, and it deserves to be treated far more seriously. From the broadcasting point of view, the BBC is second only to the Government as the single largest funder of the arts. Every national newspaper employs arts reporters, critics and commentators, and television and radio present an impressive range of arts programmes.
The arts not only enrich our culture, but represent important areas of employment and—this will please Conservative Members—provide an important source of foreign exchange. Our debate is, therefore, appropriate, although, as hon. Members have said, it is unfortunate that it should coincide with the Euro-elections. As I have sat listening to what, at any rate in part, has been an interesting debate, I have had a heavy conscience knowing that I shall have to answer to my colleagues in Newham, North-West for not being out canvassing with them.
We should be pressing for an annual debate. We shall have two days, Monday and Tuesday, to debate the Defence Estimates. While I do not necessarily quarrel with that, if traditionally we have a day for each of the Army, Navy and Air Force, we should have a day for the arts. That would at least supplement the desire of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan), who called for an annual arts White Paper.
I shall discuss two narrow areas. The first is the vexed and usually misunderstood issue of arts and politics, and
1136
in particular the need to achieve greater democracy in the arts. The second is the future development of cultural industries.
When the GLC was formulating an arts policy, it set out four priority areas. The first was the need for community involvement in the arts; the second was the unemployment crisis in London; the third was the need to forge closer links between the borough councils, ILEA and the education committees of the borough councils in London; and the fourth was the multi-ethnic nature of London's culture.
We specifically rejected the concept of art for art's sake because, in a society and city faced with widespread social problems, many of them exacerbated by Government policies, it seemed that if the arts did not direct themselves to those wider social problems, the arts stood in grave danger of being marginalised and treated as unimportant. For those reasons, I have always wished to see the arts related to the wider problems of society, such as homelessness, unemployment, poverty and urban decay.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South said, the arts can be used to communicate in a way that all the party political speeches can never achieve, by getting over important social messages that affect society. "The Boys from the Black Stuff' and "Cathy Come Home" were two examples that my hon. Friend gave, and he could have given many more.
One must argue politically on behalf of the arts. It is no good saying, "The arts are good and we are all in favour of them. Please may we have a little more money?" One must be far more assertive in arguing politically for more funds. We must make it clear that the arts are not a luxury in society. They are not the icing on the social cake, but an essential ingredient in it.
For that reason, I disagree strongly with the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), perhaps the only ancient national monument that the Minister did not mention in his opening remarks. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford was wrong to talk as though politics and the arts must be divorced. In fact, they must be closely identified. They are inextricably linked because, by arguing politically in a political forum, we who are concerned for the arts can achieve more resources. Being nice is not enough in a world in which those who take a more robust approach to politics achieve the greatest results.
Mr. Rathbone: Had the hon. Gentleman been here in the days of Labour rule, he would have heard exactly the same arguments being put to that Administration for more funding for the arts, even by some of his hon. Friends who have spoken in this debate. It is not as much of a party battle as he suggests.
Mr. Banks: I would not disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We could argue at length, for example, about the amount of money devoted to the arts by the last Labour Government and the amount being devoted by the present Government. Within both major political parties, achieving some political recognition for the arts—as it were, giving the arts political muscle — is an uphill struggle, and that is why I agree in part with what the hon. Gentleman said.
It is a ridiculous notion to suggest that the arts should be kept out of politics. The essence of public funding for the arts encompasses a series of political decisions.

1137
Ministers decide how much shall be spent on the arts compared with defence. Ministers for the arts, as much as defence Ministers, are not non-political creatures. Therefore, the arts are bound up with politics from the beginning.
Politics and the arts are closely linked because of the range of decisions involved in deciding what art forms shall be funded, because those decisions are also taken by politicians or by their direct nominees. We make great play of the arm's-length principle as it affects the arts and we constantly refer to the Arts Council. That body is made up of appointees of the Minister for the Arts.
I cannot believe that the present Minister would appoint people who did not share his values and outlook—not necessarily his party affiliations, but his outlook on life. The same can be said of all Ministers for the Arts. Therefore, the decision about what shall be funded is also political. While we say much about the arm's-length principle, the arm is connected to the body and, in this case, the body is the body politic.
Today's debate is about the arts and the heritage. Government Members do not see the arts as a heritage. They regard Britain as a vast antique shop. They believe that the arts should be a fondled, favoured and cherished pet that has to be funded.
It is not surprising that certain art forms, such as classical ballet and opera, are preferred by Conservatives. I do not criticise such art forms, but they are the preferred art forms of the British establishment. It is no surprise that they secure the lion's share of public and private funding.
Priestley could have been sent into any number of arts institutions in Britain, only to find precisely the same situation — that the arts are under-funded. They are organised inefficiently and need more money. Priestley was asked only to investigate the Royal Opera House and the Royal Shakespeare Company because it would have been impossible for a Tory Government to allow the opera house or the RSC to hit the deck. The Tories have allowed many other institutions to hit the deck, because they do not have the establishment status of the Royal Opera House and the RSC.
Mr. Key: If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) would speed up his speech a little, we could prove that his claim is untrue.
Mr. Banks: I shall do my best, but I should be helped if I were not interrupted again. I am trying to give Government Members food for thought so that the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) can marshall his arguments better than he usually does.
The Arts Council is dominated by middle-class, male values. That shows in its attitude to arts funding. Reference has been made to "The Glory of the Garden". That document eliminates political theatre. I cannot be convinced that that was not a political decision by the Arts Council, prompted by the Government.
Not only does the establishment control the arts' purse strings, but it decides what is art. Ballet is considered to be art, whereas ice dancing is considered to be sport. Classical music is art, and pop music is not. In terms of funding that is all-important. The definition of art is important to the funding pattern. When an art form is acceptable, it becomes acceptable to fund it. The people who arbitrate our artistic tastes allocate the money. They
1138
have a cosy, but powerful, position. When Government Members say that we must keep politics out of art, they mean that we should keep our politics out of their art.
The liberalisation of arts in terms of spending should cover a wider range of activities. More should be spent on the arts in the community and on arts education. The arts should be made more accessible to a wider social range of people. It is ridiculous to talk about building large institutions in which to enshrine arts activities. The Arts Council should go back to the old traditions of the council for the encouragement of music and the arts and take arts activities into factories, offices, pubs, clubs and parks. Political theatre touring companies have been particularly badly hit. Such companies try to find the audiences in front of which they feel most at home.
The Arts Council should be opened up to a far more representative group of people and be made more accountable. I should like to see direct elections to local and national Arts Council committees. I do not see why we should restrict democracy to a narrow range of human activity.
Politics and the arts are linked in another way—in the art forms themselves and in the way that they convey powerful social messages. That is why, over the years, writers, artists and musicians have been imprisoned, banned, tortured or put to death. Tyrannies have always been afraid of free artistic expression. Therefore, the maintenance of free artistic expression is central to the maintenance of democracy. Creative people are not isolated from the great social and political feelings and events in society because they express them in their work.
I shall have to leave out of my speech my views on the development of the cultural industry sector, which is most significant. In employment terms, that is where the future lies, not only for the arts, but for Britain's industry, because the cultural industry is just that—an industry.
Culture is not something off which we merely live. It must be something to which we add as we go through life., so that we pass something on to the next generation, for which we hope it will always be grateful.
8.6 pm
Mr. Cecil Franks: Some hon. Members, when they rise to speak on a subject, are recognised as experts. I make no such claim. My interest in the arts is that of a spectator, a member of an audience rather than a participant. Enjoyment of the arts is universal. I welcome today's debate, even if the choice of day is unfortunate. I regret that all Opposition Members have used the debate to politicise what should be a non-political subject. By making the arts a political football they are no friends of the arts.
I shall deal briefly with four matters. First, I wish to take up a subject mentioned by the hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan)—the plight of Opera 80. The issue was taken up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack). I am happy to add my voice to theirs. I remind the House that 205 other hon. Members have signed an early-day motion in that connection.
I could be asked why I am interested in opera. On some occasions I have asked myself the same question. When I first appeared before my constituency association 15 months ago opera was a long way from my mind. Two months ago I was invited by the Renaissance theatre trust,

1139
the arts association for Cumbria, to go on a Friday evening to the Coronation hall at Ulverston to listen to "Cosi Fan Tutti" performed by an opera company which to that date was unknown to me — Opera 80. In retrospect the comment made to me that it was "a labour of love" was unkind and unfair. In the event I spent a most delightful evening. About 630 seats in the hall were taken, as they were the night before and the night after for "La Traviata". It was learnt that week that the Arts Council had decided, in contradiction of every word in "The Glory of the Garden" to withdraw grant from 1 April 1985. Before the performance began, a dignified and brief appeal was made for the audience to sign a petition. Out of the 1,800 people who bought seats in the three days, over 1,100 signed the petition. A copy was sent to me. The audience came from all parts of the county and beyond, but travelling from Carlisle to Ulverston is not the same as travelling the direct route from Dover to London. It can be a long and difficult journey lasting, perhaps, two or three hours.
After the performance, I was asked to consider the plight of Opera 80, and I invite the House to do likewise. Opera 80 was the brainchild of the Arts Council some five years ago. It was formed specifically to tour professionally in the regions of England. It has not performed in London. The list of places where it has performed is long, and I shall not read the whole list. However, I shall mention a few so that hon. Members will get the flavour of what Opera 80 does. It has visited Ashington, Ashton-under-Lyne, Barnstaple, Billingham, Chesterfield, Crewe, Darlington, Doncaster, Exeter, Grimsby, Ipswich, Mansfield, Peterborough, Preston, Scunthorpe, Stafford and my constituency of Ulverston. Why should those small towns in far-away places be deprived of the very things that the metropolis enjoys in abundance?
The policy statement of the Arts Council says that the regions deserve a better deal in the arts. I agree with that statement. It said:
"Those taxpayers who live outside London have a legitimate claim to a fairer proportion of the council's funds."
I echo those words.
What is the plight of Opera 80? Its grant of £235,000 represents less than 1 per cent. of the total grant of the Arts Council for opera, which stands at almost £24 million. Its grant was increased by £37,000 in the current year—the very year when it is proposed to axe Opera 80. The two policies are wholly inconsistent.
What is the record of Opera 80? Its seat occupancy of 89 per cent. is the highest of the five so-called touring opera companies. The seat occupancy of the English National Theatre is 64 per cent., of Glyndebourne, 75 per cent., of Kent Opera, 67 per cent., and Opera North—which is supposed to replace Opera 80 in Ulverston—can manage only 57 per cent. The great Royal Opera has a seat occupancy of 83 per cent. Opera 80 is the most successful of all the professional touring companies. Is seat subsidy the problem? It has the lowest seat subsidy, which is to be expected because it has the highest seat occupancy. The subsidy per seat is £8·89. Opera North, which is to take its place in Cumbria, has a seat subsidy of £19·63—twice as much. The Royal Opera has a seat subsidy of £25—although I believe the figure to be even higher.
Mr. Brinton: I have listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend has said about Opera 80, which I have not
1140
had the pleasure of seeing. I think that my hon. Friend's point is similar to that of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and one that I voiced earlier in the debate, and that is the worry about the arm's-length principle which, by its nature, must be selective and can cause problems.
Mr. Franks: I shall deal with my hon. Friend's point when I talk about the accountability or otherwise of the Arts Council.
It may be argued that the error of Opera 80 has been in its administration. What is the total administrative staff of that organisation, which has such a superb track record? It has two administrative staff, plus one half in the winter and spring when it tours. That compares with several hundred to back the Royal Opera.
It is interesting to note that only once during the past five years has the Royal Opera moved out of London. It went to the city of Manchester because the private and public sectors had combined successfully to invest £3 million in the renovation and restoring of the Palace theatre—the only large theatre in Manchester. Royal Opera went there for a week, there was a total sell-out, but it refused to go again. That company, which accounts for £12 million of the Arts Council budget for opera, is based wholly in the metropolis. The irony is that the most successful of all the professional touring opera companies is facing the axe. I urge the Arts Council to think again because there is inconsistency and contradiction between its policy document and its decision.
When I invited hon. Members to sign the early-day motion, two points came to the fore. First, the Arts Council has few friends in the arts world or, I suspect, in this Chamber. It has been seen in the past—and I hope that it belongs to the past—to be a self-perpetuating, unaccountable, autocratic, despotic body that disregards its professional advisory sub-committees. The Arts Council has a new chairman and a new secretary-general. I fervently hope that its past image will belong to the past. The criticisms from all sides of the policy document bodes ill for it in the future and for the arts in the regions.
One point has hit me forcibly during the past 12 months. During the whole of my adult political life, I have attacked and complained about this matter from a distance of 200 miles. I refer to the way in which every aspect of life is orientated towards London and the south-east. It is almost as though north of Watford there is a lesser breed of Englishman that the civilised Romans of the south must keep at bay by building a new Hadrian's wall. We are culturally alive in the north; we are industrially alive in the north; in every way we are part and parcel of this land. It is high time and long overdue that the concentration of effort, funds and resources to London and the south-east was brought to a halt and that other parts of the land had their fair share. That fair share, in the arts as much as anywhere else, belongs to the north, East Anglia, the south-west and places other than the city of London.
I recognise and accept that, as the capital, London has a special role. It is entitled to special recognition. But life does not begin and end with the city of London and its environs. I say that with all the passion and fervour that I can command.
Hon. Members have briefly touched upon the importance of art in the occupation of time. I wish to put a different aspect on the problem. In debate after debate we have heard about the problem of unemployment. I see

1141
that problem in a rather different way. I see the problem for the remainder of the century and beyond—beyond our lives, our sons' lives and our sons' sons' lives—to be one of leisure. The whole history of man has been a never-ending battle to spend less time in keeping life, limb and family together and more time in relaxation and leisure. We had the agricultural revolution, which was spread over two or three centuries. In the 1700s we had the industrial revolution. We are now in the midst of a third revolution, the technological revolution. We cannot will or wish it away, because it is taking place before our very eyes. For example, if British Leyland received tomorrow an order for 1 million new cars, the company would not return to the manning level per unit of manufacture that it employed in the past. That is the result of technological advance and the introduction of robots.
I believe that the four-and-a-half-day week will become the norm within the decade. Indeed, we shall probably have a four-day week. As an articled clerk 25 years ago I worked on Saturday mornings and a five-and-a-half-day week was the norm. Two or three years later, when I qualified as a solicitor and became my own boss, the five-day week was the norm. The four-and-a-half-day working week is virtually with us and the four-day week will come. We shall see retirement of men at 60 years of age and probably at 55. We shall see the retirement of women at 50, and why not? This will happen and more and more available time will have to be occupied. That is the problem of leisure and it faces the young unemployed. We neglect the young unemployed at our peril because they are our future.
The arts have a positive role to play and I regard them as an extension of the social services and not as a luxury. We have a traditional concept of social services—for example, home helps or the meals on wheels service—but the provision of the arts is in every possible sense an extension of the social services. We owe it to ourselves and to society generally to recognise that when we expend money and resources on the arts we are not indulging in some luxury or indulging others in luxury. It is our right, their right and the nation's right that provision is made for the arts. If we have a responsibility to the arts, in turn the arts must have a responsibility to the taxpayer. Neither one nor the other must seek to exercise a dictatorship. There must he a partnership involving the taxpayer and the world of the arts in a common interest, which is the betterment of man and his environment.
8.22 pm
Mr. D. E. Thomas: I endorse and warmly welcome the commitment to the arts and regionalisation of the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks). I hope that the Treasury Bench and the Arts Council will take his remarks on board. I endorse all that has been said by him, by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and by others about the need for the Arts Council to be accountable.
The history and development of the Arts Council reveal that it is another typical Britain quango. It became a statutory body in almost an accidental manner arising from pre-war and war-time arts activities. It has now become so enshrined as a statutory body that we talk about the arm's-length principle as if it were the only possible way of administering cultural policy in a democratic society. In most west European democracies and in the United States the structure and policy of arts funding is entirely
1142
different. When the council is indulging in its own exercises of cutting and laying down its own priorities, we should be questioning the nature of nominated bodies and the way in which their arts policy is operated.
In the course of our labours as members of the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts, which came to nothing, we considered the way in which arts are defined. There is a danger of talking about the arts in a way that we do not talk about the culture. We tend to recognise certain specific activities as being artistic without seeing art as a process. The Select Committee commended a Congress definition of the arts. It is one of the few things from the American Congress that I would commend. When the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities was being set up in the United States, the following definition was adopted:
"The term 'the arts' includes but is not limited to music, instrumental and vocal, dance, drama, folk art, creative writing, architecture and allied fields, painting, sculpture, photography, graphic and craft arts, industrial design, costume and fashion design, motion pictures, television, radio, tape and sound recording, the arts related to the presentation, performance, execution and exhibition of such major art forms, and the study and application of the arts in the human environment."
I suppose that the earlier references in the debate to parks came into that definition. I have quoted the definition because it is important for us to move away from a narrow base of discussion and to recognise arts as an economic and cultural activity, as a productive activity which is useful to society.
The arts relate to social services, as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness suggested, as well as to education, leisure services, information services and the cultural industry. Art should not be seen as an activity which is limited to certain types of performance or to certain kinds of individual inspiration. The idea of the individual artist is one that belongs to a certain period of artistic creativity. Art is a production and process that has users and consumers and it should be seen as part of the overall public funding of culture, leisure and education.
When art is seen in those terms, the argument for a rarefied arts council that is dominating policy, limiting funding and deciding priorities can be regarded only as redundant. Likewise, the arm's-length principle becomes redundant. In that sense we are talking about part of the overall creative activity of society in a broad cultural sense and not about a rarefied activity that is unsullied by politics.
Having advanced a general argument, I shall direct my remarks to the crisis that is facing the clients of the Welsh arts council. It is an even more difficult phenomenon to handle than a British quango. It is known that Wales is the land of quangos, not the land of song.
This issue has been raised by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), and I am grateful to him for making time in his speech to do so. It has been covered also in this morning's press, including The Stage and Television Today, in which a list is provided of some of the companies that may be axed. There is a major article by Sally Osman in the Western Mail, which is a typical Welsh leak.
The Welsh arts council is going against the very policy which apparently it has been developing. It is going against alleged regionalisation, which the Arts Council of Great Britain apparently favours. We are seeing, apparently, a Cardiff metropolitanisation or Swansea-based centralisation, especially in drama. The Arts

1143
Council is arguing in its development review that the highest possible standard should be available in Wales and should be accessible to the entire population. At the same time, it is proposing a substantial reduction in the number of drama organisations to be supported by the council. It is proposing a reduction in current spending of £500,000 and a redistribution of moneys. That redistribution will not be spread equitably throughout communities in Wales, whether in the Welsh-speaking community theatre or in the English-speaking theatre in the valleys.
The council is talking about "mainstream drama funding." It is looking to the centralised and expensive models of music and opera. It is stated, in a confidential document, that
"there is no reason why the same success should not be achieved in this field of the arts"—
that is theatre—
"as has obtained in other disciplines such as music and opera. There has been in the past too great a proliferation of companies, and consequently a thin spread of the available butter."
On what grounds can the Arts Council argue that there have been too many theatre companies? On what grounds—artistic access or provision for the audience—can the Arts Council argue that there have been too many companies? How can the Arts Council argue that possibly as many as 12 companies are due for the chop to establish two mainstream companies—one operating in the Welsh language and the other in the English language? None of those companies now exists.
In existence is the board of one Welsh language company, which managed to sack all its actors and technicians because of its financial incompetence. The board comprises the typical Welsh language elite, and I do not need to name them because they are familiar to my hon. Friends. Those people operate the cultural elite structures of Welsh-speaking Wales—the Eisteddfod and the Arts Council—and they are on the boards of various cultural organisations involved in Welsh education. Those people are the cultural arbiters, many of whom have been involved in messing up not only the theatre companies but other organisations with which they have been involved. Apparently, however, they have the ability to survive.
What we have is a theatre company whose artistic director has returned to her old job, because she was receiving no support, and which has no actors or technicians—only a board. Apparently, that company will be the candidate for major mainstream funding from the Welsh Arts Council. The other company — the English language company—does not exist, although, doubtless, there will be an advertisement in The Guardian and The Stage and Television Today about setting up such a company.
One point has been made strongly in a letter to the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) by the artistic director of one of the companies named this morning in The Stage and Television Today as due for the chop. Made in Wales has been going for three years, and over that period its funding has been increased by the Arts Council. A national theatre cannot be created simply by advertising for it. The letter from Gareth Armstrong makes the point clearly:
"The growth of excellence—"
the matter about which the Arts Council keeps talking—
"in any performing art is organic and the notion that a true national theatre can be established by providing sufficient funds
1144
and putting out to tender is open to serious questioning. It is not possible to 'transplant' theatre of high quality, as the not too distant past bears witness, and to do it by sacrificing the work of companies with less grandiose aspirations is surely folly."
I say to the new director and chairman of the Welsh arts council — both of whom are former bureaucrats, one from the University of Wales and the other from the Welsh Office—that if they believe that they can create two major companies by cutting grants for the artistic work done by Moving Being, Cardiff Laboratory, Made in Wales, Theatre Wales, Bara Caws in the Welsh language, Cyfri Tri, Hwyl a Flag, Brith Gof and other companies that have achieved a high standard of performance, innovation and community theatre throughout Wales on a touring basis, they are making a major mistake. They are putting the idea of their prestigious creations in front of the demands of the audience—both the English language audience of the valleys, Cardiff and Swansea, and the Welsh language audience of north and west Wales.
I appeal to the Welsh Arts Council to think again about this matter, because it is crucial that it is determined by the council democratically and openly. There has been no consultation with the client groups. They have been threatened with the chop without a discussion. I am glad that this matter has come to light through the medium of the press so that we can have an open debate before the council determines the matter. I suggest that, yet again, this example shows the dangers of the so-called arm's length principle and of having artistic policy determined by an elite quango of bureaucrats who are not in touch with the potential of the audience, who, apparently, are determined to create prestigious institutions on the model of the Welsh National Opera, and who are not really interested in the development of theatre.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): The House will wish to know that the winding-up speeches are expected to begin at 9.10 pm. Many hon. Members who have been in the Chamber during most of the debate wish to speak. I reiterate Mr. Speaker's appeal for short contributions.
8.34 pm
Mr. Christopher Murphy: To discuss the arts and heritage is inevitably to discuss money, for the financing of those attributes of a civilised society, including the correct and realistic balance between private and public funding, is a subject of considerable concern. The support, therefore, that the Government have been able to stage against a difficult economic backdrop is the more impressive when one recalls that it has been broadly maintained and is now well in excess of £100 million for the performing and visual arts. At the same time, overall expenditure on the heritage, be it the protection of ancient monuments generally or grants for outstanding individual buildings and conservation areas, has been played at a high level with the national heritage memorial fund's starring role especially worthy of mention, for which more than £35 million has been provided.
Equally impressive on those matters of necessary cash has been the emphasis in assessment of the value of private patronage and business sponsorship, with excellent publications such as "How to Win Sponsors and Influence

1145
People" and "The Arts are your Business" and direct action such as the new Government business sponsorship incentive scheme.
Criticism of the arts and heritage is sometimes levelled in the direction of producing so much for so few, but the facts do not bear out such an interpretation. As the Arts Council has shown, the economic value of the arts is considerable in its own right, with a fifth of total personal spending going on leisure, of which the arts are a major sector, and more than 200,000 people being employed. Similarly, heritage organisations such as the new Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission—much more graciously known as English Heritage — can point towards its 400 monuments, the vast numbers of people who visit them and the individuals involved in their maintenance and protection.
Perhaps most telling of all in straight economic terms is the value to tourism when one reflects that total overseas tourist spending in the United Kingdom is more than £4,000 million and that the arts and heritage were frequently among the major reasons for visitors' decisions to come to this country.
Only the most churlish of the Government's opponents can fail to recognise the importance the Government have attached in the past five years to the arts and heritage, but it may be that such deduction could stand a degree of improvement in administrative detail. The establishment of a separate Office of Arts and Libraries was an excellent prologue for bringing the subject out of the wings, but the heritage still languishes in the back row of the chorus in the Department of the Environment with its cast of thousands, and tourism, too, has to endure something of the role of understudy in the epic Department of Trade and Industry. I praise the individual dedication of my hon. Friends, the Minsters involved, but I have long believed that one Ministry embracing all those subjects, and, naturally, all their talents, would be welcomed.
Let the Government, as a result of this debate on the arts and heritage, and bearing in mind the implication for tourism, now ring down the curtain on those three separate entities and allow one unified Ministry to tread the boards instead. The introduction of such a Ministry may also provide an excellent opportunity once again to examine the vexed question of museum charges. I remain convinced that, if one accepts the premise that increased finance is of vital significance to the future of the arts and heritage, greater attention should be paid by the Government to the encouragement of their reintroduction, albeit in a different form. It should never again be a tax-raising exercise for the Treasury; rather it should be a payment that can be kept by the museum to assist its funding, much of which has been gleaned from overseas visitors. The Government have rightly taken certain steps in that direction, but more could be done.
My constituency is fortunate in being able to boast many proud examples of the arts and heritage, a number of which I have drawn to the attention of the House in previous debates. On this occasion, I refer simply to a Victorian house set in wooded grounds in the picturesque village of Ayot St. Lawrence known as "Shaw's Corner". This house of George Bernard Shaw was left by him to the National Trust, and many of his most famous plays were written there. Although not renowned for views that are always in keeping with those of Conservative Members, one sentence from one of his plays will certainly command the attention of all hon. Members and provide cause for
1146
reflection when considering the role of the individual and of the state with respect to financing the arts and the heritage:
"Money … enables us to get what we want instead of what other people think we want."
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Member for responding to my appeal for brevity. I hope that his example will be followed.
8.39 pm
Mr. Mark Fisher: With one notable exception, this has been a good debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) said, it has been the first such debate for 25 years. It is an inheritance of neglect by the House and Governments of both parties. That does not mean that there have not been excellent Ministers for the Arts. Baroness Lee and the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) have been mentioned. In an excellent speech today the right hon. Member for Chelmsford showed what a good Minister he had been. I wish that he had made that speech from the Dispatch Box, as he would in a more civilised society and with a more civilised Government.
Both political parties have a poor record in the arts. We must be fair about that. Not the least part of that poor record is the fact that they have made peers in the other place Ministers for the Arts. My criticism of the Minister with responsibilities for sport is not a personal criticism of him, because many Opposition Members recognise him as a good Minister who defends the Gleneagles agreement and other matters. The Government gave the Minister the responsibility for the debate and asked him to open it. His speech failed miserably to rise to the demands of the debate. He could and should have addressed himself to major arts questions—the relationship to education in building a new and wider audience for the arts and the political involvement of the arts, as I have said recently. What the money is spent on makes a difference. It makes a difference to experimentation in the arts, who will support them and their future. Political involvement in the arts and the arm's-length principle should have been discussed by the Minister. They were not. Instead we had 58 minutes on armour, Royal parks, Dutch elm disease and other matters. That was not what the House had a right to expect.
The Minister did not mention the state of writing, the problem of trainee artists, the recent dramatic and exciting growth in dance as a popular art form, or the contemporary arts. Worst of all, he never referred to the Select Committee report. When he answered my question, I had a grave suspicion that he had not read the report before he came to the House. That is not good enough. It is a contempt of the House.
It is not just the Minister who has a poor record. The Government have a poor record. I shall not discuss local government or the metropolitan counties; that subject has been covered sufficiently. For the Minister to say that he is not involved in or responsible for "The Glory of the Garden" is nonsense. It exemplifies the Government's economic policy for the arts. In the document, the Arts Council is trying to check out its parameters inside the conscriptions of the arts. The project was characterised by the Minister and the chairman of the Arts Council as a redistribution away from London to the provinces. That is gross misrepresentation. Of the £5·5 million, only £1·4

1147
million was redistributed London money. The other £3·1 million was redistributed among the regions. It is a gross disregard of the facts for the Government to represent that as a significant move away from London to the provinces.
The cuts are appalling, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) said, the cursory explanations are wrong and unfair to the artists and audiences that love and depend upon the companies that have been cut. In drama, 15 companies have been cut. That is one in six of all drama clients. There are just four lines saying that they were sorry; they just decided to cut them. There was no interest in the geography or the contribution made by some companies such as the Micron theatre, which is the only company that takes theatre on to the waterways.
In the visual arts, the most serious cuts are the Arnolfini in Bristol and the Icon in Birmingham. The document lays down a completely disingenuous challenge to local authorities to come up with 50 per cent. of the funding within a year. That is stupid, disingenuous and hypocritical, because the Government know that with rate capping and their policy towards local government, local authorities will never come up with that 50 per cent. No recognition was given of the value of those galleries to one-man shows for new and emerging young artists, nor to the significant part they play in the geography of the arts in those areas.
The most crucial cuts were those in literature. The funding has always been too small. It has only been 1·5 per cent. of Arts Council funding, and that sum has often been underspent in recent years. That is disgraceful conduct by the chairman and the administrators.
I take exception to what the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel), who has now left the Chamber, said about the state of poetry in this country. At the moment it is unprecedentedly high. Far from there being not one good person to take on the laureateship, there is an over-abundance of brilliant poets in this country—Larkin, Hughes, James Fenton, Andrew Motion, Adrian Mitchell, Vernon Scammell—the list goes on. There is an enormous number of women poets of tremendous ability. The document waves goodbye to the writers in schools, writers in residence, bursaries and the writers' tours and the bookshops. The report just says that many regional arts associations will wish to continue. With what money? Those schemes build audiences. They are vital. They will widen readership in the future. It is not good enough for the Arts Council simply to wave them goodby. We fear that it will be the end of future literature funding through the Arts Council.
With such a Government and such an Arts Council, it is no wonder that the arts are in crisis. There should be far greater political priority from both sides of the House with their different views. That is recognised in the debate. A new structure is also needed.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree with the Select Committee report that there should be an integrated Ministry with a Secretary of State in the Cabinet. We need an independent, democratic and reformed Arts Council. That will not be easy to achieve. In a 1977 document "Arts and the People" the Labour party attempted such a structure. That was probably not the correct structure. I suspect that we need a Green Paper to find a solution. If we are to have the right quality of
1148
decision, we must involve not just local authorities, but artists, workers in the arts, people in education and in the audience. Decisions should not be made on the old boy network of token appointees. There should be a democratic structure. Above all, we desperately need new resources. Without them, there cannot be experimentation or new growth. The arts are woefully underfunded. I believe that that is generally recognised on both sides of the House.
It is no good the Government relying on the free market and saying that business people will make the necessary response. They will not. It is completely disingenuous of the Government to suspect that they will. If the Government believed that, they would be offering major tax incentives, as the Select Committee suggested. They are not doing that. They are withdrawing first-year capital allowances from the film industry and continuing a high rate of VAT.
We need new legislation similar to the Libraries Act 1964 to set out the responsibilities of Government and the standards of provision. I believe, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East, that there should be a mandatory rate. Only such will on the part of the Government will tackle the problem. Keynes was interestingly quoted by the chairman of the Arts Council:
"We look forward to the time when the theatre, the concert hall and the gallery will be a living element in everybody's upbringing."
That hope expressed in 1945 has not been fulfilled. Surely the challenge to the Government and the next Labour Government is to bring it about. It will be possible only by setting free our artists and audiences. That makes good economic, cultural and political sense.
In this country we have some of the finest painters, sculptors, poets, novelists, musicians, actors, dancers and choreographers in the western world. We should be proud of them and make use of them. Their work, not ours in the House, will be remembered in time to come. The quality and taste of what it feels like to live in England in the 1980s will be transcribed to our great grandchildren by their work, sculptures, paintings, poems and novels and not by Hansard. This could be a golden age. We have the people, the artists, the enthusiasm and the audiences to make it a golden age, but the Government, by fulfilling their monetarist policies, are turning their back on those people, artists and audiences.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East gave a wonderful, amusing and optimistic vision of what the world could be. The House must not conspire with the Government's blindness to their responsibilities in the arts. History will not forgive us if we so perversely ignore our responsibilities and neglect our culture, artists, audiences and people.
8.49 pm
Mr. Tim Brinton: I shall be as brief as I reasonably can be, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in mentioning a few points. I should like to pick up a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher)—that we must somehow set the artist free. I believe that, oddly enough, if the Government had been truly monetarist and had been truly cutting public expenditure, they would now, after five years, possibly offer those incentives which I believe are the way to set the artist free.

1149
The reason that I have intervened twice this afternoon on the arm's-length principle is that the more I hear today—and the more that I studied the problem over two years as a member of the Select Committee—the more I have come to the conclusion that I tried to voice earlier. Yes, the arm's-length principle is worthy and it is the only way to approach the making of the choice, but if the Government are to hand over the people's money in forms of taxation, someone, however good or bad at it, will have to make a choice.
On the other hand, if we can say that we can afford in our economy to give real tax incentives to artists, and real tax incentives to investors of the sort that they have in the United States, then the performing artists—they are my main concern; I do not know much about the heritage, I am ashamed to say—can have their true trial, and show whether they have the ability to attract an audience. It does not have to be a huge audience; there has to be someone who wishes to watch the performance. That is the test that I would suggest to improve the quality of art and the freedom of that sort of artist.
So far, the Government have not responded to the Select Committee's report with anything like the detail for which I had hoped. Like other people, I felt great disappointment earlier today, and even more earlier this year, when I received this thin document, Cmnd. 9127. There was one statement in the reply from the Treasury Minister which disappointed me more than any other, bearing in mind the theme of my few words tonight, and I should like to put it on record. The Conservative Minister replied to all our suggestions about incentives, tax cuts, allowances, and various things to help, with these words:
"Successive Governments have taken the view that this"—
the maintenance of the arts—
"can best be done by means of direct grants which, insofar as limited resources permit, enable assistance to be channelled to those activities and organisations most deserving of support."
Earlier in the debate someone referred to hon. Members who seemed to have got here by mistake. When I first received the report and read the words that I have just quoted, I began to wonder whether, by mistake, I had joined the wrong party. The party that I joined—and which eventually selected me to represent Gravesham here—believed that subsidy was the wrong way and that tax incentives were the right way. I hope that the party will sort out its arts policy on those lines.
8.52 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to have been called in the debate. Perhaps at the beginning of my speech I should declare an interest, although not a pecuniary one, because I was recently elected chairman of the Greenwich festival trust. I mention that not least because, in an earlier speech in the debate by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Franks), a contrast was drawn between the cornucopia that was unloaded on London and the starvation of the regions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman was very sincere in what he said; indeed, I accept the justice in his arguments. But I am afraid that the cornucopia is unloaded on the West End and the City. There are areas of deprivation in London where the assistance of the Arts Council, the GLC and the Greater London arts association are all vitally important, and not least in Greenwich.
Greenwich has become something of a focus for artistic activity in south-east London. There has been an
1150
immigration of working artists, actors, writers and musicians to the area, starting with Greenwich village in my constituency but spreading out to Deptford, Lewisham and other parts of south-east London. It has been a very welcome development in an area that has been surrounded by a considerable amount of serious deprivation in living conditions, and serious deprivation of artistic activity of one kind and another.
It needs to be pointed out sometimes to hon. Members who genuinely represent the regions that there are parts o south-east England—and, indeed, parts of the GLC area—which are deprived and need the support of the Arts Council. I speak with some feeling because it was I who, two or three years ago, led a deputation from Greenwich to the Arts Council when it was decided, for the reasons quoted earlier, to withdraw the small grant to the Greenwich festival.
We have been fortunate in the number of working artists who have come to Greenwich, making it something of an artistic centre for south-east London as a whole. Greenwich and Lewisham borough councils, which have been very positive in the artistic field, have made it their duty to try to provide the facilities to enable the artists who have settled in our area to reach audiences.
I recall discovering, when first elected to Parliament 12 years ago, that the Greenwich theatre, which is famous, employed one person whose job it was to go round 'the factories in Greenwich, in an industrial area, trying to persuade and encourage people to go to some of that theatre's productions.
We have in the area other institutions of great importance, such as the Albany, which is not in my constituency but on its borders and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Deptford (Mr. Silkin). There is also the Clockhouse, in Woolwich, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright).
During recent years, the GLC has recognised the significance of our many facilities and found the sources to assist their development. It is for that reason that I must express, on behalf of the many people in my constituency and in south-east London generally, their dismay at the proposals to abolish the GLC, and at the air of uncertainty that arises concerning the possibility of funding at the present level.
I was not reassured by the Minister's speech at the beginning of the debate, not least because of one of the facts, which are well known in this House now—that Greenwich is almost bound to be rate-capped by the Government. Greenwich borough council makes a grant of almost £45,000 a year to make the Greenwich festival the success that it is. With rate-capping, it is difficult if not impossible for the borough council to provide funds sufficient to enable the festival to be the success that it is. The festival is going on at this very minute, and it is an enormous success this year, as it has been in previous years. The chairman of the council's festival committee, in recent speeches, has expressed doubt as to whether the festival can continue, certainly in the shape and form that it has taken in the past. It has attracted artists such as the Amadeus string quartet and Yehudi Menuhin, and it is doubtful whether in future it will be possible for that level of excellence to be maintained.
I accept that private sponsorship of the arts has a very important part to play. Two firms in the borough have been pre-eminent in that respect, the Woolwich Building Society and Standard Telephones and Cables. I would also

1151
mention the very interesting initiative taken by the National Union of Public Employees, which has sponsored events at the Greenwich festival, especially those run by ethnic minorities.
Private sponsors are often unwilling to sponsor the very experimental activities that are so important for local artistic activities, because of their preference for advertisement and large audiences, which the Minister himself admitted. As an example, when the Arts Council sponsored the Greenwich festival, it funded a composer to write a children's opera about a local hero, Saint Alfege. An important community event took place as a consequence, involving dozens of children from comprehensive schools in my constituency and beyond. A local amateur orchestra was also involved in the opera production. It was a magnificent occasion.
I cannot imagine that a private sponsor of the arts would become involved in such an event. He would prefer an event that would attract a packed audience because, say, a well-known violinist, string quartet or symphony orchestra was playing, and the event was bound to be a sell-out. The events of the sort that I have described will not be privately sponsored, because sponsors are interested in the publicity that they can obtain as a consequence of their sponsorship. I agree with those who say that sponsorship by public bodies is essential to the development of arts in areas such as mine.
I have mentioned the Greenwich theatre. I should like to express my gratitude to the Arts Council, which has recognised its importance to the artistic life of south-east London and a wider area, because of the excellence of its productions. However, the grant of £15,000 that we get from the GLC is in question. The future of the Greenwich theatre, and the level at which it puts on productions, is in doubt so long as the Government leave us in uncertainty.
I do not understand the logic of the Arts Council in its support to festivals in general. We have lost our grant from the Arts Council on the grounds that we are a London festival and, therefore, not in need of support. If that were so, I do not understand why there has been a termination of subsidies to the multi-arts festival at Harrogate, and at Leeds and King's Lynn, while the Arts council has preserved its support to the Bath, Cheltenham and Aldeburgh festivals. I am not criticising the excellence of the festivals in Bath, Cheltenham and Aldeburgh. They are magnificent. But if the Arts Council intend to support festivals on a geographical basis, particularly to serve the regions, I cannot see the logic of preserving grants for two west country festivals, although they may be excellent, while ignoring the north of England. I believe that geographical implications should be taken more seriously.
We must contend with the threat of rate capping as it affects Greenwich with the threat of the abolition of the GLC. I am grateful for this opportunity to make a brief contribution to the debate because I am very worried, as chairman of the festival, about whether we shall be able to continue as at present, with those two factors in mind.
We must go ahead soon with planning the festival for next year. So long as uncertainty continues about the degree to which we shall be funded by the GLC or its successor body, our planning will inevitably be affected.
1152
So long as we are threatened with rate capping, I am increasingly doubtful whether the council will be able to fund the festival to the extent that it has done in the past.
Many festivals take place throughout the country and may continue for a week, a fortnight or three weeks at most. They have a profound impact on communities as a whole. Sometimes festivals will, as it were, give birth to important developments. An important development has, indeed, taken place in the borough of Greenwich as a result of the festival and I shall mention it in conclusion.
We have an annual event, which takes place very much as the result of the festival, and which promises to become the national stringed instrument-making competition. It is supported by the Delme quartet. Stringed instrument makers come to Greenwich once a year from all over the country to have their instruments judged by experts and then played by the Delme string quartet. That makes a magnificent occasion by any standards because it has the remarkable result of bringing together the makers of instruments and professional players. That grew out of the festival, and is unique to this country. As a result, Greenwich is likely to become the national centre for that activity. I am sure that other examples could be quoted of important activities having grown out of festivals as a result of the interest aroused by them. Those activities spread into the rest of the year and involve people from other parts of the country as well.
This debate has been important, and some interesting speeches have been made. I only hope that when the Under-Secretary of State makes his concluding speech he will to some extent reflect the importance and interest of this subject, as, alas, the Minister who began the debate failed to do.
9.5 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: I suppose it was inevitable that whatever subject was chosen for today's debate would carry with it the stigma that little importance was being attached to it. I therefore very much regret that the debate should have been held today. It would have been better to hold it on another day, because of its significance for the country.
The arts reflect the living vitality of a nation, and the heritage, the values placed on the past, and the need for security that is derived from historical successes. I do not dispute the fact that there is a sense of comfort and continuity which emanates from the visual preservation of old buildings and landscapes. The heritage and its preservation are a relatively new idea, because in the 1950s and 1960s there was a tendency to want to flatten everything, irrespective of its value. Perhaps the destruction of the Euston arch epitomises what was happening in that period. But now the danger is that we will over-emphasise preservation and forget the alternative challenge of constructing new buildings. Therefore, a proper balance must be struck.
Art and design not only reflect their own age, but inspire and influence minds to accept new ideas. The almost total lack of appreciation of contemporary visual art by the British public—and especially the purchasing of it — reveals the immensity of the problem of regenerating this country, and meeting the technological challenges of today and tomorrow, let alone the loss of a valuable dimension to society and its enjoyment.
I turn to the position of artists and contemporary painting and sculpture. This is something of a hobby of

1153
mine, which I have taken a recent interest in. The plight of the individual artist is to employ himself. Artists come out of a very expensive education, and when they leave college or university they have to try to set up on their own and find a studio, as well as a gallery that will show their work. The Space and Acme studio projects were set up as charitable foundations to meet that need. Space was founded in 1968, and now has some 250 studios in 24 old industrial-type buildings in London. It provides studios at very low rents and supports artists. That is a remarkable achievement, and it is particularly sad that the Arts Council should have decided to cut all its contribution of £34,000 a year to that project. It has also cut its finance to the Air gallery, which is run in conjunction with the Space project. It is losing its grant of £40,000. That is also particularly regrettable because it strikes at the very help that artists require.
In my constituency, Harrogate, "The Glory of the Garden" has been read with great scepticism. Although it purports to reduce support in London in favour of the regions, that is certainly not the case in Harrogate. Harrogate receives two major funds from the Arts Council. One of them is for the theatre, which was built in 1900 and restored in 1970 at a cost of about £100,000. A very generous grant of £30,000 was made by the Arts Council, together with voluntary contributions and money from the local authority.
The theatre has, over the years, built up a very good reputation, and only recently achieved considerable success by increasing attendance figures from 54,899 in 1982–83 to 63,726 in 1983–84. All greatly appreciate the industrial and commercial sponsorship, and the support of the North Yorkshire county council and the Harrogate borough council that has enabled the theatre to succeed so well. In this financial year it has enjoyed an Arts Council grant of £132,000, yet at one stroke that grant is to be cut next year. Therefore, I have to wonder what the support for the regions will be. The argument is that the theatres of Leeds and York will take over Harrogate's audiences. But with communications and all the other problems that are involved that will not happen.
I feel very sore about that cut, as I do do also about the total cut that the Arts Council is making in the grant to the Harrogate festival. This is some £40,000 a year. It means that there will have to be a dramatic reining back in the festival's activities. One must wonder from where the money will come to take up that loss, as, indeed, one must wonder from where it will come to take up the loss to the theatre itself.
"The Glory of the Garden", so far as Harrogate is concerned, is a very different picture. It is a very gory garden after the haemorrhaging of funds that our theatre and festival have had to bear. Of course, I am not just baying for brass, but I believe that the Arts Council has made cuts far too severely and suddenly. It places us in an impossibly difficult position.
This country is rich in talent, as has already been said. My advice to the Government would be to set an example by stimulating by fiscal measures and the placing of works of art in public buildings. Tax incentives should be given to industry on a far wider scale. We must give proper financial support to the acts. The only way that local authorities will give proper financial support will be for a statutory percentage of the rate to be applied to the arts. We should follow the American example and apply that to new buildings as well.
1154
We have to recognise that there is considerable income from the arts. Grants to the arts are not money that is just given away; they help to give living artists an opportunity for work that they can undertake. The Exchequer benefits in return.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Jim Callaghan.
Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Front Bench speakers take any more of the time in the debate, I should like to point out that a huge amount of time has been taken by them already. It has been entirely unsatisfactory that some Back Benchers have not been able to raise various aspects of this important subject. I should like to give notice of a wish to raise this with you on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman because, as he knows, I announced earlier that a great number of hon. Gentlemen wished to take part in the debate. There have been some very long speeches.
9.10 pm
Mr. Jim Callaghan: It is regrettable that it has taken 25 years for us to have a full debate in the House on the arts. I am delighted that I am taking part in the debate. I am delighted, too, that my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), a man of learning wth a love of books, has contributed to the debate in a very fine way. I thought that he was going to say much that I wanted to say. Perhaps we think alike.
It is sad that the Minister has been treated a little unfairly because the majority of hon. Members on both sides seem to be in agreement about arts policy. The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) called the Minister's speech an extraordinary diatribe. Perhaps that was a little hard on the Minister. I prefer the statement by the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) that he did not go along with the Treasury arguments but felt that the Minister's argument was too narrow. Perhaps that was a major fault in the Minister's speech. It seemed to concentrate soley on the national heritage fund.
I want to make a plea to the Minister. I have been sent a copy of a Manchester city council memorandum in relation to an appeal for funds to buy a painting. It says:
"The Appeal launched by the Patrons, Associates and Friends of the Manchester City Art Galleries for the Siennese Crucifixion is fast approaching midnight, 16 July when, if matching funds are not found, the picture will be exported to the Getty Museum, Malibu. The sum required is £1,798,000."
Manchester made a magnificent effort in attempting to obtain that money. It has £1,147,117, of which £400,000 was given by a private anonymous donor which was a superb gesture. Manchester does not feel that it will obtain the necessary sum because the Government have not come up with the remainder of the funds. The letter said that the Government have provided grossly inadequate resources for the grant-in-aid to help buy the picture. It went on:
"This unexpected loss has been rendered many times worse, as we have been given no monies from the National Heritage Memorial Fund, and a direct approach to the Treasury also offered no support."
I appeal to the Minister to help to keep that famous painting in Britain.
I was impressed with the speech made by the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas). It was superb. I only wish that I had the ability to make such a

1155
speech as that. After listening carefully to what he had to say, I had to change my mind this afternoon about monetarist policies in relation to the arts. When in her first term of office the Prime Minister announced that there would be no candle-end economies in the arts there was a great relief throughout Britain and the arts world that grocer shop economies would not be applied to the arts. But to have candle-end economies on the present arts budget would have been disastrous for the arts. When the right hon. Member for Chelmsford was appointed as the Minister with responsibility for the arts it was felt in the art world that at last they had a Minister who would not be an understudy for Pontius Pilate during the present economic recession. What he said tonight has borne that out. I do not believe that he was a Pontius Pilate.
My approach was one of caution. I remember that the Prime Minister had been instrumental as a former Minister in imposing charges for admission to museums and art establishments. So I feared for the arts. The Prime Minister made it clear that the trustees of museums and galleries would be forced by the Government to impose charges even if they did not wish to do so. To their credit, some Conservative Members found themselves unable to support the Government at that time in the Lobbies. However, I was surprised when the right hon. Member for Chelmsford was later dismissed from his office. I feared for the arts, and I still do, particularly now that the Minister for the Arts is in the other place. I saw him earlier in the Gallery. He was here for a quarter of an hour. He returned for a few minutes, and then he vanished again. It is extremely regrettable that after 25 years we have had the first debate on the arts and the Minister is not here.
Mr. Cormack: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that he has made a slightly unfortunate breach of precedent by recognising the existence of the Gallery?
Mr. Callaghan: I recognise the absence of the Minister.
Mr. Rathbone: On a technicality, it is not 25 years since there was a debate on the arts. It is almost exactly 10 years and the person who raised that debate was the late and gallant Airey Neave.
Mr. Callaghan: It was in 1959.
Mr. Rathbone: It was 1974.
Mr. Tony Banks: That was not a full day's debate.
Mr. Callaghan: I also remembered the statement about the candle-end economies in the arts when last year the Government cut the budget by 1 per cent. The Minister for the Arts, who is not here, defended that decision in the other place on 30 November 1983 when he declared:
"Mention has been made of this year's 1 per cent. cut in arts funding"—
candle-end economies—1 per cent! —
"In August this year cuts of about 2 per cent. were made in all areas of public spending to correct a threatened overrun. I have to say that subsequent events seem to me to have wholly vindicated the Chancellor's proposal, but it was very tough going at the time. I strongly resist suggestions … that I failed to protect my arts clients. Of course I appreciate the very real problems which an unexpected cut of any kind caused them. But I was at least able to protect them by restricting the cut to 1 per cent. —nasty, but nicer than 2 per cent."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 November 1983; Vol. 445, c. 766.]
That sounds like Les Dawson.
1156
We are constantly told that inflation and unemployment are the grim realities with which we have to live today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has taken some of my speech away from me, because I agree with him. We are told that these are difficult times and that we must make better use of our resources and in particular of money from rates and taxes for public spending. We are told to get our priorities right. We are told that essential things come first and that art is merely the icing on the cake. We seem to go along with that, but it is wrong. We are not living in a subsistence society, although large areas of Britain resemble a third world of under-development and deprivation, with high unemployment figures, and those are very often the areas which also suffer from deprivation in the arts and crafts.
Times are grim for the nation, but we have survived even more dreadful times, and the arts have flourished. In 1940, our national prospects could hardly have been worse. There was everything to be said for cutting out the frills and concentrating all our resources on national survival Yet, in our darkest hour, our Government for the first time deliberately put taxpayers' money into a national fund, and a council for the encouragement of music and the arts—CEMA—was set up. In 1944 it was given a royal charter and became the Arts Council. It is to that body and to the local authorities that we must now look for support for the arts. There are five basic principles. As time is short, I shall mention only the operative principle, which is to direct an increasing proportion of the council's funds and expenditure to the regions.
The arts in this country have never been well funded. The French Government spend 10 times as much as we do. Berlin has a famous and brilliant orchestra, subsidised to the extent of 10 London orchestras—which are funded at a rate which enables them just to survive. Opera is the most expensive art of all. The Royal Opera House finds 38 per cent. of a considerable grant from the box office. the Scala manages 17 per cent., the Staatsoper in Vienna 16 per cent. and the Deutschoper in Berlin 15 per cent. Those subsidies are stupendous in comparison with ours. Let us not fool ourselves that we have been generous. Dusseldorf alone has an opera house worth £30 million a year—equal to two English National Operas.
Against that background, the Arts Council decided in October 1983 to undertake a review of its policies and the allocation of its grants in aid in order to determine its priorities and develop a strategy of development for the arts during the remainder of this decade and beyond. It aims for a reasonable geographical spread of provision. I am all for that. I fully support the Arts Council in its attempt to keep the arts going. I fully support its original charter, which involved spreading the arts throughout the country. But that must not be done at too high a price.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to concentrate new development in 11 areas of England where the bulk of the English population lives, and it would be possible to reach a population of 40 million. I agree with that. The development area programme will cost the Council £6 million in its initial stage. The Council has to find £5·5 million of that sum. That represents a substantial switch of the council's own resources.
I am all for spreading out the arts from the London area, but not at the cost of the arts in London. It appears that that is what the cost will be. The Council hopes that the Government will provide further funds, including a final £500,000 needed for the first phase of the development.

1157
In all, £6 million is to be reallocated. Although I agree with the principle, to do that the Government will rob Peter to pay Paul or, as we say in Lancashire, they are teaming and ladling. To finance its development programme the council will reduce its spending. It is like giving with one hand and taking with the other. The council therefore intends to withdraw subsidy, in music alone, to the following extent: Eastern Authorities Orchestral Association—£105,000; English Sinfonia—£45,000; the Handel Opera Society—£46,000; the Haydn and Mozart Society—£20,000. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) is aware that the Harrogate festival is to lose £36,000. The King's Lynn festival is to lose money as well. The total reaches £431,000. Nevertheless, the council estimates that the changes will provide a saving of £711,000 in music allocations.
In drama, the council has withdrawn £1·404 million. That has affected many drama companies in London and the north. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has written a letter to one theatre company —7:84—that has been axed. He wrote:
"If the Arts Council effectively abandons enterprises like the 7:84 it will have abandoned its central purpose. In the process, it will encourage the idea that culture is an exotic island that can only be inhabited by the affluent and the elevated. That would impoverish and retard our whole society."
Rochdale has the marvellous M6 theatre company. The local Conservative-controlled council said, "Right, we have to keep the rates down so the icing on the cake and the frills must go. The M6 theatre is superflous. We do not want it so we will not fund it any longer." The Arts Council heard that and came in saying, "You cannot do that." It managed to persuade the council to continue its funding of the M6 theatre company. Then the Arts Council has a change of mind and said, "That is fine but we shall not now give you the grant." What chance, therefore, has the M6 theatre company next year if it gets no grant from the Arts Council? I assure the Minister that representatives of the 7:84 and M6 theatre companies who attended our meeting this morning were extremely angry. There is to be a saving of £5,521,500. That is the so-called glory of the garden. Some garden. It will produce only weeds.
The other parts of the Government's policy is in regard to the White Paper of October 1983 entitled "Streamlining the Cities". It was their first step towards abolishing the Greater London council and the six metropolitan county councils. On the same day, they issued a consultation paper on the arts. The major change in local government was decided on for reasons that have nothing to do with the arts. I am a member of a Select Committee other than the one about which we have heard much oday. I asked for an immediate investigation into what will happen to the arts if the metropolitan councils and the GLC are abolished. I am delighted to say that the Committee agreed. We are concerned with the problems that abolition would cause to the major arts and artistic and cultural life. Widespread public disquiet contributed to the fact that, when we met on 9 January to consider the proposed changes in the arts, it was agreed unanimously that we should have that investigation. The authorities to be abolished are major contributors of funds for the arts, and the support that we give to the arts is as follows: the GLC, £16·5 million, Merseyside, £5·3 million, Tyne and Wear, £2·7 million, Manchester, £2·4 million, west Midlands, £250,000, and south Yorkshire, £216,000. Thus the report was concerned solely with the future arrangements for the
1158
arts, should the abolition of the GLC and six metropolitan county councils become law.
The Committee carried out its task with a sense of urgency. During the course of the inquiry, the Committee held eight sessions of oral evidence, six in Westminster and two in Greater Manchester. However, the statements made to the Committee by Lord Gowrie, the Minister for the Arts, and Lord Bellwin, the Minister of State with responsibility for local government, were interpreted to mean that all current spending on the arts by central and local Government will be maintained. It was a delight for us to hear that Government intend to fund this arts spending. We believe that there are problems in carrying out that pledge, because some ambiguity surrounds the exact sum of money to which Ministers are committed, especially with regard to the arts spending of local authorities.
Although the Government propose to make extra provisions for some of the arts organisations of national standing which presently receive money from the GLC', this leaves many arts organisations that will look to the boroughs for support. The gap between the amount that the GLC spends and what will be left over was calculated by the Minister to be £4·5 million, but by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham North-West (Mr. Banks) to be over £7 million. There is, therefore, a discrepancy in the amounts of money that have to be found by the Government to support the areas that will be affected by abolition.
Many of the memoranda received by the Select Committee have cast doubts on whether the boroughs would be able or willing to provide additional funding, not least the memoranda from the boroughs. This was even the case in boroughs such as Islington, Hammersmith and Camden, where funding was already comparatively high. These were the boroughs that were interested in the arts with a high concentration of theatres and other performing arts companies which currently attract substantial GLC support. Other boroughs will find it difficult to assume responsibility for existing GLC funding within their boundaries, and some additional support will be necessary from the Government.
The evidence given to the Committee by the London arts organisations in many ways repeats the evidence of the metropolitan counties. When we visited Manchester, the officials confirmed the problems that they would have in raising the necessary cash after the GLC is abolished. The major concerns were that the boroughs might be too parochial and unwilling to fund arts organisations operating throughout London, and that it would be particularly difficult for small organisations to seek funding from a large number of individual borough councils. To expect hard-pressed local authorities to make a substantial shortfall when at the same time Government are restricting their expenditure, with rate capping to come, is unrealistic. One has only to look at the case made out for Rochdale and the M6 theatre. Although we do not yet have rate capping, the message is to cut the frills on the cake, and say that the theatre cannot continue. What will happen to the arts after rate capping?
The overriding obstacle to progress in local government support for the arts at present is economic stringency. It is encouraging to find, although one might expect the arts to be cut, that the authorities realise that if an attempt were

1159
to be made to save any significant amount of money in a small budget area such as this, it would do irreparable damage to the overall programme of the arts.
To sum up, I believe that the proposals submitted by the Minister for the abolition of the six metropolitan councils and the GLC, with the strategy of the Arts Council, are centralist, undemocratic, divisive, confusing, unrealistic and incomplete. The Government's proposals call into question their commitment to the cultural heritage of the people of Britain and the ability of our people to enjoy an improving quality of life.
9.35 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. William Waldegrave): The last debate—there has been a good deal of talk about when the last debate took place—was on a motion initiated by Mr. Magee, then a member of the Labour party. Perhaps as a result of the debate, he joined the SDP. I do not think that we shall see the hon. Members for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) or for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) joining the SDP; perhaps it is too far to the Left.
Mr. Buchan: When was that debate?
Mr. Waldegrave: I am referring to a debate on a private Member's motion in 1975.
Mr. Faulds rose——
Mr. Waldegrave: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Buchan rose——
Mr. Waldegrave: No, the hon. Gentleman made a very long speech.
Mr. Faulds: Is the hon. Gentleman aware——
Mr. Waldegrave: I said that I would not give way.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has barely started.
Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) makes his best speeches from a sedentary position.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister resisted——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must raise a point of order with me. I am not responsible for anything that the Minister may or may not have resisted.
Mr. Faulds: On a point of order. I am sorry for you, Mr. Speaker, having to suffer under such appalling misjudgments as the Under-Secretary has shown.
Mr. Speaker: Let us get on now.
Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Member for Warley, East wants to have a monopoly of the jokes, his are not good enough to be sure of that monopoly being beneficial.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was criticised for being too long in his opening speech. We must remember that every day 9 million people attend the institutions, buildings and so on which he looks after. The heritage is a major part of the whole story, and I suggest that he was unfairly criticised. I shall address myself — [Interruption.] — if Opposition Members can restrain themselves, to the question of the arts as a whole.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South, as always—and the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), whom we welcome to these debates and who
1160
made an excellent speech from his point of view—tried to escape from the difficult business of priorities. The hon. Member for Paisley, South is against every one of the cuts, but he did not say whether he is against every one of the increases which the Arts Council has specified. That is how he sees his job and that is the way in which he handles the issue—to gather the protests, although that does not make for a coherent strategy.
The hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the Arts Council strategy cannot be made to stick. For example, "The Glory of the Garden"—does not pick on black theatre. In fact, central to the whole strategy is the provision of more money for black and Asian dance, and the Arts Council has praised the Phoenix dance theatre. I hope that criticism such as that will not be levelled against the strategy of the Arts Council because, as I say, it cannot be made to stick.
An essential and major part of the debate has been about the arm's-length principle. Several clear views have been expressed. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West was clear about his view, as he often is. He wants the Arts Council to be democratically elected, and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) takes the same clear position. The hon. Member for Paisley, South was not clear on that matter.
While they take a consistent position, is it the voice of the authentic Labour party, or have we heard the voice of the thinking Labour party? It begins to signal a dangerous change of policy for the country if that is indeed the view of the Labour party. I recall such debates on other matters when, in my previous job, I answered in relation to the University Grants Committee. On that issue I had to stand here and say that ministerial policy was to maintain an arm's-length relationship. On that, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) was much wiser and made the best speech. It was obviously a much better speech than that made by the hon. Member for Paisley, South.
Mr. Buchan: It was a much better speech than the hon. Gentleman is now making.
Mr. Waldegrave: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said, we in this House have the right and duty to criticise Arts Council decisions if we think that they are wrong, and the council must listen to us. But I, as Minister, must not give directions to the Arts Council.
If that shouting fellow, the hon. Member for Paisley, South, became Minister responsible for the arts and decided to give directions it would be a serious departure from a traditionally bipartisan office.
Mr. Buchan: Will the hon. Member give way?
Mr. Waldegrave: I shall not give way.
Mr. Buchan: Give way.
Mr. Waldegrave: No. The hon. Member should sit down.
The arm's-length principle remains central to the Government's approach. That is why the many appeals by hon. Members who rightly argue about specific decisions which they believe the Arts Council got wrong will be listened to. However, they will be matters for the Arts Council to consider. I cannot say that I shall put representations to the Minister because that would undermine the arm's-length principle as much as the confused words by the hon. Member for Paisley, South.

1161
Criticism has been made of how little coverage the arts have had from Ministers. The hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Freud) and others criticised the fact that the Minister responsible is in the Lords. Distinguished Labour party representatives have sat in the Lords. I think of Lord Donaldson and others. We have a bicameral system. Are we to say that Ministers will never sit in the House of Lords? Many hon. Members on both sides have paid tribute rightly to the way in which the present Minister for the Arts and his two Conservative predecessors have fought for resources when times were not easy. They have done well. I am grateful for the tributes by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East and by my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, who has been generous to his successors.
Hon. Members have mentioned poetry. One hon. Member said something that I could not stomach for a moment. He said that there were no good poets in Britain. [Interruption.] It is possible to make a non-partisan remark in this Chamber. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) may find that an impossible concept, but it is true. I am disagreeing with an hon. Friend. That is possible. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central mentioned several poets, including the one who, if I had anything to do with it, would become the next poet laureate—Larkin.
Larkin reminds us of how, even in the arts, we must work against the background of available resources. I hope that the hon. Member for Warley, East will forgive me for being light-hearted again, but Larkin wrote:
"If the Russian tanks roll westwards
What defence for you and me
Colonel Sloman's Essex rifles
The light horse of the LSE?"
We have to spend on other than the arts even though we value the arts.
The major speech made today was that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford. He is right to try to be bipartisan. That often means that a group of hon. Members urge the enemy—the Treasury as always—to spend more money. We had a debate on 10 February 1975 when the Labour party was in power. Today I recognise some of the words put into the mouth of the then Minister responsible for the arts, because they are in my brief today. I exaggerate a little, but Minister's arguments always sound the same as the arguments of other Ministers who have to take decisions and to fight for resources.
I shall quote Mr. Hugh Jenkins, as he then was, to make a point against the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan), who made comparisons with other countries. Mr. Jenkins said—and it was true:
"Neither the totally centralised system in France nor the fundamentally local system in Western Germany can be directly compared with our own methods of support."
Indeed, it is difficult to do so. Mr. Jenkins knew that we must get resources from industry and the private sector. They do not match the great central funds, but they are crucial at the margin. Mr. Jenkins, past Ministers and present Ministers would not argue about that.
Every Minister must press for resources. Mr. Jenkins said:
"I should hesitate as a matter of principle to say that Government subsidy ought to be larger just because it seems the right thing that Government subsidy should be larger."—[Official Report, 10 February 1975; Vol. 885, c. 101–2.]
1162
We must study the needs and consider the proper allocation of resources. That is why, from the Dispatch Box, on behalf of my noble Friend the Minister, I have on several occasions welcomed the genuine strategic thinking that lies behind "The Glory of the Garden".
Of course, the full reallocation of resources is only beginning. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was right to say that the first stage is to strengthen the regional arts associations. We must create stronger regional organisations and then, no doubt, the Arts Council will bid for additional resources with which to make that regionalism more effective.
Mr. Robert Banks: I agree that my hon. Friend must be at arm's length from the Arts Council. I hope that he will listen to the pleas from Harrogate and will understand that £170,000 has been knocked off our arts budget. That creates a difficult position. We shall be grateful for his advice and support in trying to remedy that.
Mr. Waldegrave: I said earlier that the Arts Council would read reports of the debate. I have given Harrogate two bites of the cherry, and I hope that other hon. Members will forgive me if I do not give way again. I understand that they have quite justified constituency pleas. They are on the record and will be studied by those who have to make the difficult decisions.
The hon. Member for Paisley, South made much of the fact that the whole of the public sector is under pressure to find savings. The Arts Council is aware of that. The hon. Gentleman quoted from page 11 of its report, on challenge funding. He stopped reading at the point where the Arts Council said:
"The tradition of joint support for the arts by local authorities on the one hand and the Arts Council on the other is now sufficiently widely established to give reason for optimism."
The Arts Council has recognised the problems, and we recognise them, but it is not always among the highest spending local authorities that we find support for the arts. It is a matter of arguing sensibly for the priorities. That can be done among the most economic authorities. It is not simply a matter, as Opposition Members keep saying, of spending on all the choices. That is never open to government in the real world, whether locally or nationally.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I are grateful for the warm words with which our right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford welcomed the national heritage memorial fund and the praise that he gave its chairman. He asked for some assurances about future funding. The principle of funding for that body is quite different from that for any other national body because it has an endowment. He asked in particular for the assurance that it would be allowed to use the endowment flexibly and to have rather greater freedom in the time scales in which it was allowed to spend its money. In endorsing the principle of the endowment, I can give the assurance that we shall do our best to ensure that the topping-up money that is added to the endowment will be adequate for the tasks which have to be undertaken.
I hope that the House will forgive me for passing over many of the expressions of the importance and centrality to civilisation of the arts. I do so partly because those expressions have been so eloquently presented by so many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber. That being so, I perhaps do not need to endorse them. However, if silence on this topic is seen as showing the Government

1163
to be careless of the importance of the arts in the widest context, I give the assurance that we have a strong awareness of the importance and centrality of the arts, which our spending record demonstrates.
Of course, everyone concerned with the arts would like more financial support. However, programmes have been protected through the slump and certain programmes have done relatively well. Against that background, the arts do not have too much to complain about. There are many small theatres and many small groups which are struggling with far less money than many of us would like to see them have. Their life is far from easy. We have maintained the programme broadly in real terms and increased it slightly but no one should think that we fail to recognise the problems that remain or that we shall fail to move to meet them when they become critical, as was shown by our approach to the great opera companies.
Mr. Tony Banks: Does the Minister accept that between 1979–80 and 1983–84 there was a real-value decline in the money that the Arts Council received? It declined in real value from £61 million in 1979–80 to £60·7 million in 1983–84. It increased to £63·5 million this year only because of the extra Priestley money.
Mr. Waldegrave: I do not think that anyone in the arts will worry about the heading under which the extra money comes as long as it comes. Some of the less conventional headings merely demonstrate—I venture to make this suggestion in the privacy of the House—the skill of Ministers with responsibility for the arts in winning funds.
The hon. Member for Warley, East talked about Getty and the Getty museum. There was an interesting debate in another place recently on that issue and Ministers are well aware of the problems. It is important that the trustees of those funds should listen to some of the comments that are being made and take on board some of the suggestions that are being made by the hon. Gentleman and others so that they use their money with responsibility. They can surely see what will happen if they do not.
I disagreed with the main argument of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) but I agreed very much with one of his remarks. When discussing the Elgin marbles we had some of the worst jokes of any that are on record in the Official Report. I fear that the relocation of great works of art would open up a literally endless process. The hon. Member for Warley, East made that very point when he said that there are many other items of great importance to other parts of the world for which requests would come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack) addressed himself to the funding of the national heritage memorial fund. I have covered that issue briefly and I have noted what my hon. Friend said about the funding of the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. There are bound to be pressures put upon that funding, but I know that the friends of that institution who are Members of this place will not let the Government get away with inadequate funding.
Those who are old hands at discussing the arts know the VAT arguments inside out. They are aware that it is a major Treasury principle to keep VAT as widely based as possible. On the other hand, every group with an interest in a particular subject wants its own part of the tax chipped away. That is why Treasury Ministers of both
1164
Conservative and Labour Governments fight so tenaciously not to make concessions. I know that what hon. Members have said will again be listened to closely by my right hon. and noble Friend who must consider these matters.
I regret the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South in a sense underestimated the achievement of the Select Committee to which he contributed so much. A good many of the recommendations—I know not as many as my hon. Friend would have liked, especially with respect to the organisation of government—have been accepted and put into practice. I refer, for example, to the new business sponsorship scheme which my right hon. and noble Friend introduced and which is a welcome addition to arts financing. That measure can be seen, in part at least, as a response to some of the points made by the Select Committee. Many of the recommendations were directed at other Government institutions, especially the Arts Council. Part of the growth in the regional arts associations can be seen as the Arts Council's response to the Select Committee's recommendations. I recognise that many measures that were wanted by the Select Committee are still on the agenda, and, doubtless, members of the Select Committee and other hon. Members will press for them.
I could argue against the reorganisation of central Government responsibility. It is unwise for junior Ministers to do such things, because I often find that the Prime Minister has made a reorganisation a week after without, for some reason, telling me in advance. I shall not give the arguments against the centralisation of Whitehall's functions. Strong points were made about pluralism, but one must remember that there is some point in pluralism in Whitehall. It is sometimes a good thing to have more than one door in Whitehall through which one can go. To some extent, that point must be set against the arguments that have been made.
Mr. Cormack: Does my hon. Friend do justice to the Select Committee's report? Hon. Members who were on the Select Committee feel extremely angry that only at 9.54 pm did we have the first reference to the Select Committee's report, which is listed on the Order Paper as being relevant to today's debate.
Mr. Waldegrave: That matter would have been discussed a few minutes earlier if I had given way less often and if there had been less catcalling from the Opposition.
The Government have not accepted the idea of a single Ministry for the arts. The Government have not accepted also the proposed amendments to the taxation laws, and I have no doubt that the argument on those laws will continue strongly. My hon. Friend the Minister for Information Technology is reviewing film, and we shall, doubtless, hear more about that in due course.
I am not sure about the idea of having an annual arts White Paper. Comprehensive information is regularly provided. The bodies that are the greatest executors of policy in this matter provide annual reports. I do not know whether a White Paper effectively binding those annual reports together would add very much. I am sure that my right hon. and noble Friend, in the light of what hon. Members have said, will consider that matter again.
The House and all those concerned with the funding of the arts should welcome one item which I mentioned

1165
briefly and which was derived from the pressure brought by the Select Committee and others — the business sponsorship incentive scheme. I am not sure whether that scheme has yet had the national attention that it should receive because essentially it depends upon being widely known. We must take steps to ensure that it is made fully known to those who want to use it.
Two principal themes have run through the debate. One concerns the nature of the arm's-length principle and what we are to make of it. Will we go in the longer term, as some argue about university funding, to a more democratically accountable system? Should we maitain, as I believe we should, the tension between democratically elected authorities at the local level and bodies that recognise something that is separate from the democratic process—the function of the artist as pure artist?
I believe that the tension between them is the best system.
Mr. Freud rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 2, Noes 1.

Division No. 371]

[10.00

AYES

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. Clement Freud and Mr. D. E. Thomas.

NOES

Rathbone, Tim

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and Mr. Douglas Hogg.

Tellers for the Noes:

Mr. Speaker: As it appears that fewer than 40 Members took part in the Division, the Question is not decided in the affirmative.
It being after Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Arts and the Heritage

  SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
  Ordered,
  That, during the proceedings on the Scottish Estimates, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 67 (Meetings of standing committees) the Scottish Grand Committee shall have leave, at their sitting in Edinburgh on Monday 25th June, to sit until half-past Three o'clock; and that that sitting shall constitute consideration on two days for the purposes of Standing Order No. 73 (Scottish estimates)—[Mr. Neubert.]

European Community (Passport)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Neubert.]
10.10 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for selecting this subject for debate on the Adjournment of the House. I do not intend to show the discourtesy that has been shown to the House in today's debate, with its lengthy speeches. I intend to keep my speech reasonably brief.
It is appropriate, on a day when Members are being elected to the European Parliament, that I should raise in the House of Commons the issue of a common format passport. The proposal surfaced first in 1974 that member States of the European Community should issue passports to their nationals in an identical format, demonstrating their connection with the Community as well as showing the national status of the holder.
What has happened since 1974 when the then Prime Minister, now Lord Wilson of Rievault, reported that the United Kingdom was party to a communique to set up a working party on a common format passport? Progress seems to have been painfully slow. The House of Lords Select Committee reported in 1979 on the Commission's consultative document of 1975 and the subject was debated in the other place in 1979.
The Select Committee supported the proposal as a modest symbol of the Community's identity, provided that passports retained their national character, and strongly urged Her Majesty's Government to take a constructive part in any discussions. On 23 January 1981 the Foreign Affairs council meeting in Paris agreed to the following resolution:
"Recalling that the Heads of Government meeting in Paris in December 1974 requested that the possibility of creating a Passport Union and, in advance, the introduction of a uniform passport, be examined, agreed to introduce a passport of uniform design. Anxious, to promote any measures which might strengthen the feeling among nationals of the Member States that they belong to the same Community; Considering that the establishment of such a passport is likely to facilitate the movement of nationals of the Member States, Have drawn up a passport of uniform format and scope, Have resolved that the Member States will endeavour to issue the passport by 1 January 1985 at the latest."
In a written answer of 8 April 1981 the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sir I. Gilmour), who was the Lord Privy Seal at that time, told the House that it was the Government's intention to implement the common format passport by 1 January 1985. So far we have heard a lot of good intentions, but there has been no reasoned statement by the Government about whether they are on target for translating all those good intentions into action, or even if they still have the same intentions as they had formerly.
As one who believes that, within Europe, we should do all that we possibly can to develop a sense of community, I believe that a common format passport will help to give citizens a clear sense of identity within the Community. Furthermore, I think that it can provide positive and practical benefits. What is most important of all, it can do both of these things without at any point diminishing our status as Britons.
I understand that there are proposals afoot to ease frontier formalities for citizens of member states and that presentation of the common format passport, when it is

1167
available, could help our citizens travel through Europe with the absolute minimum of fuss and delay. I am not thinking solely of people on holiday. Last year, United Kingdom business men made about 3 million business trips abroad, and nearly 2 million of them were to EEC countries. Surely to goodness, anything that will help their enterprise helps us all.
There will be those who wish to cling to the present passport as part of our national identity. I suggest, however, that the change of format is not an issue that should cause us any affront. The sooner the House and the public can see examples of the new documents proposed, the better. The present-day passport does not have a very long history at all. Before 1914 passports were not obligatory except for about half a dozen countries. It is only since the first world war that the passport has become a general requirement for travel.
As to form and content, in 1920 the Provisional Committee on Communications and Transport of the League of Nations convened a conference in Paris to study ways of facilitating international passenger traffic by rail, which was being hindered by passport and Customs formalities. The conference recommended an international format for passports which was generally accepted, and the present British passport that we hold so dear has its roots in that agreed common format.
I think that we were one of the first countries to introduce a passport that conformed to the League of Nations specifications. We should not fall behind other nations now in introducing a new European Community common format passport with a machine-readable capability. I perfectly well understand the view of the traditionalists, who want to preserve the present passport's appearance, but I venture to suggest that the present version needs to be brought up to date.
I would not attempt to argue that the present substantial document is not in itself dignified. It is, however, very bulky and does not fit easily into the pockets of modern dress. Moreover, the information that it contains about the holder is spread over four or five pages. If I were to make a cynical point—which I shall not do—I would finally say to those who have a mystical belief in the protection afforded by one of Her Majesty's passports wherever they may be in the world, that the value of a passport depends not on its colour, size and country of origin, but on the extent to which our beloved Foreign Office is prepared to stand up for British interests in the world. I quite understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister will probably not respond to that point.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): My hon. Friend never knows.
Mr. Maclean: What about the design of the proposed common format passport? Is it profoundly un-British? The answer is a resounding No. To quote again my right hon. Friend the former Lord Privy Seal:
"Passports in a common format will not be Community passports and their issue will remain a national prerogative. Their introduction will involve no change in the nationality or other entitlements of the holder."
That point cannot be stressed strongly enough. It should still be a British passport not an EEC one. It is merely that all national passports in the EEC will look the same and have more relevant information, in standard form, in the same place.
1168
In that written answer, my right hon. Friend the former Lord Privy Seal continued:
"It would be misleading to describe the appearance of the new British passport too precisely at this stage, since some of the details have yet to be worked out. It has, however, been agreed that it will retain the main characteristics of our present passport, such as the name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Royal coat of arms and the rubric
'Her Britannic Majesty's Principal Secretary of State requests and requires'
and so on. It has also been agreed that the passport will have a burgandy-coloured cover, bearing the additional words 'European Community'. The first inside page of the passport will contain the words
'United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland'.
the word 'passport' and a reference to the European Community in all the official languages of the European Community."—[Official Report, 8 April 1981; Vol. 2, c. 285–6.]
To us, the Britishness of the passport will remain intact. Therefore, I believe that we can confidently adapt to a new arrangement. It will make us no less British but yet it will help us to identify with our Community partners and bring with it the prospect of easier travel across Europe.
Of course, we could have easier travel across Europe if we adopted the International Civil Aviation Organisation's recommendations for machine-readable passports. This development offers even greater benefit for travellers and for those whose job it is to promote travel or to cope with the large numbers flowing in and out through the ports. I should like to know more about the details of machine-readable passports, what information is to be recorded and in what form. The principle of a speedy and simplified checking of passports at the frontiers of countries around the world, without tiresome landing and embarkation cards is attractive.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Minister can indicate the opportunities that this important initiative offers to our businessmen in developing the hardware and software that will be required. This country played a prominent part in the work which led to the ICAO recommendations on machine readibility. I think that we were the first nation to read machine-readable passports when a prototype passport reader was installed at Heathrow and was used to read United States passports. If this places Britain ahead in the game, let us make sure that we take full advantage by promoting machine readability and the use of our technology in the process although we must reassure people that the information on the passport will not be used for any improper purpose.
I understand that the proposal is to incorporate a laminated page into passports with a machine-readable zone at the edge. All the information contained on that card would be visible to the naked eye and it would not contain any information that does not appear in the existing United Kingdom passport. The machine-readable passport also offers greater security since it is much more difficult to counterfeit or tamper with.
I hope my hon. and learned Friend will tell us what we are about to do, not what we may intend once the problems are solved. In that same written answer of 1981 the House was told that the precise appearance of the new British passport would depend on the outcome of the work then in hand to facilitate the machine-readable capability. Surely to goodness we have solved the technical problems by now, three years and a million queues at passport controls later.
If my hon. and learned Friend cannot be specific tonight, perhaps he can indicate when we may expect a

1169
definitive Government announcement which will proclaim that we are still committed to a common form of passport and that we will introduce machine readability as soon as possible.
On this important day for democracy in Europe, my hon. and learned Friend can do much to unite the free nations of Europe in a way in which no other regulation or harmonisation plan can. We owe it to future generations to adopt a common format passport which to us at the moment may be merely a symbol of unity but to them would be reality. I sincerely hope that the Minister will not disappoint us.
10.24 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): Except for the fact that I was hoping to go home for supper, my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has chosen the most appropriate day on which to raise this matter of the common format passport. He has said something about the background to the proposal and I shall not go over the history again. Suffice it to say that as long ago as 1974 the Labour Government of that day approved the setting up of a working party to study the possibility of introducing a passport in common form, in a common style, which it was felt would not only be a visible demonstration of the close links between the countries of the European Community, of the existence of Community, but be a real convenience to travellers. A conveniently sized, easily recognisable, easily checked passport would speed up frontier checks and be good for tourists and good for business.
In 1979 the House of Lords Select Committee expressed its support for the common format passport as a modest gesture to our Community identity and at the same time expected that practical benefits would follow. The Committee was aware of arrangements which the United Kingdom had already made to ease the movement through special EEC channels of EC nationals arriving at our ports. The expectation was that the common format passport would be the key to easier travel for our own citizens in Europe and a general easing of frontier formalities for all EC nationals in the Community. Recently I drew the attention of the House of Commons and House of Lords Select Committees to a draft Council resolution which, with the aim of reducing the time EC nationals have to wait at ports of entry says that member states may:
"1. Set up special checkpoints for EC nationals;
2. Reduce the checking of documentation where possible;
3. Introduce local agreements for people living close to internal frontiers."
The resolution was unanimously approved by the Council of Ministers on 7 June.
The important word is "may", not "must". It does nothing to compel us to dismantle our present system of controls at the ports, but it does highlight the desire of Community members to make travel between the various countries in as trouble-free a way as possible. Member states implementing the resolution will to some extent be catching up with us, because as I have said, we already provide special facilities for EC nationals by our separate channels for them at major ports. The common format passport will be a further step forward and I have no doubt whatsoever that it will bring benefits to those 2 million or so people who make business trips to the EC each year.
1170
So we are not talking about uniformity for uniformity's sake but for valid reasons of convenience to travellers. It is inaccurate to talk of uniformity. The common format passport is not a Community passport. Its issue will remain a national prerogative. It will be burgundy not dark blue, it will be a bit smaller, fitting easily into a hip pocket, and the cover will be durable but also somewhat flexible. But it will still be a British passport bearing the royal coat of arms, and inside will be those traditional words requiring passage and protection to the holder.
People obviously want to know when the common format passport will be introduced. In 1981 member states undertook to endeavour to implement the original agreement by January 1985. But it was always understood that implementation was bound to depend on a number of very practical considerations. On 23 March 1981 my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that we would not introduce the new passport
"until we are ready to implement the International Civil Aviation Organisation's recommendations for a passport … with machine-readable capability."…[Official Report, 23 March 1981; Vol. 1, c. 219.]
That obviously makes sense and, I am sure, will receive overwhelming support. The House of Lords Select Committee, to which I have already referred, supported not only the idea of the common format but also the principle of machine readability, identifying the use of the computer as the most obvious aid to speeding the traveller's passage through passport control. It recognised, however, that a great deal of detailed study would be required before machine readability could be introduced.
Later, in 1980, a panel of experts established by the International Civil Aviation Organisation published a standard specification for a machine-readable element in the passport. Very importantly, the panel—and its views accorded entirely with those of the Government — rejected any system that would mean that the passport holder himself could not read the information presented to the computer. That is one of the matters that my hon. Friend has raised, and I am sure that he will be content with the answer that I have given. There will be no information on the machine-readable passport which does not appear on our passports now, and it will all be visible to the holder.
Since then research, development, and operational use of machine-readable passports, and the equipment for reading them, show that they can be produced and that considerable benefits should ensue for passengers, carrying companies, and the authorities at the ports.
Figures produced by the International Civil Aviation Organisation suggest that there could be 650 million individual movements a year through passport controls at airports alone at the present time. Road, rail and sea transport might at least double the number. By introducing the machine-readable passport we could hope to reduce considerably the time taken on those checks. A lot of work could be cut out, because the provision and completion of landing cards could progressively be dispensed with.
Just as the common format passport will bring benefits to the British traveller, so will machine-readability, speeding up his passage through controls overseas. For passengers entering this country who are subject to immigration control, machine-readability will speed up any check that has to be made and also simplify the recording of passenger movement. I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that we have no plans to connect the

1171
immigration and nationality department computers, reading and recording information from passports, with any other computers not directly related to the control of immigration. Fears about that possibility have been expressed in the House from time to time.
My hon. Friend is right to point out that we have been influential in determining within the International Civil Aviation Organisation the specification for the machine-readable passport and that we have been early, indeed first, to test prototype reading equipment at our ports. And we expect our business men to take advantage of the opportunities that these developments present. My hon. Friend mentioned their part in providing necessary hardware and software.
So we have two important developments — the obligation to introduce the common format passport and the ability before so long to introduce machine-readability—and it seems only sensible that the two should be linked. It really would not make much sense to introduce the common format passport and then later perhaps have to make alterations in its lay-out to make it machine-readable. This must, of course, affect a decision as to timing. I am not in a position to announce our conclusions today, but my right hon. Friend expects to be able to make
1172
a statement about the Government's intentions before the House rises for the summer recess. I know that that will disappoint my hon. Friend.
I have said that considerable benefits can flow from the common format and from machine-readability, but there is a third important development on the way which, perhaps, I can be excused for mentioning. At present, some 2·2 million passports are issued each year, entirely on a manual system that employs more than 1,000 staff in six regional offices. The average time taken to deal with postal applications at peak issuing periods can be up to four weeks. Following examination of the passport department by the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and a Rayner scrutiny, in 1982, a full study to identify how best to computerise the issue of passports is under way. We expect that, with computerisation, we shall be able in future to improve even further a service to the public. I hope that that is recognised as good news.
I thank my hon. Friend for taking an interest in this matter and for having raised the issue tonight. It is only recently that responsibility for the Passport Office has fallen to me, and it is a somewhat awesome responsibility. However, it is pleasant to stand at the Dispatch Box to explain some of the important developments that are taking place.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Eleven o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  Aire Valley Road Scheme
  Aire Valley Road Scheme
  Roads (Weight Restrictions)
  Roads (Weight Restrictions)
WALES
  Medium Secure Psychiatric Facilities
  Medium Secure Psychiatric Facilities
  Physiotherapy (Schools)
  Physiotherapy (Schools)
  Language Teachers
  Language Teachers
  Welsh Speakers (Glamorgan and Gwent)
  Welsh Speakers (Glamorgan and Gwent)
  Schools(Welsh-Speaking Staff)
  Schools(Welsh-Speaking Staff)
RIME MINISTER
  Engagements
  Engagements
  TUC (Meeting)
  TUC (Meeting)
  Mr. Ortiz Mena
  Mr. Ortiz Mena
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Security Services (Directive)
  Security Services (Directive)
  Heavy Vehicles (Construction)
  Heavy Vehicles (Construction)
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
HOME DEPARTMENT
  European Trade Mark Office (British Employees)
  European Trade Mark Office (British Employees)
  Public Disorder (Wandsworth)
  Public Disorder (Wandsworth)
  Investigative Journalists
  Investigative Journalists
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Young Persons (Custody)
  Young Persons (Custody)
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
  Mr. P. W. Botha (Visit)
  Mr. P. W. Botha (Visit)
  Fine Defaulters
  Fine Defaulters
  CND Demonstration (London)
  CND Demonstration (London)
  Mark Thatcher (Bodyguards)
  Mark Thatcher (Bodyguards)
  Immigration
  Immigration
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Scientific, Technological, Trade and Economic Co-operation
  Scientific, Technological, Trade and Economic Co-operation
  Investment Statistics
  Investment Statistics
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Caravans
  Caravans
  British Aerospace
  British Aerospace
  Alvey Programme
  Alvey Programme
  Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme
  Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme
SCOTLAND
  Lead Pipes (Replacement)
  Lead Pipes (Replacement)
  Toxic Emissions (Bonnybridge)
  Toxic Emissions (Bonnybridge)
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
  Edinburgh Royal Infirmary
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Travel-to-work Areas
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Nurses
  Nurses
  Youth Training Scheme (Accident Statistics)
  Youth Training Scheme (Accident Statistics)
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Authority Services
  Local Authority Services
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Home Loan Scheme
  Home Loan Scheme
  Assured Tenancies
  Assured Tenancies
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Betterment Levy
  Betterment Levy
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Building Control Fees (Exemption)
  Building Control Fees (Exemption)
  Building Regulations
  Building Regulations
  Bearley Transmitter (Inquiry)
  Bearley Transmitter (Inquiry)
  National Land Policy
  National Land Policy
  Local Authorities (Loan Default)
  Local Authorities (Loan Default)
  Basildon Development Corporation
  Basildon Development Corporation
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Mr. Sam Nujoma
  Mr. Sam Nujoma
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Non-advanced Further Education
  Books (Expenditure)
  Books (Expenditure)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
DEFENCE
  Service Men's Pay (Attachment of Earnings)
  Service Men's Pay (Attachment of Earnings)
  Trident Missiles
  Trident Missiles
  Surplus Equipment and Uniforms
  Surplus Equipment and Uniforms
  Enfield Lock (Arms Theft)
  Enfield Lock (Arms Theft)
  Ordnance Depots (Thefts)
  Ordnance Depots (Thefts)
  Trident
  Trident
NATIONAL FINANCE
  West Midlands
  West Midlands
  World Banking Crisis (Talks)
  World Banking Crisis (Talks)
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Economy
  Economy
  Social Security Tax
  Social Security Tax
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Employment
  Employment
  Government Borrowing
  Government Borrowing
  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Oil and Gas Revenues
  Company Profitability
  Company Profitability
  Stamp Duty
  Stamp Duty
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Management Consultancy and Accounting Firms
  Management Consultancy and Accounting Firms
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Industrial Costs (Interest Rates)
  Industrial Costs (Interest Rates)
  European Community (Income and Expenditure)
  European Community (Income and Expenditure)
  Land (Development Value)
  Land (Development Value)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  European Community (Budget Rebate)
  Business Expansion Scheme
  Business Expansion Scheme
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Residential Care
  Residential Care
  NHS (General Managers)
  NHS (General Managers)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Disabled Persons (Housing)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Solihull Hospital
  Solihull Hospital
  Rutland Memorial Hospital
  Rutland Memorial Hospital
  Mr. F. C. Mowbray
  Mr. F. C. Mowbray
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  EC (Spanish Entry)
  EC (Spanish Entry)
  Dog Licence Fee
  Dog Licence Fee
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  Departmental Staff (Overtime)
  EC (Export Rebates)
  EC (Export Rebates)
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
ENERGY
  Wytch Farm
  Wytch Farm
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Local Government Boundaries (Report)
  Local Government Boundaries (Report)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Job Markets
  Job Markets
  Overtime
  Overtime
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  Dairy Farmers
  Dairy Farmers
  Milk Production
  Milk Production
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford): The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.

Work-Sharing
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in work-sharing in the Civil Service, education, the health service, and in the state and private sectors of industry, especially among young people.
The Minister of State, Privy Council Office, and Minister for the Arts (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, work-sharing encompasses a variety of practices, and information about particular sectors could he obtained only at disproportionate cost. In general, the introduction of more flexible working arrangements is a matter for agreement between employers and employees. The Government's job splitting scheme and part-time job release scheme are designed to provide more part-time jobs for the unemployed, and apply in both the public and private sectors.
Baroness Dudley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will Her Majesty's Government encourage firms and businesses to work less overtime and take on more young people?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, again, overtime is a rather sensitive and difficult area because many employers find it necessary to offer overtime, and also the demands of their businesses mean that it is difficult to plan work if they are unable to offer overtime. But in general I agree with my noble friend that it would be desirable if there were less overtime in the economy as a whole.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us how many people there are unemployed at the moment?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, between 12 and 13 per cent. of the workforce. I would have to check to find the precise figure.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, as we do not live by percentages, can the noble Earl tell us the number?
The Earl of Gowrie: No, my Lords, not without notice.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, is that because there are so many that you have not been able to count them?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if I may say so, that is unworthy of the noble Lord.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would the noble Earl the Minister agree that any type of work-sharing among people would have only a minimal effect on the appalling unemployment that there is among young people today? Could the noble Earl give any indication at all as to whether there is any reason to look forward with any optimism to the situation changing, or to the Government's policies, which are subscribing to this situation, being altered?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if the noble Lord believes that political policies can lead to changes in employment levels, he is operating against the grain of almost any Government of any political complexion anywhere in the world. I agree with the noble Lord, however, that work-sharing, while it can be helpful, can be so only at the margin.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, would not the position be greatly simplified if Her Majesty's Government decided to make the restoration of full employment conditions in this country a principal objective of their economic policy?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in striving to provide a climate in which this country can become more competitive and win more customers at home and abroad, that is precisely what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is of the greatest importance that the youngsters coming out of the youth training scheme should get employment? Would it not be possible for the Civil Service to set an example by taking on more than one youngster—perhaps at the rate of one and a half or two—for each job while they continued their training, which they will need to continue after the one year of the youth training scheme for the remainder of the time?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, in respect of some sectors of Civil Service work I have sympathy with the suggestion made by the noble Baroness. As I said earlier, we are operating job splitting schemes and the part-time job release scheme. But with her experience the noble Baroness will know that these schemes would not he appropriate at all levels of Civil Service work.
Lord Kaldor: My Lords, could the noble Earl give an assurance that the coalition White Paper on employment policy issued in 1944 is still regarded by the present Government as applying to them, or is it to be considered as something which is no longer Government policy?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I was fortunate enough, when I was very young, to grow up in the shadow of that admirable document. My son, who is now 20, is less fortunate and is growing up in current economic conditions internationally.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that work-sharing is of great importance to women who wish to carry on in careers, and is quite a different matter from just part-time work in which many women find themselves not able to use their full skills and qualifications at the present time?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would agree with that. It is of special benefit to women, which is one reason why the Government have introduced the scheme.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to have examined the possibility of starting great national projects which would mean that instead of paying dole to millions of young people they could be gainfully employed in, for example, the building industry, on great constructive works? I mean, in short, something like Roosevelt's scheme in the United States which helped to alleviate the appalling problem of unemployment in that country just before the last war.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, while again sympathising with the intent behind the noble Lord's supplementary question, I would suggest, with great respect, that if he goes and looks at a modern motorway under construction, or a modern building site, he will not easily see many opportunities for young people.

Air Route Structure
3.7. p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Answer given on 15th March (Col. 858), they will give details of the progress made on the review by the European Air Navigation Planning Group of the air route structure.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I am glad to report that the European Air Navigation Group's proposals for improvements in route alignment were sent to the International Civil Aviation Organisation's Montreal headquarters on 11th May. The proposals are being studied by ICAO experts and will then be considered by the full ICAO Council. In the United Kingdom we have taken action in advance of the council's formal approval. For example, last month we introduced two weekend routes from Land's End to France and Spain, plus a new daily route between the radio beacon at Midhurst and Dublin.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, that seems a most satisfactory Answer, and we are all glad to note the improvement and that this country has led the way. May I ask the Minister two points arising from that Answer? Has the noble Lord any idea as to when the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organisation will be able to decide on these
1252
matters?—because I think they have to agree them before they can be adopted as civil air routes. Secondly, have the Government any information as to whether there has yet been time to make the service on these routes more efficient and to save costs?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, so far as the first of the noble Baroness's supplementary questions goes, I understand that the Council of the ICAO have been somewhat pre-occupied lately, not least with the Korean airliner disaster, and it is therefore not yet possible to be precise as to when they will be able to consider these matters, but we hope that they may have an opportunity to do so later this year. With regard to the noble Baroness's second supplementary, the new routes to which I have referred have been available for only a week or two. Therefore, I am afraid that it is not yet possible to give any indication of the economies that have been effected.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, following that encouraging reply, perhaps it might be possible to put down a Question before the end of the year to find out whether progress has finally been achieved.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure it will be.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, bearing in mind that the vast majority of United Kingdom-registered aircraft are general aviation aircraft, which prefer to fly in uncontrolled airspace, can the noble Lord say whether the new air routes in the United Kingdom to which he has referred take away any more uncontrolled airspace from general aviation? Is the noble Lord bearing in mind the interests of general aviation in trying to keep lower airspace free?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, nobody is more concerned to safeguard the interests of general aviation users than I am. As the noble Lord will be aware, it has always been the policy to ensure that there is a band of airspace below the controlled airspace to which I have referred kept available for general aviation and smaller aircraft. That is certainly the case in this instance.

Royal Naval Reserve: Establishment
3.10 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: 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 is the current establishment of the Royal Naval Reserve.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the present strength of the Royal Naval Reserve (including the Women's Royal Naval Reserve and the Queen Alexandra;s Royal Naval Nursing Service Reserve) is 5,320.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, bearing in mind my noble friend's excellent and admirable record with regard to the Territorial Army and increasing the size of it, would he consider doing the same thing with the

1253
Royal Naval Reserve, particularly bearing in mind that their main duty in wartime would be mine sweeping? Is he further aware that against the 850 NATO mines no fewer than 26,000 Warsaw Pact mines are ranged, which is a ratio of 31:1?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that we are considering this matter. We are looking particularly at what the RNR's role might be during wartime; and when we have finished our consideration of this aspect we shall see to it that the appropriate numbers and equipment are provided.

Road Sign Standards
3.12 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 is the estimated cost of modernising the road signs of the United Kingdom to the standard now existing on the motorways, and what plans they have for implementing such a programme.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, most traffic signs on main roads in the United Kingdom comply with the standards recommended in the Anderson Report 1962 and the Worboys Report 1963 for motorways and all purpose roads respectively. On minor rural roads a considerable number of old "finger" post type signs still exist. Also on some urban roads there are a number of directional signs that do not comply with modern requirements. There are no centrally held records which would enable the cost of modernising them to be assessed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport has no proposals for a general programme of modernisation of these signs.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for his informative Answer. Is he aware that at many intersections in this country the signs are not adequate, they often lead to accidents due to hesitation by drivers as they are negotiating an intersection, and that this is something which could be rectified by a comprehensive review? Is he further aware that our general road signing compares very badly with our neighbours in Europe, particularly the French and Italians? We are way behind. While I realise that it would be expensive to bring the level of road signs other than on motorways up to a good, modern standard, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that it really would be a valuable improvement, good value for money and would save a great many accidents?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend will no doubt be aware that the Department of Transport are responsible for 1,400 miles of motorway and 4,800 miles of all-purpose trunk road. The intersections to which he refers would fall to the responsibility of the local highway authority because there are a further 152,000 miles in that classification.
1254
We have no record which supports my noble friend's contention that the signing is sufficiently inadequate to cause accidents.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that the signposting requirements on the M.25 are completely different to those required on most other motorways in Britain? Would he not agree also that if the full potential of the M.25 as a by-pass relief road for London is to be realised, it is essential that there should be adequate signposting to local destinations and places of interest? Have the Government in mind any supplementary signposting on the M.25?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I quite agree with the earlier remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The complete signposting of the M.25 will not be accomplished until the road itself is finished in 1986. If the noble Lord has any particular difficulty in any section which is now open, of course I should like to know about it.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, is not my noble friend happy that his department is giving local authorities sufficient advice as to what should be a suitable minimum agreed standard of road signs in this country?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the signing regulations to which I have earlier referred were set in 1963, updated in 1971 and further updated in 1981. The Traffic Signs regulations do prescribe in general terms sign colours, lighting or reflectorisation requirements. These are dealt with under British Standard No. 873. We feel that our signposting compares very favourably with that of other countries.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many motorists will be delighted to hear that modernisation of road signs is not to proceed apace because experience has shown them that the more the signs are modernised the more confusing they become? Is he aware that it is a common experience to follow road signs pointing to a particular destination, then to come to a major crossroads and find that the place you are trying to get to is not mentioned at all, and one is confronted by signs saying, "to the North", "to the West", or "to the South"? Is this not totally inadequate?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, concerning my noble friend's last question, the advice that is given to local authorities is in a publication called, Information Signs for Use on All Purpose Roads. It says on page 19:
"Once a place name has appeared on an advance direction sign, it should appear on all subsequent directional signs until the destination is reached."
We have no great evidence that this practice is not carried out.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: If noble Lords from any part of the House have a particular problem, again I should he delighted to know about it and draw it to the attention of the local authorities concerned.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the motorway road signs are still made in one of our big prisons? If this is so, would it not be possible to extend this to other prisons and give prisoners some satisfactory work to do rather than a repetitive and useless work that many of them are carrying out?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I do not know. I will certainly find out and ask my noble friend who is responsible for the prison service whether or not the noble Lord's suggestion could he adopted.
Lord Parry: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that, important though my noble friend's question was, it is slightly more important that visitors travelling to areas of the country are able to find their way in than that prisoners should be tantalised by signs pointing the way out? Would he not accept in fact that one of our basic growth industries is suffering very badly from the confusion of short and long term directional signs, and that it is a frustration to those who are entrepreneurs in the tourism business?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the motorway and primary route network signing is covered under the European rules concerning road traffic signs and signals. It was published by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport as recently as 1974, and it includes the conventions and agreements signed in Vienna in 1968, Geneva in 1971 and Geneva in 1973. For those who may be unaware of how our signing and route signing systems work, there is a very small booklet called, Knowing Your Traffic Signs. It is priced 75p and is available from the Department of Transport. It is in current publication.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if the road signs in Wales are to be modernised, will the Minister ensure that those that are in Welsh will remain in Welsh, particularly the road signs leading to Llan-fairpwfigwyngyllgogerchwyrndrobwlltysiliogogogoch?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord knows that the main primary road network signing includes directions in both English and Welsh. There is no suggestion that this should be discontinued in the event of any change in the signing in the Principality.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords may I ask the Minister whether it would be possible to have road signs that cannot he turned round the wrong way by vandals?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I expect it would, my Lords. There is a question of cost benefit in this matter, and since road signs cost between £250 and £5,000 each, the noble Baroness will understand that there is a problem here of considerable expense with a limited advantage in view.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that though he has given us many informative answers, he has not really satisfied the House, particularly on the point of continuity of signing, which will carry travellers through to their
1256
destinations? It is a very frequent fault to find at intersections that there is a break in signing. Will he please take steps, at least on this aspect, to carry out a survey with local highway authorities so as to ask that they should check this point to ensure that where there are gaps—to which noble Lords in all parts of the House can testify—they really should be corrected?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I take note of what my noble friend has said. He underlines what other noble Lords in all parts of the House have suggested in their response to my earlier answer. As I say, I take note of what my noble friend has said, and I shall certainly draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, can the Minister give us any idea of how many motorists are stopped by the police and breathalysed because the police mistake a motorist's hesitation while trying to decipher a road sign for his being under the influence of drink?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords, I am sorry, I just do not know that one.

Kingston upon Hull Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
Warwick District Council Bill [H.L.]
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

The Defence Estimates 1984
3.23 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne rose to move, That this House takes note of the Statement On the Defence Estimates 1984 (Cmnd. 9227).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I rose to speak on the occasion of last year's debate on the Defence Estimates I could not then pretend to have had much experience in the subject of defence. The intervening time, while not sufficient to enable me to amass as much knowledge in this matter as many of your Lordships, has underlined to me the vital importance of our defence policy and the measures we take to maintain our peace and security.
Once again we can hear some voices proclaiming that the NATO Alliance is in crisis. These voices talk of allies drifting apart and a strategy which is no longer sufficiently credible to ensure deterrence; but none offers any realistic alternatives. The Governments of the alliance welcome a debate on defence policy—the British Government are actively trying to promote and enhance this debate—but we must all beware of the self-fulfilling prophecy and make sure that we look to the facts.
This Government firmly believe in the strength and endurance of the NATO Alliance. The very existence of a debate about NATO policy is evidence of the fundamental strength of the alliance. NATO is a free association of sovereign states, and it is therefore

1257
enhanced and strengthened by democratic debates. NATO is a defensive alliance, determined to preserve the way of life of its members through collective security. It has succeeded in this role for 35 years—one of the longest periods of peace in recent European history.
The Government believe that NATO's fundamental strategy of flexible response and forward defence remains credible and sound. It is the only effective way of deterring the use, or threatened use, of Warsaw Pact military power. The alliance is working to maintain the credibility of that strategy at all levels, for NATO must have the ability to deter aggression at whatever level it might occur. Ways are being sought to apply the West's technological superiority to enhance our defence capabilities, and new tactical concepts are being devised to exploit their potential to the full. But none of this alters or replaces the defensive nature of the alliance: we seek strong and credible deterrence and a robust defensive capability. But we threaten no-one.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates, which is before your Lordships, reaffirms the Government's commitment to NATO and our continuing conviction that the alliance must have first call on our defence resources. The main challenge to NATO and to the United Kingdom's interests continues to come from the Warsaw Pact, and we believe that the collective security we enjoy as members of NATO is the only realistic way of providing for our defence. As the White Paper makes clear, we remain committed to playing our full part in ensuring the continued effectiveness of the alliance. At the same time we remain determined to pursue genuine progress on arms control and we shall seek a better understanding with the Soviet Union. As the declaration following the recent summit in London said:
"Our aim is security and the lowest possible level of forces. We wish to see early and positive results in the various arms control negotiations and the speedy resumption of those now suspended."
The range of the United Kingdom's contribution to the alliance is impressive and is matched only by the United States'. We provide independent strategic and theatre nuclear forces committed to NATO; we conduct the direct defence of the United Kingdom; we make a major land and air contribution to the European mainland; and we deploy a substantial maritime capability in the eastern Atlantic and Channel.
Our armed forces, both regular and Ulster Defence Regiment, continue to provide support to the civil power in Northern Ireland—a difficult and sensitive task to which they respond with courage and restraint. We owe an enormous debt to them all.
The Government have repeatedly emphasised the high priority that we give to defence. We have demonstrated this visibly by providing for substantial real growth in the defence budget in each year since 1979. The 1984–85 budget amounts to some £ 17,000 million. We spend more in absolute terms and per capita on defence than any other ally except the United States. The defence budget provides for 3 per cent. growth in real terms to continue to 1985–86, by which time it will he nearly 20 per cent. higher than in 1978–9, excluding Falklands additions. This is a substantial achievement against background
1258
constraints on public expenditure, and it is a record which I believe speaks for itself.
But your Lordships will be aware that the resources which can be devoted to defence are finite. Adding to the money available is only one way to increase output. Another, and equally important task, is to secure maximum value from the money we spend. I shall not dwell on the organisational aspects of this issue, since we debated that matter yesterday. But let me state clearly the Government's policy on the cost effective management of defence, which is dealt with comprehensively in the White Paper. We are seeking the greatest possible output of front-line fighting capability, from the resources of money, manpower, and equipment put into defence. Chapter Two of the White Paper describes the management and organisational initiatives which are in hand in the Ministry of Defence to overhaul the machinery for developing and co-ordinating defence policy.
Continuing progress is being made in switching resources from the support "tail" into the "teeth" of actual fighting capability. The evidence is already appearing. For example, up to eight ships which would otherwise have been placed on stand-by from 1986 onwards will now remain in the operational fleet, utilising manpower released by improved efficiency in shore support. The result will be to enhance the number of escort ships available at short notice to NATO, or for national commitments, by up to 20 per cent., by drawing upon the existing manpower provision. In the Army, some 4,000 men will be redeployed to the frontline and facilitate the entry into service of a wide range of highly effective new equipment which will have very significant effects on the Army's capability in this area.
For the Army we shall form later in the decade an extra armoured regiment, the 12th, in First British Corps; a new air defence regiment, equipped with a new missile system; and the first of our regiments equipped with the new mutliple-launched rocket system. We shall also be able to make more effective use of the Army's helicopters; to increase our capability in the field of electronic warfare; and to introduce new equipment to help speed our increased war stocks to the battlefield. The Royal Air Force aims to release skilled manpower from training and support units for service on operational stations, so that RAF man-power will hold steady despite an increase of 15 per cent. in the number of frontline aircraft over the decade.
Evidence of the Government's success in directing resources towards the "teeth" of the armed forces is shown by the fact that expenditure on equipment now accounts for 46 per cent.—almost half—of the defence budget. Following the pattern of recent years, the 1984 White Paper lists a number of major projects which we have brought to the development stage in the past year. These include, among others, the advanced medium range naval surveillance radar, which I know has been of particular interest to my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
Your Lordships will be aware that the Government are determined to achieve greater competition in defence procurement whenever it is sensible and practical to do so. The Government seek to achieve

1259
the twin objectives of getting better value for money in defence procurement, and of stimulating British companies to greater efficiency, enterprise and technological achievement.
Achieving the first objective will enable us to put more effective equipment into the hands of our service men and will facilitate our plans to put more of our service assets into the frontline. Achieving the second will benefit British companies in both the domestic and overseas markets, strengthening our defence industrial base and contributing to the improvement of our economy.
We are aware that there are, inevitably, some limits on the extent to which competition can be introduced, but we shall he proceeding on a case-by-case basis in order to avoid possible pitfalls and to ensure that competitive pressures are applied in the most appropriate way. We shall seek to widen the field of suppliers involved at the early stages of new projects and make careful judgments on the timing and nature of our commitment to production with any particular firm, but in the context of what makes sound procurement sense. In addition to promoting competition for main contracts, we have made it clear to our contractors that we expect them to utilise competition in their sub-contracts, and we are encouraging small firms, in particular, to involve themselves in the competitive process.
Our competition policy will, of course, take time to work through, and it is too early to generalise about its results. But an analysis of recent contracts showed an average saving of over 30 per cent. following the introduction of competition.
We are sure that increased use of competition more generally will lead to lower costs, tighter timetables, and sound products. Competition will therefore have a major part to play in achieving that vital shift of our defence programme towards additional front-line capability.
Competition will also be rigorously pursued in the areas of support, supply and maintenance services. Warship refitting, aircraft servicing, equipment repair, freight movements. and "accommodation stores" are all examples of recent cases where competition has been achieved or is currently being pursued. Generally, we are seeking to apply the principle that work should be carried out within our own defence support organisation only where it is essential for clearly proven operational reasons, or where there is financial advantage for the taxpayer.
My Lords, the ultimate aim of our drive towards cost effectiveness and value for money must of course be improved force capabilities. That is the acid test. Chapter Four of the White Paper which is before your Lordships outlines the enhancements in capability achieved over the last year, or currently planned for our armed forces. These are many and varied, and I can only hope to highlight some of the major aspects of these programmes today, while commending Chapter Four to your Lordships for closer study.
The effectiveness of our strategic nuclear force will be maintained. New motors and the Chevaline programme will carry the Polaris system into the 1990s, when its replacement, the Trident II strategic
1260
weapon system, enters service. The size of the Trident force will be the minimum necessary to provide a credible and effective deterrent well into the next century. Its basic cost—around £8.7 billion—has not changed other than for inflation and exchange rate variations, and over half of this sum will be spent in Britain. The Government are convinced that no equivalent expenditure on conventional defences could possibly prove of equal deterrent value.
The White Paper reaffirms that the defence of the United Kingdom itself is of paramount importance to the NATO Alliance, as well as to citizens of this country. The Government continue to give this task increased attention, with highest priority going to air defence. The replacement and modernisation of Royal Air Force air defence assets is under way. Nimrod airborne early warning aircraft, which will be the United Kingdom's contribution to the NATO airborne early warning force. is due to enter service with the Royal Air Force later this year, followed next year by the Tornado F2 (air defence variant) aircraft. The Phantom F4J (UK) aircraft purchased from the United States will arrive shortly to compensate for deployments to the Falklands; and a programme to equip Hawk trainer aircraft with Sidewinder missiles continues. New ground radars will enter service shortly, followed by other sensors and communications. Additional Rapier units have been acquired and the first elements of a United States Air Force Rapier wing, operated by the RAF Regiment, have formed.
On land we are strengthening our forces available for home defence. The reserves are particularly important in this respect, and I shall return to them later. At sea, six new hunt-class mine counter measure vessels have entered service and four new river-class fleet minesweepers should be in service by the end of the year. More of these vessels are on order and a new class of minehunter is planned to enter service later in the decade.
My Lords, the defence of the United Kingdom is not just a matter of protecting our island shores. That is why we must maintain a substantial presence on land and in the air on NATO's central front in Europe, and continue our contribution to the northern flank. The reorganisation of First British Corps is complete. There are now three regular armoured divisions in theatre, with a fourth division with a BAOR role stationed in the United Kingdom in peace. On mobilization, the size of the Army in Germany would increase to some 150,000 soldiers and the White Paper announces our intention to test our ability to carry out this reinforcement in Exercise Lionheart in September this year, and I hope that some of your Lordships will be able to witness part of this important exercise.
At sea we shall continue to make a substantial contribution towards preventing disruption of NATO's vital Alantic and Channel reinforcement and resupply routes. The United Kingdom provides 70 per cent. of the forces involved in the eastern Atlantic and Channel and the Government are committed to maintaining this substantial maritime contribution. Our task at sea is a varied and demanding one, for which we need a wide range of flexible modern equipment from nuclear-powered hunter-killer submarines to the third anti-submarine warfare

1261
carrier, HMS "Ark Royal", which will enter service next year, enabling us to continue to keep two carriers operational. In all, there will he about 55 front-line escort ships in service this year, and our long-term aim continues to be to sustain a force level of about 50.
There are 37 warships currently on order for the Royal Navy. However, it is not simply enough to build vessels; they must be properly armed and protected to operate in a modern hostile environment. Indeed, for example, 63 per cent. of the cost of a Type 22 frigate goes towards its operation and fighting capabilities—and the Government will continue to place great emphasis on the hitting and staying power of our maritime forces. Our effort at sea is a substantial one, and those who continue to carp about "cuts in the Navy" are refusing to face the facts. The facts are that in 1983–84 we expect to have spent about £750 million more in constant prices on the conventional Navy than was spent in the year before we first came into office.
I shall now return to the reserves. Your Lordships will he well aware of this Government's firm commitment to our volunteer reserve forces, which have a vital role to play in our defence efforts. We shall continue to maintain their effectiveness, to improve their equipment and to increase their strength; and, indeed, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon at Question Time, we are presently examining the role and size of the Royal Naval Reserve in relation to the tasks they undertake. We have ordered new ships for the Royal Naval Reserve, and we plan to increase the Royal Marines Reserve by about 400 men. The Royal Auxiliary Air Force, too, is in the process of a major expansion, with airfield defence squadrons now formed at six locations. As your Lordships are aware, the Territorial Army is to be expanded to a strength of 86,000 by the end of the decade. The first phase of this expansion programme, announced in March 1982, contains a number of measures, including the formation of additional infantry companies and six Royal Engineer airfield damage repair squadrons. This programme is well under way, and to date has been most successful. Our plan for the second phase of enhancements, of which I informed your Lordships on 26th March, will lead to a considerable increase in operational capability. Indeed, this was a subject very much of interest to my late noble friend Lord Glasgow, whom I am sure would have wished to say something on this matter had he been with us today.
In addition, we shall build up the Home Service Force to a strength of about 5,000 during the next few years. The Home Service Force recruits only from trained ex-service men and uses their expertise for less onerous guarding duties, thus releasing regular and Territorial Army soldiers for other important tasks. It provides a valuable and credible complement to our other defence forces. We are therefore keen to see the expansion get under way as soon as possible, and work is now proceeding apace to ensure that the new platoons are formed in the right place and with the right equipment. Your Lordships may also be interested to hear that I am considering the possibility of forming reserve units on the Home Service Force model in the Royal Auxiliary Air Force and the Royal Marine Reserve. This, I am sure, will he of particular
1262
interest to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton.
The success of our volunteer reserves lies in the qualities and commitment of the men and women who give up their spare time to serve their country. We are very sensitive to the burdens placed on such reservists, who must reconcile the demands of family, work and the armed services. We have therefore taken various initiatives to help. We have, for example, launched a major national campaign to encourage employers to support the reserve forces. As part of this campaign, I have written personally to the chairmen of more than 600 major companies (not a few of whom sit in your Lordships' House) asking them to consider sympathetically applications from TA soldiers they employ to attend annual training periods. I can tell your Lordships that I have been greatly encouraged by the number of favourable replies and the messages of support which I have received. In addition, I am pleased to announce that we have now abandoned the old system of occupational screening for the volunteer reserve, so that volunteer service is now open to many employees who were previously barred.
We have also taken action to alleviate the difficulties faced by those members of the volunteer reserves who have the misfortune to be unemployed. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has announced proposals for improving the earnings disregard and the assessment of supplementary benefits for those in the reserve forces.
We must not forget our regular reserves, who also have a vital role to play. The Army regular reservists represent about a third of the Army's mobilised strength, and refresher training for them will begin next year, when we expect about 4,200 officers and soldiers to take part. In the longer term, the number will increase to about 7,500 a year.
I have concentrated so far on our contribution to the NATO Alliance. It is only right that I should do so, since NATO remains the cornerstone of our defence policy and some 95 per cent. of our defence budget is devoted directly or indirectly to alliance tasks. But even though NATO is a defensive alliance, whose essential purpose is to maintain peace and freedom for its members, we cannot afford to close our eyes to events and possible threats to our interests in the rest of the world. The United Kingdom of course retains certain obligations for the defence of our remaining Dependent Territories, and we continue to maintain garrisons in places like Hong Kong and the Falkland Islands, which account for the bulk of our defence expenditure outside NATO. But in addition to these direct responsibilities we must also recognise that events beyond the NATO area can have major implications for Western security interests. The Government believe it is right that we should be prepared to accept our share of the responsibility not only to protect our own interests but to help our friends outside NATO develop their own defensive capabilities.
The priority we accord to NATO clearly limits the resources we can make available for what are often called our "out of area" responsibilities. But there is much we can do at relatively little cost. For example, we train more than 3,000 personnel from overseas

1263
countries each year, and at the moment we have well over 700 of our own personnel on loan to the governments of about 30 friendly countries to help them develop the capabilities of their own forces. The White Paper also rightly draws particular attention to the contribution we make to peace-keeping forces. Sometimes such forces are a conspicuous success, as in Cyprus, where I visited a couple of weeks ago and where the United Nations force—to which we make the largest contribution—has played a very important role in reducing tension between the two communities. I should also like to pay tribute to our soldiers who form part of an unsung but successful international force—the Sinai Multinational Force and Observers, which I have also visited recently. On other occasions, sadly, attempts to keep the warring factions apart and promote reconciliation ultimately fail, as in the Lebanon. But such failures do not mean that we should not continue to play our part in trying to prevent an increasing spiral of violence, especially in those parts of the world where continuing instability could have dangerous implications for East-West relations.
Finally, we must continue to maintain an effective capability to intervene militarily where our own interests are directly threatened. Again, the resources available mean that we cannot dedicate substantial forces to such tasks, and a far as possible they would be drawn from those units whose primary role is within NATO. But we can do much to ensure that these forces are trained and equipped in a way which gives them the flexibility to operate outside the NATO area without detriment to their principal alliance roles. I commend to your Lordships the section at the end of Chapter Four of the White Paper which describes some of the ways in which we are enhancing the versatility and flexibility of our forces, to enable them not only to undertake their main tasks within Europe more effectively but also to increase their capability to deploy rapidly over much greater distances. The use of force must always be regarded as very much a last resort, but it is vital for our own security interests and those of the West as a whole that we have an adequate capability available should it be needed.
Many of your Lordships, learned and experienced in defence matters. will wish to speak today, and I commend to your Lordships the White Paper, which deals with all aspects of defence in great detail. I am proud of our men in arms and their civilian colleagues, and recognise the debt of gratitude owed to them by the country at large. We in the Government are pledged to ensuring that they will continue, as they always have, to enjoy our total support. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984 (Cmnd. 9227).—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.50 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for introducing this debate on the Defence Estimates and for doing so in his usual clear and definite way. It is a measure of the importance attached to this matter that we have not only our own
1264
Defence Minister in this House taking part but also the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I cannot resist pointing out that once again your Lordships' House is taking a lead over another place—perhaps "stealing a march" would be more apt in this particular context—because this is the first debate in Parliament on these Estimates. That is after all not inappropriate in view of the galaxy of talent, experience and expertise in service matters that exists in this House, and we are privileged that we shall hear from some of those Members today.
Although there are differences on defence policy between parties and indeed within all parties and between individuals. I hope we can agree on one thing. That is, that the defence of the Realm is of paramount importance, as is the protection of the freedoms we hold dear and our way of life. We must be capable of defending ourselves and we need strong defence forces to do so—and here I pay tribute at once to the high quality and courage of our service men and women, and I join the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in doing so.
I want also at the outset to re-emphasise our commitment to the NATO Alliance in this its 35th anniversary year—a great power for peace in the world. We would like to offer our best wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in taking over this month as Secretary General.
An essential part of our policy remains, of course, our relationship with the United States. We have had our differences and we have had to warn against becoming subservient to the United States. We are a partnership, and that relationship remains the cornerstone of our policy, based as it is in part, in my party, on foundations established by Attlee and Bevin and followed and developed by later leaders. I say all this because I believe it is essential to reaffirm what one might call some of these articles of faith. So often I feel that we are in danger of being so immersed in the details of policies that we lose sight of our fundamental guiding principles and our basic objectives.
That brings me to a fundamental shortcoming in this Statement on the Estimates. While it dwells upon plans to reorganise the Ministry—and I shall say something more on those later—it fails to reveal that there has been any parallel reappraisal of overall policy: and this at a time when the Government have been embarking upon the most massive and costliest ever exercise in re-equipment—the creation of our second generation strategic nuclear force. As a leading article in the Guardian put it on the 15th May this year, after referring to the reorganisation review—
"What is equall necessary—and long overdue—is a more reflective statement of how Britain wishes to influence the thinking of the NATO alliance, mesh the British services into a possible European defence community, or advance strategic planning so that reliance on nuclear overkill gives way to a more credible …. posture for Britain".
And a somewhat similar criticism was in a Times leader the same day and, as the Guardian said, there is no discussion of such vital matters as the first use or no first use nor of no early first use of nuclear weapons partly because this
"brings into question the topic that Mr. Heseltine is not at all anxious to discuss: the destabilising and costly Trident programme".

1265
Then the question is asked: Do we need a second generation nuclear force? Whatever view is taken of nuclear deterrence and the British nuclear deterrent—and I have never been in any doubt myself about the need for an effective Western deterrent pending all-round agreement on disarmament—it is relevant to ask whether the Government have ever asked themselves the question: does Britain need a second generation nuclear force and is this the most cost-effective contribution we can make to Western defence?
What the Defence White Paper says about the British deterrent, and the replacement of Polaris by the Trident II D5 system, is:
"The independent British strategic force is, and will continue to be, of the minimum size necessary to provide a credible and effective deterrent. We have no intention of increasing the capability of the force beyond that minimum".
But, as has been pointed out elsewhere, that statement is self-contradictory, for if the force is the minimum now with Polaris it will clearly be many times more than the minimum when it is expanded so greatly with Trident. Our four Polaris submarines, with a total of 126 warheads, will he replaced by the mid-1990s by the four Trident submarines with up to an estimated 960 warheads.
Of course, the White Paper does say that current plans for the Trident force will not involve using the full capability of the system. But that is an extraordinary statement in itself, for having said that we will keep things to a minimum, why build far in excess of our needs—even with. as one estimate has put it, 384 warheads with Trident? That would still be three times greater than for Polaris. And we should bear in mind, too, that the Trident warheads will be far more effective than Polaris, with greater accuracy and range. and with separate targeting. As the Observer said on the 20th of last month:
"While opinions may differ on the value of an independent deterrent, Western purposes are unlikely to be served by Britain acquiring a deterrent larger and more expensive than it needs at the expense of its conventional forces. The Government should think again about Trident before it is too late".
And it is not only in newspapers that these complaints have been made. They have been made by newspapers of a great variety of complexions—not only the ones I have mentioned but the Sunday Times, the Standard, the Mail on Sunday and the Listener. All those have voiced doubts, and also leading independent figures have voiced their concern. I will come to those in a moment.
But, first of all, cost, which has been mentioned by the Minister today. We see that the Estimates now put the total at just over £8.7 billion. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and others including Dr. David Owen and Mr. Keith Speed (the Government's former Navy Minister) have said, the total should already he some £400 million higher than in the Estimates, for the figure there is based on an exchange rate of some 1.5 dollars to the pound, whereas it has already gone to around 1.38; so the Government are already under-estimating on that account alone. Other authorities put the total very much higher. We understand from the White Paper that 55 per cent. of the spending is to go in the United Kingdom, whereas
1266
at first it was estimated to have been some 70 per cent., I understand.
If we look at overall defence spending, that is now in 1984–85, as the Minister has said, £ 17.033 billion and by 1985–86 it will be nearly 20 per cent. up on 1978–1979. My Lords, are we getting 20 per cent. more value out of it? The Secretary of State's aim is value for money—a most laudable aim—but has he put the whole policy to that test? Has he looked at Trident in relation to the rest of our defence programme in that way?
It is clear from the White Paper that defence spending in real terms will stop growing, and might decline, at just the time when the real costs of Trident bite into the budget. In the years of highest costs it will be taking 15–20 per cent. of total capital spending on defence. There is very real concern about the effect that will have on other parts of the defence programme. And there is precious little guidance, I am afraid, in the White Paper. Is this going to mean more cuts elsewhere in due course in defence? And, by the way, the White Paper does not explain the effects of the decision announced last year to abandon from next year the NATO target of a 3 per cent. real increase each year in the defence budget, which was referred to just now by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne.
One fear of many experts is that by spending so much on Trident our conventional forces will be weakened just when there is growing support for deterring possible Soviet aggression by getting a better balance of conventional forces in Europe. We are entitled to ask what assessment the Government have made of this and what their answer is. Indeed. it is our duty to do so.
That brings me to some of the views expressed about Trident. There was the call by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, in a careful and devastating analysis very early on in 1982 (which he has since reinforced) that Britain should reject Trident. There were the criticisms made by the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont—again, very early on—when he said that the Government conclude their argument with the ringing declaration that
"the provision of the new Trident force should not prevent or emasculate continued improvement in other areas of our contribution to NATO".
And the noble Lord said:
"This is almost certainly what it will do".
There have been the criticisms, particularly on costs, of a leading academic, David Greenwood, the director of the Centre for Defence Studies at Aberdeen University. Then there is a great authority, also outside this House, who also does not support my party—indeed he is a warm supporter, I understand, of the party opposite—Professor Michael Howard. In his book The Causes of Wars, published last year, he says of Trident:
"I have expressed elsewhere my regret that the British Government should have decided to spend five million pounds—
he will he even more regretful now—
"out of our very restricted defence budget on a strategic nuclear strike force, which can only be at the expense of the conventional forces we can contribute to the Alliance".
Earlier he emphasises what we could do if.
"we did not divert funds into procuring the most expensive available 'independent deterrent'"—

1267
your Lordships will see that he puts those two words "independent deterrent" in quotation marks—
"the strategic rationale for which remains to me utterly obscure. From this you will see why I consider Trident to he a waste of money".
Incidentally, he also says that he is sceptical about cruise and Pershing, and says that they will remain under United States control.
Then this very month the Government's former Royal Navy Minister, Mr. Keith Speed, said:
"I have regretfully come to the conclusion—that neither the United Kingdom nor the Royal Navy can afford Trident".
There is I think some hope to be gleaned from this. Up to eight more frigates and destroyers are now to be in the active fleet, as the Minister has indicated, so Mr. Speed has already been vindicated and proved right once. What all this shows, at the very least, is that there are grave and genuine doubts about the British Trident programme, and among people who have been convinced all along of the need for the present British deterrent. The least the Government should do is to have a real look at this and to make a fresh assessment.
If it had not been for yesterday's debate. I would have spent less time on Trident, important though it is, and much more on the Secretary of State's reorganisation proposals. But we cannot completely ignore those today, for they are part of the overall defence scene and should not be looked at in isolation. Let me say at once that we have no objection in principle to reorganisation; and my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton dealt with these matters comprehensively last night. In fact, the Secretary of State is to be commended for keeping it under close scrutiny.
But how wise he was to float his ideas before deciding, for there have been trenchant criticisms from many very experienced quarters. I hope he will be wise enough to weigh those carefully before deciding, and I think the Minister has indicated that he will. The Secretary of State has said:
"Nothing must be done which would weaken the separate identities and traditions of the three fighting services. They play a vital part in the morale of our front line units".[Official Report, Commons. 12/3/84; col. 22.]
Morale is precisely one of the things which critics, with all their service experience, fear will suffer.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has said that the proposals would,
"relegate the individual service chiefs to the task of routine management".
There has been criticism, too, as we know from the former Chief of Naval Staff, Admiral of the Fleet Sir Henry Leach, from Marshal of the Royal Air Force Sir Michael Beetham, from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, with his recent experience as a Defence Minister and from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton; and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, while favouring reorganisation, has serious misgivings, too.
I was particularly struck by some of the strictures of the noble and gallant Lord who initiated yesterday's debate, Lord Cameron of Balhousie. In a letter in The Times of 17th May he said of the proposed lines of advice to the Secretary of State,
1268
"A weak Chief of the Defence Staff and a strong Secretary of State could be a lethal combination".
I agree, but so could a strong Chief of the Defence Staff and a strong Secretary of State, for the strong Chief of the Defence Staff might have suppressed or overriden crucial advice of one of the single chiefs. That highlights an overriding fear about these proposals which has not been spelled out sufficiently so far and we are still not reassured, even as a result of yesterday. The Secretary of State said that he was:
"seeking to replace the present situation whereby much of the advice depends on three individual single service staffs, which, by their very nature, can be competitive in their approach". [Official Report, Commons. 12/3/84: col. 25.]
But the final arbiter needs to he the Secretary of State, so the advice needs to reach him direct before it is regurgitated or just swallowed by the Chief of the Defence Staff and the Permanent Under-Secretary. Otherwise, the Secretary of State might never see or benefit from the advice of the individual service chiefs in the formative stages of policy making.
I come now equally briefly to the plans for changes in procurement and defence contracts and the privatisation proposals. Again there can be no complaint about examining these to see what improvements and savings might he made. But serious questions arise. What are going to be the manpower implications, what will be the effect on jobs and, in throwing open contracts to greater competition, how will the Government see that there will always be enough firms with sufficient facilities, resources and skilled staff—and those are the crucial factors—to carry out defence work? After all, there will be no guarantee with this competition of continuity in contracts, and firms which have geared themselves up for defence work will not necessarily be able to count on continuing that work, so they might go out of business and not be there when they are next needed. Have the Government thought about that? And what about the security aspects of opening up sensitive defence work more widely? We ask these questions not in any destructive sense, but because there are real problems and we want to see that the Government find the answers.
Among the most mystifying for me of these proposals are the plans to alter—the awful word "rationalize" has been used—medical, catering, musical, educational (I am not sure about the chaplaincy) and other services. What exactly is planned here and how will the Government ensure that, for example, adequate dental and medical services will be available, especially to front line units? I confess I am also apprehensive about meddling with the musical set-up in the services. When it comes to ceremonial, I must confess that I am an absolute pus-hover. It is absolutely wonderful and it brings tremendous pleasure to people. The individual service bands are a tremendous boost to morale and loyalty to units, and many people will want to be reassured that their favourite bands are not going to be—I almost fell into the trap of saying "disbanded" or, worse still, "abandoned".
There are several questions on international matters which I wish to raise with the Government. First, there is the proposal to reactivate the Western European Union. This was raised for the first time in Parliament.

1269
since the new proposals have been put forward, last night in your Lordships' debate by my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton. It is opportune to raise this, too, because of the Western European Union Foreign Ministers meeting on Tuesday last. Would the Government tell us about their thinking on that? If President Mitterrand intends France to be more outward-looking on defence in putting forward his part of these proposals, that could indeed be worth encouraging. That leads on to the need for closer European co-operation on procurement. It will be helpful to hear more about the Government's views on that when the noble Viscount comes to wind-up, if he were able to say something on those points.
That, in turn, leads me to ask about the search for international agreement on the wider and more major problems facing us all. What are the prospects now? There has been a passing reference to these, but that is all. I make no complaint about that, because this is a lengthy matter. What are the prospects now, as the Government see them, for the resumption that we all hope to see of the Geneva talks on intermediate-range nuclear forces? And what progress do the Government anticipate in the Vienna negotiations on mutual and balanced force reductions? What prospects are there for agreement on chemical weapons? Here, I would commend the Government on their initiatives this year. As we know, this country stopped producing chemical weapons in 1959. We all hope that the 1925 protocol banning the use of chemical weapons can be followed now by a ban on production and stockpiling—possession, storage—and on export as well.
Perhaps I could add here that we should have liked to hear more from the Government on the need to do all we can to seek a solution to the Iran-lraq war and other problems in the Middle East, as well as on our role in South-East Asia. I was pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, had to say about our role in other parts of the world, for we are all perhaps in danger of seeming to be too preoccupied with Europe and the Atlantic area.
There is one other specific matter which I should like to raise, and that is the dual key and the control of United States missiles in Britain. There have been exchanges in the House on this matter—as recently as 7th June my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney raised it at Question Time—but there is still a good deal of uncertainty about it. People are still left with the impression that the United States still thinks it has the sole, final word.
The Government say that the present arrangements stem from a formula worked out in the early 1950s and since reaffirmed by each new President and Prime Minister. What was the status of that understanding? Clearly it could not have been a formal agreement. But what was it that was agreed? I do not complain that it was not spelt out in detail on 7th June, because there are difficulties surrounding the confinement of Question Time. But the nature of weapons has changed since the original formula was devised. Most recently it was the deployment of Pershing and cruise missiles which caused renewed concern. As we have seen, people in this country are not alone in showing concern. We saw what happened last night in the
1270
Netherlands. We believe that the Government owe it to this House to make a clear statement about this matter in a debate on defence.
The present Government have been in power now for five years; they are likely to be in power for another three to four years, and we are still some way from a new Labour manifesto. It is right that in the meantime we should look critically at Government policy. We are entitled to do that. Indeed, it is our duty to do that. We have voiced our concern about aspects of defence costs. We know that there are considerable doubts in people's minds about cruise and Pershing missiles. On nuclear policy, my own view is that I would await the natural phasing out of Polaris. On overall defence policy, I would emphasise again the need for effective and efficient defence forces.
This is a debate on the Defence White Paper, and I have dwelt on some major aspects of policy that are dealt with in it. But it would be wrong of me if I did not conclude by stressing our deep commitment to disarmament. All-round disarmament is something we all want. We must all do all that we can to achieve that end—but from a position of efficient and effective strength, not weakness.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, may I echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his lucid summary of the Statement an the Defence Estimates. May I also say how glad I believe the whole House will be that the Leader of the House has taken upon himself the tiresome job of winding up a long debate covering such an enormous front.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, has greatly shortened this debate by his speech because he has greatly shortened my speech. Most of what the noble Lord had to say about Trident—I found it a formidable statement—would be entirely supported by my noble friends on these Benches. I would add only one more count to the indictment: that the Trident system will be intrinsically an embarrassment to this country if ever real strategic nuclear disarmament begins to take place between the United States and the Soviet Union. I put the point as succinctly as I could in yesterday's debate and will not repeat it now. The force is not only expensive, and possibly vulnerable, but also intrinsically undisarmable, which could be a disaster in future years.
But after that bouquet I have to remind the House that the defence policy expounded by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, does not wholly reflect the official defence policy of the Labour Party. It is, in fact, years since the Labour Front Bench in this House has reflected official Labour policy either on defence and disarmament or on the European Community. All the other parties in this House can be very glad that that is so, hut we must not forget that it is so when we consider the future politics of this country.
I would agree with the conclusion of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. There should be a reexamination of Trident. I do not know when it will become too late. I do not know when the expenditure will have mounted so high that it will be impossible to stop it. I doubt whether that has yet happened. I

1271
hope—against hope, of course—that there will even now be an examination of it. It is not necessary to choose yet a successor to the Polaris system. The noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, would say it is not necessary to choose yet whether to have a successor. If there is to be a successor, there are rapid, new and interesting developments in the United States in the design and engineering of small, single warhead, long-range nuclear missiles. Midgetman is the name of the general family. It would be perfectly possible to put Midgetman into submarines—smaller missiles in more submarines—which would get rid of many of the disadvantages of the Trident force. It would be perfectly possible to have sea-launched cruise missiles. And there is a wealth of other alternatives.
Let me seize once more on this running battle of the dual key. Last week—the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, referred to the occasion—a Question was asked in this House, and in a supplementary question I quoted a statement made by the chief of staff of the United States army, then General Meyer, in February 1983 to the United States Senate in the course of appropriation hearings. It went as follows—I shall repeat it now, because I hope that this may be a convenient moment for the Government to say something about it, which they were unable to do last week; I shall leave out certain words which are irrelevant to the argument and which do not affect the sense:
"The operational concept for …. the ground-launched cruise missile …. calls for a portion of these forces to be able to launch quickly at the direction of the theatre commander".
In this context the theatre commander, as we all know, is SACEUR. I should like to call the Government's attention as forcefully as I can to the precise words. The operational concept is not the philosophical concept, or the political concept, or the diplomatic concept. It is the operational concept: presumably, that is, what is intended really to happen. The operational concept calls for a portion of these forces to be available for immediate launch at the orders of the theatre commander. This assumes that there is another portion which is not available for immediate launch at the orders of SACEUR.
What is the difference? On whose orders can that other portion he launched? Might it he on the orders of the President of the United States alone, or on the orders of the President of the United States in conjunction with the Prime Minister of this country, or on the orders of the Prime Minister of this country alone? The Government are bound to say what is the difference between the portion specified in that statement and the other portion that is not specified.
I would hazard a guess that the difference is, on the one hand, that the specified portion can he launched quickly, and that the unspecified portion, on the other, cannot be launched quickly. I would hazard a guess that the superior quickness that can be achieved by the specified portion can be achieved because the orders are given by the American commander in Europe—namely, SACEUR—and you do not have to go via Downing Street and the White House. So much seems likely. If I have got it wrong, then let us hear about it. If the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can inform us about that point at the end of the debate,
1272
I shall be grateful. Indeed, if the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, would like to say anything at this point I shall be very happy to give way now.
I turn to my main theme today, which could be called "the Maginot mentality", or "central frontism". Sometimes it is called "single scenario planning". Much of what is in the statement on the Estimates is, it is true, beginning to show an increased sense of defence needs at sea and on the flanks. The noble Lord gave absolute figures in terms of expenditure and in terms of numbers of ships. He did not produce any new language—and neither did the statement—about what it is that the Government hope to be able to do in the way of deterrence against possible attack in those two quarters. It seems to many of us outside the Government that too little thought has been given either to the bridge behind the Army on the central front—the sea bridge—or to the flanks on the land.
I should like to repeat a quotation from an interview given by SACEUR himself, General Rodgers, last December, which was used to some effect by my honourable friend Mr. John Cartwright in a recent debate in another place. Speaking about land defence, General Rodgers stated:
"What we are trying to do in Allied Command—Europe is to provide for a conventional capacity by 1990 that has a reasonable prospect of frustrating conventional attack by the other side. If we get to that position and are seen as being in that position, I think we will deter the Soviets from attacking—because if they attack and we are successful in frustrating them, they have two options. One is to withdraw and the other is to be the first to escalate to the use of nuclear weapons".
That is extremely clearly expressed. It carries with it the assumption that the best deterrent possible would be one that threatened to prolong conventional resistance. If that is to look plausible, it means that the land forces must have the Atlantic bridge in place behind them, and that the ports for that sea bridge must be assured. If they do not have that, then conventional victory in Europe becomes a possible policy option for the Soviet Union. This is something we cannot allow ourselves to forget.
A sufficient level of expenditure on the Navy—and I shall not get into the question of what that level is—must be part of any strategy to de-nuclearise deterrence on land in Central Europe. It cannot be done except with a naval bridge. The United States Navy have grasped this very quickly; they have grasped it quicker than us. They are going for what they call "sustainability" in their new naval plans. What happens in this country? I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he complains that there is excessive moaning about the Navy in some quarters, but the mere existence of excessive moaning must not allow us to discount all doubts or complaints. We had from the noble Lord just now the welcome confirmation that the ships which were to be placed in reserve are to be kept operational; that carriers are not to be sold to Australia or scrapped; and that a new carrier is coming along. Against these welcome facts has to he set the others he gave: the long-term reduction in frigates and destroyers from 55 to 50. I wonder what justification there is for doing that.
Let me tell the House some odd little stories. The Government tell us that it is too expensive to reproduce and publish year by year maps showing

1273
where Soviet naval exercises have taken place off the shores of this country. That was done until the late 1970s quite regularly. I have questioned the Government often why it is no longer done, and I have asked that it should be done. The reply given is that the Government cannot afford to do so. But one must put that against the pages of Hansard devoted to detailing—and rightly detailing—every individual who is unemployed in Bermondsey by age, sex and former employment, right down to two or three individuals. Or one must put it against the pages of Hansard which are devoted year by year to the number of accidents suffered by children from fireworks on 5th November each year. It is wonderful that such detail is obtainable individual by individual, but why is it that similar information is not obtainable in respect of crucial aspects of the military nuclear threat? Perhaps we might hear more about that.
Moreover, in talking of the weapons balance the Government regularly leave out of account Soviet sea-launched nuclear missiles. They do not appear. For years the Soviet Union has possessed sea-launched nuclear cruise missiles capable of striking London or any other part of Britain. They have had submarine-launched missiles, too, of a shorter range. None of these appear in the Government's count. They have never been put forward by the Government in negotiations, either as strategic weapons or as tactical weapons. They are just forgotten. Why is that? Is it on account of laziness or complacency at large in this matter, too'?
We do not see—and the White Paper shows this quite clearly—any attempt at getting the general deterrent ladder at sea which we have on land. It has so long been a familiar doctrine that there must be no gaps in the deterrent ladder, that there must be an unbroken spectrum from the man with a rifle to strategic nuclear weapons—otherwise, the other side would exploit any gap by trading on our unwillingness to escalate two rungs to their one. But that is not the accepted wisdom at sea. We have already had one sharp lesson—which has not been learned, I believe, by successive Governments. That was the lesson of Iceland and the cod war. Iceland won that little war because we did not possess any ships small enough to deal with the Icelandic ships without sinking them. With their wooden-built ships, the Icelanders rammed our frigates. We did not open fire. We were not willing to sink them. So we sustained considerable damage—more than they did. We lost that little war. There was a gap there, and it is my increasing belief that there are other gaps in the ladder of naval deterrence.
Turning now to the question of the flanks themselves, on land, we know that we can treble our central front forces in a few days, and that is splendid. We know that there is a new agreement with West Germany that we will do so in the event of the crisis. We know that the German army is capable of putting one million men into the field on mobilisation. This is excellent; but should we not be thinking wider, too?
The precious 65 kilometres of "the defence of Britain" in the White Paper is not all. There is a contradiction here in the conventional wisdom. On the one hand, we all agree that the central front is the obvious place for the Soviet onslaught. It must be
1274
there—must it not?—so we put all our eggs in that basket and we keep them very shiny and beautiful. That reinforces our conviction that it must be there. Obviously it will be there, not only because they have so many men there, but also because we do, too.
On the other hand, it is equally entrenched conventional wisdom that the Soviet Union are great chess players and we can read—our military analysts do read—in all their strategic analyses express statements of their belief in the element of surprise in warfare. We are facing a country which trains its troops for, and publicly adheres to, surprise strategies. Yet 65 kilometres of central front is "the defence of our frontiers". I see the shade of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, standing on the Himalayas.
We now come to the political question of the moment; that is, the establishment, or reinforcement, of the European leg of the Alliance. The Statement on the Estimates rightly says that,
"we must identify the most appropriate framework"
for this. Something of this kind has to be done on grounds of military procurement, on grounds of disarmament policy, and on grounds of out-of-area policy. I shall go no further than that. There is another good reason for doing so. The United States is always, in a certain sense and at one level, on at us to do it. It will be welcome to them: all the recent United States Governments have wanted us to do something such as that.
This week we have the meeting of the Western European Union Foreign Ministers and I understand that there is to be a joint meeting of the Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers of that body in October. The choice of the Western European Union is a great convenience to France. It has been a French initiative that that should be where the leg is to be strenthened. They are a member of WEU, but not of NATO.
But before we adopt the Western European Union as the right place, let us pause and think for a moment. First—and this is, indeed, important—it does not contain any of the flank countries. It is all too easy to heave a sigh of relief when a difficult country such as Greece, or a lazy country such as Denmark, is out of the way and to say, "Now we can get on with it." But those are pecisely the countries which need coordinating in NATO, which need increased European co-ordination. Portugal and, above all, Spain need it. They are not in the Western European Union. Turkey, of course, is not in the Western European Union; nor conceivably could it be. There is a tendency here to avoid applying the ointment where it hurts. If we need more co-ordination, we need it above all with those with whom it is harder to co-ordinate.
So, the Western European Union has no flanks and no outlying countries. The European Economic Community has no Norway, no Spain, and no Portugal, as yet. There is no Turkey, and not likely to be. Ireland would hate it. In any case, defence is not in the Treaty of Rome.
That leaves us with only one alternative; that is, the Euro-Group which has been in existence for some years. It does not contain France, but the only reason it does not is in order to safeguard the historic shibboleth of not belonging to the organisation of the

1275
North Atlantic Treaty, a shibboleth which France adopted under de Gaulle 20 or 30 years ago. It would be a great irony if, in order to make it easy for France to come back into the fold, the rest of Europe agreed to the creation of a two-tier NATO—something which de Gaulle himself demanded and, when refused it, walked out. We have also much experience that a two-tier European Community is no good. It is now called a two-speed European Community, and within 24 hours Sir Geoffrey Howe rightly jumped to oppose the suggestion that that should be created at our expense now. We cannot leave out those flank and peripheral countries. Why should we? It is building up trouble for ourselves if we try to do so.
I wish to mention one last point, concerning privatisation. We are to debate this subject on Friday week on the Bill on the Royal Ordnance Factories. We have it hot and strong in the Statement on the Estimates. Will the Government talk to us about this? What about the loss of the pool of uniformed skills if the work is all done in private garages? What about the mobility of the repair and maintenance capacity? What about security, in both senses? What about the secret equipment which is to be maintained in privately-owned factories, and what about security against terrorist attempts to steal it? What about strikes in the private sector of industry? What about de-unionisation of the private sector of industry under potential pressure from the United States, as in the case of GCHQ?
The Government say that this will be done—and I quote,
"except in the case of clearly proven operational risks".
For heaven's sake, what happens if an unclearly proven operational risk comes along? Is that to be kicked aside by some prissy civilian manager in the name of corporate policy or competition, or some other commercial slogan? I strongly hope that the Government will not go one step in this direction which is not fully welcomed in detail, by the services concerned and without everyone having been tested against operational likelihoods—not only certainties, but probabilities, too. There should be more debate about this, and I hope that the Government can give us a beginning in this debate.
4.37 p.m.
Lord Carver: My Lords, there are a great many of your Lordships who wish to speak in this debate today and there are a great many subjects one could talk about. There are many aspects of the Defence White Paper which are very commendable—for example, the improvements in the capability of the forces—and there are a number of aspects on which it could be criticised. I propose to limit my remarks to drawing attention to the conflict between the emphasis on competition in the final paragraphs of Chapter Two, which covers the management of defence, and those comments on international collaboration, in Chapter Three, which deal with equipment procurement.
In neither case is much said about whether the equipment to be provided as a result of all the high-flow verbiage in these chapters, including the reference to defence sales, is what is needed to outmatch that of
1276
our potential opponents—the Soviet armed forces—in the time-scale in which it will be produced. We shall certainly not be able to rely on sheer weight of numbers to compensate for any technical inferiority, as we did in Normandy 40 years ago.
Paragraph 235 states:
"Competition is vital for the achievement of the best value for money, the most efficient use of industrial resources and the stimulation of innovation and new ideas".
The best answer to that, I suggest, is the existence of the firm British Aerospace, which looks like being absorbed by either Thorn EMI or GEC. Governments of both political colours had for many years tried to bring about a merger of the firms which eventually combined to form British Aerospace because those Governments could not offer sufficient orders for their products to justify separate design and development teams, production facilities, and all the paraphernalia of sales and management staffs. The logic which led to that merger has also led to international collaboration on projects with a high development content. That logic leads not to more competition, but to more of that collaboration which is referred to in Chapter Three.
For years the complaint has been made that NATO wastes a large proportion of the money which its members devote to defence, as a result of a lack of standardisation. The Americans voice that complaint the loudest—too loudly in my opinion. Nevertheless, there is solid justification for it. The facts which cause that lack of standardisation are two of those which are lauded in the Defence White Paper: the desire to provide work for one,s own defence industry, with a strong emphasis on defence sales; and the desire to shop around for the cheapest equipment on the market at the time one wants to replace one's old model.
Standardisation involves committing oneself, in common with others, to a specific design and sticking to it. If competition is to enter into it, it must be international competition either at the design stage, or when the equipment is offered as a fully developed item. Once the decision has been taken as to which design or equipment is to he accepted by all the nations concerned, they must then all abide by that decision, whatever the effect on their own defence industries. The latter may then compete, if it is appropriate for them to do so, for a share in the development or production. But if they all insist on too much of that, it will push the price up and prolong development and production time, which will push the price up further. This has happened both with the Tornado aircraft and with the arrangements for European production of the American F16.
The cheapest, and probably the most efficient, method of defence equipment procurement is to buy direct from the most efficient producer, of whatever nationality. However, I recognise that that is probably impossible to achieve in NATO for both political and military reasons of self-sufficiency, certainly if standardisation is also to be achieved. The second best method is that international competition to meet a NATO standardised operational requirement should lead to the designation of a prime contractor for development. International equity in work sharing could then be achieved by allocating production to

1277
other participants, each specialising in a specific task. That was recommended in a very interesting and important book called, NATO Arms Co-operation, by Keith Hartley, which is in the Library. That was the result of a NATO fellowship. International or inter-firm collaboration in development is usually a time and resource-wasting process. If this method that I have suggested is to work efficiently, nations should specialise in different fields of development, as the French have done in the larger missiles and as we have done for some time in tank guns.
If NATO were to adopt that true form of competition and collaboration, compatible with standardisation, it could disband its great host of committees, groups and staffs, who, as my noble and gallant friend will know, waste their time and the taxpayers' money in endless discussions, which never result in an actual item of defence equipment, superior to that of the potential enemy, in the hands of their armed forces in time. NATO would also actually obtain better value for money, and, what matters more, deploy a more effective conventional capability for it.
We have to face the fact that, with the dwindling size of our armed forces and the increasing cost of equipment needed to match that of our potential enemies, we cannot maintain a peacetime order hook which keeps in continuous development and production a defence industry to meet all our needs. Reliance on defence sales to non-NATO countries is not the answer. Their requirements are different, and the side effects have political, military and, indeed, moral disadvantages, as we have seen recently in the case of Argentina.
Successive Defence Secretaries of both political persuasions have been deluded by civil servants and others, or have deluded themselves, into thinking that the sort of gimmicks represented by the paragraphs in Chapter Two of the paper, and the high flown verbiage in Chapter Three, will somehow make it possible to get better value for the large sums of money spent on defence equipment; or that they will just get it cheaper, which is not necessarily the same as getting good value; and that they will be able to do that at the same time as achieving international standardisation and providing full employment for the British defence industry. They have refused to face the contradictions between their conflicting aims, and the present Defence Secretary is no exception. If he thinks that his gimmickry will make it possible for him to fund Trident without adversely affecting the conventional equipment programme, he is deceiving himself. A far more radical approach to the whole business of defence procurement within NATO is needed. Playing about with absurd arrangements such as that for the production of the new armoured personnel carrier, so proudly trumpeted in paragraph 327, will not help.
This radical approach will have to tackle the basic dilemma facing European defence industry. Does it wish to combine to compete against that of the United States, with the latter's vast resources of research and development that have been poured into it, or to collaborate with it, in the hope of sharing in the fruit of that R & D? At present European firms all do a hit of both, in what seems to me to be a half-hearted and confused way, neither making a real effort to combine
1278
their resources in Europe, nor showing enthusiasm for close and permanent collaboration with American firms, which they regard an rivals. Which is it to be? Could it not be both—a really strong combined European effort, collaborating with the major United States firms? If that is to be achieved, different European nations and their firms will have to special-ise and stop trying to compete with each other in everything. Ad hoc collaboration on specific projects, as occurs today, will not meet the bill.
All the initiatives taken within NATO in this field—and they have been countless—have run into the sand. They have come to grief (to mix my metaphor) on the rock of national interest—the political pull of national employment. We must ask ourselves where our real national interest lies. Does it lie with keeping in being uneconomic defence procurement facilities of our own, or in obtaining for our armed forces the most effective equipment, standardised within NATO, that money will provide? I do not suggest that all our defence procurement facilities are uneconomic, hut a proportion of them are, particularly those involving high development costs. I would not suggest that the answer to that question can be a simple black and white one. There are clear advantages in having defence design and production facilities of our own, for many reasons, including protection against the vagaries of fluctuations in the international value of our currency. It is those areas in which the development content is high, notably the aircraft and electronic fields, and in which the possibility of a continuous run of orders is low, that we should consider very carefully where the true national interest in defence procurement lies.
A further factor in favour of having defence production capacity of one's own is that Governments of all nationalities are more likely to spend money on defence if that money is going to be spent, and to provide jobs, in one's own country. The total sum to be spent on defence may, therefore, he higher, and the military capability thus produced greater, than if a high proportion of the country's defence budget were to be spent abroad. That factor compensates to a degree for the alleged waste in resources caused by the lack of standardisation and the higher prices that national retention of defence procurement facilities may produce. That is why earlier on I said that the Americans, who indulge in it as much, if not more, than anybody else, complain too loudly on this issue.
There is no doubt in my mind that this question of competition and collaboration in defence procurement is one of the major and most difficult issues to be faced. I hope—a rather slender hope—that the resuscitation of the Western European Union may help. France, Germany, Italy, and ourselves are the key countries. If we can bring Holland along as well, with its important electronics industry, all the better. If those countries can agree, it does not greatly matter if the other European members of NATO do not; and the necessity to reach agreement with all of them could make much too unwieldy an organisation.
I suggest, therefore, that if the Defence Secretary really wants to make a name for himself, as he appears to want to do, let him turn his attention to the need for a radical international approach to defence

1279
procurement on the lines that I have suggested, instead of monkeying about with the chiefs of staff.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must apologise in advance for the fact that in order to keep a long-standing engagement I may miss some part of the debate if it prolongs itself. I should like to start by adding to the remarks of my noble friend the Minister in paying respect to my noble friend the late Lord Glasgow. My noble friend so often led for the Navy from these Benches with his usual charm and sincerity in our defence debates. He gave the House the benefit of his great knowledge and experience, especially on the importance of safeguarding the South African Cape route for shipping.
To touch briefly on that subject, I welcome the stronger approach in maintaining some semblance of an adequate destroyer and frigate force, described in particular in paragraph 436 of the Defence Statement. I also welcome continuance of the policy to have at least two carriers operational at all times, described in paragraph 437.
Of course we must contribute the right numbers and types of ships, submarines and aircraft to make the maritime capability of NATO wholly credible to the potentially irresponsible and excessively over-armed Soviets. However, as the Falklands campaign so recently reminded us, we still have important commitments outside NATO and we must—and I would repeat, must—also have the capability to deter threats to those commitments. These include safeguarding the way of life of the few remaining peoples who continue to depend upon us, and safeguarding the sea routes for the trade on which this country utterly depends. I was encouraged by the remarks that my noble friend the Minister made in this respect, and 1 trust that they are deeply sincere and truly represent the Government's thinking on these points.
I now turn to the very welcome new Chapter Five on "The Services and the Community". When my noble friend Lord Strathcona was the Minister in this House dealing with defence, I suggested to him in 1980, that a chapter such as this would be a useful addition to the Defence Review to show the public how much the services did for them in peacetime, thus emphasising the day-to-day practical value of our deterrent forces and encouraging the country to realise that the moneys spent on those forces were not wholly insurance. I am delighted that four years and several Ministers later the Ministry of Defence have at last responded to my suggestions. I hope that in future they will increase the amount they put in the equivalent chapter.
I have three comments to make on the chapter as it stands at the moment—and what is there is, I think, on the whole, excellent. First, salvage and oversight of rescue by HM ships could well be added, say, in this particular chapter, after paragraph 504. As I know from practical experience, salvage is an excellent additional training for a ship's company, as well as being a practical and often lifesaving benefit to a damaged ship. Her Majesty's ships, with their superior communications, can also contribute greatly to a
1280
rescue by standing by a ship in distress and co-ordinating rescue activities. There was an example of such action this very last weekend, about which your Lordships may have heard. In that connection, I would draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to a Question for Written Answer on Tuesday, 8th July 1980, at column 1162, which referred to this particular subject.
Another point which I think perhaps deserves comment is paragraph 510 on the disposal of the defence estate. It is not particularly encouraging to see that we had 1,562 hectares disposed of last year and 3,000 awaiting disposal. That may seem quite a large amount but in terms of an estate it is not very much, and particularly in terms of the defence estate. I remember that when the late Lord Mountbatten took over as First Sea Lord some years ago he asked the Admiralty, as it then was, how many establishments there actually were that belonged to the Navy. This was back in the 1950s. They did not know. So he found an admiral who happened to be in between appointments at the time, and told him to go and find out. I forget the particular number, but it was something like 367 establishments over and above obvious places like dockyards, the Ministry of Defence itself and the Admiralty itself. It was a staggering number. The amount of land that was disclosed as belonging to the Admiralty alone was absolutely staggering—and we know that the other service ministries have even more.
So I think the numbers given in paragraph 510 are very small. My noble friend and. indeed, my noble friend the Leader, who is to reply, might comment on this. I should like to encourage the Ministry of Defence to try very much harder.
As to the amount awaiting disposal, my noble friend Lady Vickers has allowed me to quote from experience that she personally has had. It is all very well to have an acreage awaiting disposal, but one really needs to be disposing of it and getting on with it. If I can quote from a letter that was sent to my noble friend talking about a Methodist chapel not very far from where she lives, it says:
"This property has now been declared surplus by the Ministry of Defence but this office has not yet accepted the property for disposal as we have to negotiate a surrender of the 990-year lease from the trustees of the Methodist Chapel. When this lease has been surrendered the property will then be offered for sale in the open market, probably by tender".
How long is that going to take? How many of the 990 years do we have to wait? I think there is a great reluctance on the part of, not just the military people (who may want to keep the land for very sound reasons; perhaps they feel they might have to do training which they have not yet introduced; that is one factor), but also probably the officials within these Ministries, who have a sort of squirrel-like habit of wanting to hold on to things. We all tend to suffer from this. I have an awful lot of things in my attic that I really want to throw out. However, I think the Defence Ministry could make a lot of effort in this area. I trust that my noble friend the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, perhaps aided by my noble friend the Leader of the House, will get them moving.
The third point I want to mention is a word about civil defence, which is not mentioned, as far as I can see, in this Defence Statement. It is not, strictly

1281
speaking, a defence commitment, but I would have thought that it does deserve mention in this Chapter Five. There is clearly a need for co-ordination, especially now that local authorities have a statutory duty to develop a civil defence capability more thoroughly than hitherto. I should like to take the opportunity, at this point, of thanking my noble friend the Leader, in his earlier capacity, for having helped those new regulations on their way in the last Parliament. I think they were greatly helpful, and I hope that something will come of it. I should have thought that there is a need for co-ordination in this area, and it is being a bit mealy-mouthed not even to mention it in Chapter Five. To my mind, civil defence is a very important part of our total deterrent effort, and I see it entirely as a deterrent effort.
In conclusion, once again we have a Defence Statement that is good on the threat but leaves an awful lot of gaps about how the threat is to be met. What is written down is all right as far as it goes, but I would have thought that there is a great deal more that one should like to know about how the Government are actually going to make their contribution for meeting the threat—not only the threat of our major potential enemy but also, as I mentioned earlier, the threat to all the commitments we have outside the NATO area. I trust that the Government will take special heed to what has been said in this debate and also what was said in the debate of yesterday.
5 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will excuse me if I do not follow him by commenting on his speech. I do not intend to deal with the details of the Defence Estimates. I heard with dismay the recitation of the increases in armaments which were announced by the Minister. I want to deal with a rather more fundamental issue, and it may surprise the opposite Bench if I do so in congratulation of the Government. I want to repeat and emphasise what my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham said in his speech in appreciation of what the Government are doing in initiating the outlawing of chemical weapons. Mr. Richard Luce, the Minister of State, took the initiative at the conference in Geneva in his working paper. That has now been followed by a draft treaty which the United States of America has introduced.
The conference on disarmament at Geneva is resuming its sessions after the Easter recess. I hope very much that it will proceed with this hopeful development. There is hope that the Soviet Union will respond. Its delegate at the conference in Geneva has made a commitment to a treaty outlawing chemical weapons and has stressed Soviet willingness to agree to adequate means of verification. I recognise that verification is the difficult problem. Chemicals are required for our civilian industry, and to be able to decide whether those chemicals are for civilian purposes or for war purposes is not easy.
There is also the difficulty that each side fears that inspectors may be spies for the other side. I would ask the Government to consider whether they could not support at the United Nations a suggestion that there should he a United Nations inspection team drawn
1282
from non-aligned countries. That proposal would defeat the idea that inspection was being used only for spying. Mr. Richard Luce, in an article in The Times a few days ago urging the outlawing of chemical weapons, described them as "dreadful" and "odious". Those terms would be mild if they were describing a weapon not feared in the future but already in existence. I refer to nuclear weapons. I am distressed by the fact that while the Government are urging the outlawing of chemical weapons, they are so obstructive of proposals for outlawing nuclear weapons. They are not prepared to accept "no first use". They are not prepared to accept a freeze on nuclear weapons. They are even opposed to a proposal for the outlawing of nuclear weapons altogether.
Why is there this difference between the attitude to chemical weapons and to nuclear weapons? I do not like to be cynical, but one has to he a realist. I suggest that the difference in attitude may be that it is the Soviet Union that is stronger in chemical weapons and the West that is stronger in nuclear weapons. Mr. Richard Luce, in the article to which I have referred, spoke of the growing imbalance between East and West in chemical weapons. He wrote that,
"the Soviet Union has a massive chemical warfare capability comprising over 300,000 tonnes of lethal chemical warfare agents, and the means to deliver them".
Is the readiness of the West to outlaw chemical weapons due to the fact that the Soviet Union, so far as chemical weapons are concerned, appears to have a much stronger force than the West has? I welcome the proposal for outlawing chemical weapons. I urge very strongly on the Government that they should reconsider their attitude towards nuclear weapons and use the treaty outlawing chemical weapons as a precedent for outlawing nuclear weapons as well.
Man cannot live with the nuclear weapon. The experts' committee to the United Nations says that one nuclear weapon has been created which is 4,000 times as deadly as the weapon that fell on Hiroshima. That means that in a crowded area, one weapon could kill 9 million people. The same report says that there are now enough warheads in the world to destroy the whole life of mankind many times over. I sometimes think, from a universal point of view, that the destruction of all life on earth would not be a disaster. There are many other earths with beings, perhaps superior to us, perhaps inferior. The fact that you have one planet as dead as the moon universally would not be a great tragedy. Oh, but we must not allow it! We must think of the young people growing up today whose lives may be obliterated. We must think of our children and of our children's children; in my case, of my children's children's children.
We must think of the amazing achievements of the human race in architecture, in arts, in literature. We must think of the beauty of our earth—and the thought that destruction is possible, indicated by the fact that governments are spending thousands of pounds on shelters in case it occurs—shelters which would be useless, as the British Medical Association have said. My appeal to the Government is that, just as they are proceeding to support a treaty outlawing chemical weapons, they will change their policy and decide to support, in addition, a treaty which would end nuclear weapons as well.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I thought that before he sat down the noble Lord was going to draw the conclusion about the massive build-up of chemical weapons by the Soviets. Surely the conclusion is that one should not disarm unilaterally in any field. In 1959 we disarmed unilaterally in chemical weapons. We destroyed ours; we sunk them at sea; we stopped, in the hope that this would set the example which we are always quoted, and that other people would follow suit. This has not been the case. The Soviets have doubled and redoubled their chemical warfare efforts, and this is a real threat to the alliance as they now stand. I was not altogether certain that a conference of non-aligned countries to inspect chemicals would be entirely neutral, since it was only recently that Cuba was the chairman of the non-aligned countries and a meeting in Cuba was considered a non-aligned meeting. That would hardly he a confidence-building committee, to he considered neutral by the free world.
I want to concentrate on the air defence of the United Kingdom region and, if I have time, in a quick postscript, to follow on what the noble and gallant Lord. Lord Carver, said about competitive tendering. Some seven years ago 1 concentrated the whole of my speech on the air defence of the United Kingdom. By the way, it is an enormous area; in extent it is 4 million square miles for which we have the responsibility. I then concentrated on the need to update the facilities in our radar stations and to modernise our air defence aircraft—our radar stations, our control methods, and the digital connecting network between them. I warned that all past experience I had in this field would show that it was likely to he the work services, the building of the bunkers, which might be the holding item. It is no secret that we are building bunkers for our radar stations up and down the country—the new and improved ones—and that we are building hunkers for the control at High Wycombe and at Stanmore, mainly, I understand, from looking at the visitors' book, with Irish personnel! I wonder whether these are being built with the maximum degree of urgency and priority. I shall come to that.
I think it is sad that although in this White Paper we are told that the air defence of this country is very shortly to be better, it is very much a case of jam tomorrow. For what have we got today? We have got Lightnings which are more than 30 years old; we have got Phantom F4s which are 25 years old. These are vital to the air defence of our country, and there are all too few of them; I believe there are some 70 in the front line.
Moreover, we decided not to buy the American airborne early warning aircraft. We decided to develop our own Nimrod force, and I hear that the date for operation is slipping. Every year it goes further back. At the moment we are actually using Shackletons—not Shackleton 3s, since they were not suitable, because they had a nose wheel which got in the way of the radar dome—but Shackleton 2s. These aircraft are 30 years old. The radar which goes into these Shackletons was developed for the Gannet and taken out of Gannet, which was operational in 1961. So at the moment we are relying on old aircraft, relatively old radar, and old airborne early warning.
1284
Hasten the day when we can bring the improved system into full operational capability.
The Times, reviewing this Defence Statement, said recently:
"The air defence of the United Kingdom is going to be very much better based than it has been at any time in peace time".
It will be: but it is not today. The Tornado air defence version is due to come into operation, but it will not be operational until 1986. What about the work services? I am told that slow progress is being made.
On page 8 of the detailed statement (that is to say, Statement 2) I notice that the Ministry of Defence is spending £ 1 ¼ billion this year on work services. All this is being done by the Property Services Agency. We have in this House many people who have had a lot of experience of defence and I wonder whether it was not a retrograde step, in the days when big was beautiful, when we amalgamated all the work services from every Ministry and put them all into the Property Services Agency. They have a total staff of 25,000. That makes them a very big organisation by any standards. Their gross budget for 1984–85 is £2.000 million. If we are going to control this, make it efficient, get value for money, and get some sense of urgency, surely the Government should look at the advantages of the Ministry of Defence taking hack control, doing their own budgeting, and their own control, and setting their own priorities in order to put these matters right.
One of the "buzz" phrases nowadays is "responsibility budgeting". I am absolutely in favour of it, but I wonder whether, under this policy, station commanders now have responsibility for minor work services, for asking local firms to tender for repairs and other minor matters. If not, I suggest that it should be brought about immediately. A work service of £50,000 is not much these days, and why should not responsible station commanders, with very valuable assets under their control, look after their own minor work services? I would say that it would save time, it would save money, and certainly it would save a lot of frustration. A few years ago when I visited a station commander he told me that even to get some of the local paths re-done it all had to go back to the PSA. The staff on Ministry of Defence work at the PSA costs £236 million. One can get an awful lot of defence in more active areas for £236 million.
I am not always in accord with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, says in this House, but I was very much in sympathy with his rather sceptical approach—perhaps it would be right to say, cynical approach—about the many chapters, the many paragraphs, about competitive tendering. From many years' experience in the electronics industry I can say that when people tender it is a very expensive operation; the cost of tendering is enormous. The cost of experience is also enormous because the person who knows all about it will tender accurately and will know what it costs, but the person who has never looked at it before, and who has only seen the drawings, the blue prints, and the like, will tend to quote much below. But when they go into production they find that it takes longer, costs escalate, and the forces do not receive punctual delivery.

1285
Moreover, if we are to have twin sources—and I very much wonder whether, for our own very small defence requirements, we could justify twin sources in many production areas—the cost of tooling can be very expensive indeed. Machine tools, and particularly the tooling of machine tools, can in cars cost hundreds of millions of pounds, and the more complicated the equipment, the more expensive it becomes.
I also read that there is to be tremendous encouragement for small firms, and I am delighted about that. However, I know of one active small firm, employing about a thousand people, called Weston Simfire which produces direct weapon fire simulators for main battle tanks so that the military do not have to use ammunition, but can use a simulator. It exports 85 per cent. of its products, which is a very high percentage. It recently won the Queen's Award as a result of this fantastically successful export. The MOD has now announced that competitive tendering is to be introduced for the product that this company sells. That has meant that 45 of its key skilled personnel have had to be made redundant.
While the tendering process is going on companies cannot keep highly skilled, professional people doing nothing. They cannot pay them for doing nothing, and so they lose them. Therefore, I wonder whether the implementation of this competitive policy should not be fairly flexible. If it is rigidly controlled, as is suggested here, a tremendous number of small businesses will go into bankruptcy and, above all else. we shall not be making the optimum use of one of our scarcest resources in this country, which is highly qualified engineers for both the hardware and, nowadays, the attendant software.
In passing let me say that I read that there are some 36,000 pages on the specification for the UKADGE programme. I repeat: 36,000 pages have been produced. I acknowledge that it is a very complicated programme, but a specification takes a great deal of costly preparation. Are we always to have these produced and then sent out to many firms? Do those firms have the necessary skilled personnel to examine these specifications in detail and put forward tenders?
It is a good idea, but I think that it must be administered with flexibility, because if we do not do that, we shall not get the best equipment punctually. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, has said, we must have a prime contractor and he must be the responsible person. He does the research, he does the development, he takes it to the production stage; and I hope that in most cases he would probably get the first production run. If we really go into competitive tendering without a prime contractor we shall be in trouble and our equipment, as compared with that of our enemies, will be even later and still more expensive.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, each year we hear of the increase of armaments by both the Warsaw Pact and NATO forces. Is that to go on to eternity, or will there come a time when the pressure will ease on both sides? The West is mercantile in outlook and wishes only to conduct its affairs in peace, and as it is unable
1286
to conceive that others do not want the same end, it is always looking for agreements on arms in the belief that the Soviets must want the same. But we fail to realise that agreement will never be reached, because the Russian aim and sense of duty is to spread the communist system to all corners of the world, and this was clearly reiterated in the Brezhnev doctrine of 1977. Therefore, there can be no lasting peace through negotiation, because what the Soviets want we cannot negotiate.
However, we have seen them spread communism in two ways: first, by war in Afghanistan, Vietnam, and elsewhere, and, secondly, by an attack on our will to resist, using the art of disinformation with telling results. They know that so long as the West remains strong, the most effective strategy is not armed conflict, but the weakening of us from within. Thus, they plan to obtain and keep military superiority and to exercise political blackmail as they can, and as their SS.20 programme, their overwhelming conventional arms, and their effort to stop cruise testify. They plan to attempt to separate the United States from Europe; to achieve political power through local communist parties, and on the backs of socialist parties; and to dominate and infiltrate trade unions and the Civil Service. Even Clement Attlee, when he was Prime Minister, recognised the danger of infiltration into his party. The Soviets try to interfere with the internal politics of Western countries. One good example was the campaign to discredit Franz Strauss. General Sejna, the Czech defector, testified that that was the work of the KGB.
The principal tool to destroy the West and to advance socialism is propaganda and this has been achieved by using, and through the freedom of, our own media. One set of evidence comes from the Czech Deputy Chief of Disinformation, Ladislav Bittman, who defected. He recruited political figures and journalists and fed them guidelines and themes to follow for their articles. Those articles were, in turn, used as the base of articles by perfectly innocent and well intentioned journalists. Thus, many journalists quoting from articles in archives do not realise that they are being manipulated by the KGB to help mould public opinion in the West.
The Soviets invest some three to four billion dollars a year in propaganda campaigns that are orchestrated by various Soviet organisations and fronts, and are known as "active measures". They view propaganda as indispensable to foreign policy and military strategy. They play on matters of genuine concern, such as peace, education of the young, and so on, and harness those genuine issues to promote Marxist Leninism. One obvious example of their success has been in the cancellation of the neutron bomb and their encouragement of CND and opposition to cruise. Janos Bercz, Chief of the Hungarian International Department of the Communist Party, wrote that the political campaign against the neutron bomb was one of the most significant and successful since World War II. We are having a war fought against us without our realising it, and we are losing many of the battles such as that as regards the neutron bomb.
It has long been accepted that the best form of defence is attack. Thus, we should go over to the attack on the propaganda front. In order to do so, we need

1287
nothing less than a department within the MOD headed by a politician. He must identify what propaganda attack is coming and identify, too, the media which are supporting it. He must be able to identify false and planted information and publish factual information for journalists to carry out their own investigations and draw their own conclusions. He must identify the financial backing of such journals that appear to be slavish to the Moscow line. He must consider what measures can he taken to ensure that readers are not deliberately misled, without restricting the freedom of the press.
But above all, the politician and the department must, in particular, consider how to carry information and truth into the Soviet Union itself in order to undermine the ability of their leaders forever to dupe their own citizens into supporting their huge, aggressive military forces. He must expose to the press of the world every lie upon which the Soviet system depends, and he must ensure that the Russian peoples themselves know that their leaders are ruling them with the constant lie.
I was impressed by the television programme of Russian soldiers in Afghanistan who were surprised to find that the natives there are just ordinary people like themselves and are not as they had been portrayed by their officers and leaders. We must remember that the ordinary Russian has the same emotions, fears and desires as we do, and most probably resents being ruled by men of such little honour. Their leaders must be publicly made aware that their lies have been rumbled. If we can sow truth and knowledge of the West in the Soviet Union, then we may be able to reduce their paranoid and induced fear of the West. In time the Soviet public must be made to understand our point of view and to demand a better standard of living for themselves at the expense of the expansionist aims of their communist leaders.
What a cost would be this department that I suggest, but how much more costly will be forever defending ourselves from gradual encroachment, with ever more expensive weapons, and worse, having to defend ourselves with bullets and missiles.
I believe that we already broadcast to the East, and I believe that the broadcasts are usually jammed. We must step up the broadcasting and overcome the jamming and spend—if necessary from our defence budget—to increase the flow of information.
We must also watch just what information is being sent considering the penetration by the East into our own media. But somehow we must spread information to the peoples of the USSR and actively and aggressively encourage them to question the expansionist policies of their leaders. We must treat the cost of doing so as a cost in lieu of war and devote technology to overcoming their jamming. In time even their leaders might be influenced and, lowering the threat, allow a reduction in the arms on both sides. In the long term this is the only way to bring this arms confrontation to a peaceable end.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Hill-Norton: My Lords. I hope I may say, and I am sure that your Lordships will agree, a kind word
1288
to the noble Minister, Lord Trefgarne, for the speed with which he has got to grips with his difficult task, and the clarity with which he always deals not only with our debates but with our questions. Having said that, I should like to begin by repeating what I have said before on similar occasions about the practice of attempting to deal with the whole Statement on the Defence Estimates in one long debate. It most certainly does not best serve the interests of this subject, which is of overriding importance to all our other national affairs, nor is the manner in which the time is spent in any way commensurate with the extremely wide range of subjects which deserve—indeed, my Lords, demand—full discussion. I appeal once again to the usual channels to arrange this affair better in future.
There is in this Statement before us much that is to be welcomed, and not least that it is comprehensive and well laid out and clearly written. More important to me is that there is good news of various sorts of a general improvement in our defence capability both relative and absolute. I refer particularly to the remarkable achievement of raising the equipment share of the defence budget from 34 to 46 per cent. in nine years, while at the same time reducing the expenditure on people in about the same proportion. This now compares very favourably with all our allies.
I find even more impressive the plan to increase by nearly 15 per cent. the teeth arms of all three services within present manpower ceilings, although I must say that this will impose a considerable strain on their training and support organisations, which I hope will be able to cope. It is satisfactory to see, as the noble Lord the Minister reminded us, that by all criteria (with one special exception) we are now once again second only to the Americans among our allies in the resources we devote to defence. This will do much to enhance our status and weight in NATO. I have never understood those little Englanders who wonder why we should spend more than, for example, our commercial competitors. This seems to me to be totally irrelevant as a basis for any sensible defence policy.
Finally on that theme I am bound to welcome the major reversal of the idiotic and dangerous proposals to emasculate the Royal Navy which have been central to the White Papers of the past three years. Fifty destroyers and frigates in the front line are very much better than the 42, as the Supreme Allied Commander and our own Commander in Chief never tire, correctly, of reminding us. They are a good deal better than the 42 intended by the former Defence Secretary, especially when buttressed for the first time in the lifetime of this Government by a reasonable book of orders which have actually been placed. I hope in that context that the first order for the Type 23 frigate will be placed soon. otherwise there is going to he an awkward gap in the destroyer and frigate force in about 15 years' time. I shall return briefly in a moment to why I think that this number should, if anything, grow rather than further diminish.
I am sure that your Lordships share my pleasure at the tribute paid in the Statement to the armed forces, the UDR and the RUC, for their extraordinary bravery and resolution in Northern Ireland, and to the debt which we all owe them for it. Not enough is made

1289
of this frequently enough for comfort. I know of no other forces which could do it at all, much less do it so well. I also found the substantial analysis of the arms control problem clear, well reasoned, and convincing to anyone with an open mind.
May I turn from these important and welcome improvements to some entries on the debit side of the same ledger. 1 must draw attention to the fact that although the NATO-Soviet balance sheet has slightly improved, it will be seen from Annex A of the White Paper to be still alarmingly and in every respect tilted sharply in favour of our only potential major enemy. This is true of tanks, guns, anti-tank weapons, combat aircraft and of fighting soldiers, but it is particularly apparent and dangerous in their threat to us by mines and by chemical warfare. Our counter to the former—which was mentioned at Question Time today—is insignificant, and to the latter it is nonexistent. Both need sharp improvement.
NATO's modest successes in closing the gap in some other fields should not lead to any euphoria, for there is still a long way to go. The last thing it should do is to lead to any lowering of NATO's guard, for the threat may have changed in kind but it has certainly not changed in degree. Paradoxically the more stable the situation appears to be in Europe, the greater the threat to us all outside it.
Secondly, there are two important—and to me surprising—omissions from the Statement. I refer to the complete absence of any mention of merchant shipping, shipbuilding, ship repair, or the fishing fleet. This is despite the strong recommendation of the Select Committee on Defence in its 1979–80 Report, as a result of which Annex B on merchant shipping appeared in the 1981 Statement. It ought to be there now. It is also despite the fact, so amply and success-fully demonstrated in the Falklands' campaign two years ago, that in any maritime operations the Royal Navy absolutely has to be properly supported by a merchant fleet which is not only the right size but the right shape. Today ours is neither, and it is in a sharp and accelerating decline not only in ships but in the men who man them, the facilities to train them, and the yards to build them and repair them. I most strongly urge the Government to grip this urgent matter now, for at a moment when the merchant fleet has halved in the past seven years, it is already very late.
Of comparable, although quite different, importance and connected with that dangerous decline is the absence of adequate naval reserves. Some lip service is paid to the importance of the RNR at paragraph 445, but not only is the present total well below its current establishment but there is no mention of increasing these numbers as there is (quite rightly), and as the noble Lord, the Minister said today, for the territorial army and the Royal Auxilliary Air Force. We have paid insufficient attention, in my judgment, for years past to all our reserves, and the situation for the RNR, and hence for our fighting fleet, is now one of critical shortage.
Finally, I must refer to what I believe to be the major and most serious weakness of the Statement as a whole. This is the total absence of any attempt to deal with the really hard choices for defence policy. The
1290
Statement is, in short, no more than a catalogue—although it is quite a good one—of where we stand today and where we are expected to stand tomorrow and the next day. There is no conceptual thinking about how we are going to deal with the huge gap rising probably to £2 billion a year to which many expert commentators such as Professor Greenwood of Aberdeen have drawn attention, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Boston, drew attention earlier today. That gap is between what we are attempting to do and the resources which this Government are prepared to make available to do it. It is clear enough, at least to me, that something will have to give, and I have spoken more than once before in your Lordships' House about this exceptionally difficult problem.
What is quite certain is that MINIS, to which so much space and weight is given in the Statement, is quite irrelevant to the actual scale of this main problem, though it may well he a handy tool for recovering what, in this large context, can only be candle ends. I do not want to weary your Lordships by repeating what I have said before on this subject, but sooner rather than later these hard choices have got to be met head-on and dealt with. I can only hope that Government will get them right, although their last attempt was spectacularly unsuccessful. Really big savings have clearly got to be made before the burden becomes insupportable.
I notice in this context that, while the Statement correctly records that the Royal Navy does 70 per cent. of the whole allied job in the eastern Atlantic and Channel—and the noble Lord the Minister repeated this today—it does not go on to record that it does so for only 10 per cent. of the defence budget. But neither does it record the fact that, of the allied job done by the land/air forces in Germany, we do only 10 per cent., for a staggering 40 per cent. of our whole defence budget. These remarkably unbalanced figures look even more unreal when we examine the actual threat, and what has happened to it, for the land/air strength of the Soviets against Europe has not changed in the last 10 years while during the same period their maritime threat has increased tenfold.
Would it not be wiser to go on doing what we do best—what none of our European allies can do at all—and what our most powerful ally expects us to do, and so reinforce success? Why not take paragraph 125 of the White Paper to its logical conclusion and "show our determination", as it says,
"to contribute to Alliance collective deterrence as effectively as we arc able".
by making the savings that will have to be made anywhere but at sea? If, indeed, as the White Paper expressly states on page 4,
"there is no substitute for the huge reinforcements planned to come from North America"
then surely this must he the right solution. The Defence Secretary, I am glad to note, went even further when he first used those words in the March issue of the NATO review, by adding:
"we remember how essential they proved on earlier occasions" —
and so we do.
I would go further still by saying that, if war is to be deterred, those reinforcements, and resupply too, must be evidently able to cross the Atlantic safely both

1291
before hostilities as well as when opposed, if deterrence should unhappily fail. This is a vital part—indeed, it is the only credible basis—for the whole strategy of the allied land/air forces in Germany. And it follows from that, without, as the Minister put it, carping about cuts, that we simply dare not let a our maritime forces run down any further, and we simply must make every effort more nearly to meet the explicit requirements of the maritime commanders which are themselves annually endorsed by the whole alliance. When the Government are ready or are forced to face the hard choices I have mentioned, I do hope Ministers will bear these undeniable facts in mind.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, in speaking in this debate today I should like first to remember that today is the 14th June, which is the second anniversary of the British forces victory in the Falklands. I read in The Times the story of a splendid Welsh guardsman who was badly burned on the HMS "Sir Gallahad", anchored then off Bluff Cove. I think he had to have 24 operations. He stated:
"People who wanted to he British were being bullied by a dictator. We had to help them".
He added:
"I hate nobody, and bear bitterness to no one".
I think we are very lucky to have such men serving in Her Majest's forces—and long may it continue!
We heard last night about the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force, but nothing about the magnificent service of the Royal Marines, and I was very glad that the noble Lord the Minister mentioned them today. I was lucky when I was a Member of Parliament to have a service constituency for nearly 20 years. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking all those who gave me such a splendid education, especially some of the people who we had in the top jobs and who were extremely kind in helping me to understand how I could be most helpful in these matters. They also took the opportunity physically to train me: by throwing me across a jackstay from one ship to another, by going down in submarines, and I visited all the service establishments overseas between Singapore and Belize, and I went to the Borneo war. So I have acquired, I hope, some understanding of what goes on in training and of the war elements that I had to see.
I should like today to concentrate purely on the dockyards. Nobody has mentioned them to date but I think they are very important. I regret we had to shut Chatham hut, on the other hand. I gather it is being made fairly good use of now. But I should like to know what is going to be the future of Rosyth, Portsmouth and Devonport.
Each month I receive a newsletter from Her Majesty's Naval Dockyard, Devonport. These are all headlines which I am going to mention. In 1983 it said, "We arc up to scratch—congratulations all round". Then came along the matter about the apprentices which I will mention in a minute. It said, "The top four"—and there were two girls and two
1292
boys who won top apprenticeships. Then there was, "MD leaked a report". In February of 1984 we get, "Cuts nonsense—Levene". The next one was. "Development starts with a hang". Following that we had, "No decision yet". Really, how can we play about with thousands of men and women working in these yards who really do not know what is going to happen to them next and what is going to be their future?
Dockyards have always been very good at training apprentices. They do not always take them all on because they do not need them, but they trained more than they needed because this meant that those concerned had been trained properly and could get good jobs outside the dockyard. This was also done, of course, by private firms: they very often trained more than they needed. We must not at the present time cut any more apprentice jobs.
I have a letter from Portsmouth Dockyard where they are worried. I went down there to present prizes to the apprentices and particularly the girl apprentices. The-letter says:
"Over the last two years we have found that the effect of the 1981 Defence Review has been to isolate us"—
this is the dockyard—
"gradually from the other Royal Dockyards. We were therefore heartened by your determination that Portsmouth girl apprentices of the future should he eligible to compete for the Award".
Modernisation of the Royal Navy, as we have heard many times, continues and there will be more construction of ships and their weapon systems than in the previous 20 years. We were told about the number of warships being ordered by the Royal Navy. I should like to know how many, and when will they be in service? Obviously it will take some years. We are now told also that Type 23 frigates will be ordered. Paragraph 239 of the White Paper states with regard to competition:
"At present the warship refitting load falls almost exclusively on the Royal Dockyards".
When these are built will they be refitted later by private enterprise or go hack to the dockyards? Will the dockyards continue to have a vital role to play in the refit?
I gather also from the White Paper that the Ministry intends to offer two ships, probably a frigate and a conventional submarine, for refit by contract following competitive tender for the work. I should like to know whether the contracts have been signed and, if so, will the costs he any different from the work undertaken in the dockyards? Can the Minister tell us what will be the difference, if the contracts are signed, between work in the dockyards and similar work being undertaken in commercial yards?
No mention was made, until the last speaker, of the Merchant Navy, which played such an important part in the Falklands. I understand, as mentioned by the noble Lord a minute ago, that the numbers are reducing. I have the numbers with me. In 1975 there were 1.614 ships; in 1984 the figure is 736; for 1985 the estimated figure is 600 and for 1986 about 400 ships. There are 5,000 trained seafarers being lost each year, which is very undesirable, because on whom will we be able to draw in the future?
Looking hack over rather more than 20 years on the many White Papers we have had to read, I shall always

1293
remember particularly that so many of them stated:
"to establish and maintain a sound financial basis on which to develop and carry out defence policy and plans ahead".
But all too often plans then were changed in the next White Paper. I think the changes in policy and plans have been very confusing.
I should like to mention, too, the Fishery Protection. I gather that there have been 2,000 boardings, but I should like to see some action taken in relation to the shipping off the Falklands within the 150-mile limit. Since May, 48 vessels from eight different nations have been fishing there and they are taking out far too much fish. This is worrying everybody in the Falklands area. I should like to see all these ships licensed, which would be very profitable for the Falkland islanders. We could then board such ships, as there are plenty of Royal Navy ships to help. What is done in Papua New Guinea, which I think is a good idea, is that a ship is boarded, all the workers are taken off and the ship confiscated until they promise to keep in order in future. It would help to conserve fish stocks if we could only license these many ships.
In the report to the Select Committee by an MoD witness it was stated that military stocks of equipment ran low during the Falklands war. It was stated that the Army, the Navy and the Air Force ran short of critical equipment during the six weeks of the Falklands campaign. Also evidence was given that it was admitted that fire control equipment ran short, but it was maintained that the British defence stocks and policy were "roughly right". I hope that in future it is "actually right" because in such circumstances it does not seem fair to state that things are "roughly right".
I should like to sympathise with my noble friend Lord Trenchard because I can see how very frustrated he must feel and have felt in Procurement because it is always changing. The system has changed to a certain extent but the principle has been continuing since the 1860s, so that is a frustrating situation to be in.
My noble friend Lord Ridley spoke yesterday about the Territorial Army. I should like to suggest that there should be more recruiting officers for the Navy both at Oxford and at Cambridge where the Army and the RAF also have recruiting officers. They should also go to the red brick universities.
Finally, I have a question on the Order Paper tomorrow concerning military hands, to which I understand that the noble Viscount would like to reply today as that is more convenient. I should like to mention that the Royal Marine Band was formed at Stonehouse, Plymouth, in 1755. It has given 217 years' continuous service and has served in peace and in war with great distinction. It received the Freedom of the City of Plymouth and I hope that this will be one of the bands to be retained, as it is the most historic band of all the Royal Marine bands. It is also a good recruiting agent and many people come into the Royal Marines because they like the band even though they will not play in it. It is a known fact that people like it and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned it. I agreed with him about this.
He also mentioned the medical side. I hope we keep the Royal Naval Hospital. It is essential to have it if we
1294
are to have the men trained properly to work on ships. I do not agree with everything that Lord Boston said, but I agreed with more things than I have ever agreed with him about before and I was grateful to him for mentioning those two points. I hope that we achieve something well worth while from this debate, and I am sure that with all the experts we have in this House some good must come of it.
5.57 p.m.
Earl Fortescue: My Lords, I should like to speak on one aspect only: that is, chemical warfare. This subject has already been touched on by several other noble Lords. Chemicals are covered by only one paragraph in the White Paper and one paragraph in its annex. A similar American Government publication entitled, Soviet Military Power 1984—which I stress is an American Government publication with a preface by Mr. Weinberger—only published last April gives the subject more space and more emphasis. I feel that chemical warfare is treated too lightly and does not receive the priority which it deserves. I suggest that it is essential that we provide our forces with an adequate deterrent against the use of chemicals by our potential enemies. This means having a limited chemical capacity ourselves.
We unilaterally destroyed our chemical weapons some 25 years ago and this should be a good lesson to those who now advocate unilateral nuclear disarmament. The Americans have not produced chemical weapons for 15 years, and their remaining stock is now of very doubtful value. The White Paper tells us that the Russians have a major capability in this field and that it includes over 300,000 tonnes of nerve agent. Like myself I do not suppose that many of your Lordships can visualise a single tonne of nerve agent let alone 300,000 tonnes of the stuff which was mentioned.
The White Paper tells us that the problem is being discussed at the Geneva Conference on Disarmament, but that there are the usual problems of inspection and verification. Surely we cannot rely solely on the possibility of a satisfactory outcome of these talks when we and our allies arc negotiating from such a very weak position. That would be too naive. All types of warfare are horrible but chemical warfare is particularly foul. Both sides—and this may be an over-simplification—used comparatively simple chemicals in the First World War until both sides decided that it was to the advantage of neither. In the Second World War, both sides had the capability but chemicals were not used. The deterrent had proved its value.
Today chemicals, and particularly nerve agents, are much more sophisticated. They vary from those having a temporary disabling effect to those where a minute droplet causes death. The ground can be contaminated with materials so that the chemical is released slowly over a number of days. These substances can be delivered by mortars, guns, missiles, bombs and aircraft sprayers. The Russians have facilities for all such methods of delivery. Our forces are said to he provided with the best protective clothing in the world, but it is rarely mentioned how inhibiting is this NBC equipment. To quote from the American publication:

1295
"We must recognise that the effectiveness of troops is significantly diminished if they are required to operate in a chemical-protective posture.".
It may well he possible to exist in a hole in the ground wearing this clothing and wearing this mask, but any strenuous movement in such equipment is exhausting. Feeding and the calls of nature add enormously to the problem, as does the provision of devices to detect, warn and monitor enemy chemicals, not to speak of the problem of providing decontamination facilities.
One does not need to be a military genius to envisage the chaos which would arise from a chemical attack on our rear areas and airfields. Nor does one require to he a military genius to appreciate the danger from an enemy thrust if the flanks of that thrust are sealed off by chemicals against effective counterattack. From what I have seen, I am most impressed and proud of the efficiency and excellent morale of our forces and by most of their equipment. I accept that they could hold our sector of the NATO front for a period if attacked by an enemy using conventional weapons. However, if the enemy were to use conventional weapons plus chemicals I am less confident.
The awful thing is that if the enemy broke through, our only alternative to surrender would be the use of theatre nuclear weapons; and, surely, we should never lower the nuclear threshold for want of a chemical deterrent. I shall end by quoting two further extracts, which I believe are very apt, from the American publication. First:
"Even with their formidable protective capabilities, Soviet forces would face severe difficulties in sustaining combat operations if they faced counterattack with chemicals".
And, secondly:
"We must maintain a credible deterrent against chemical attack that includes both protective and retaliatory capabilities".
I believe that the American thinking on this vital problem is entirely sensible. The necessary action is not beyond our means or, I suggest, our existing technology.
6.5 p.m.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, I should like to join all those who have expressed their appreciation of the very comprehensive and competent speech with which the noble Lord the Minister introduced the debate today. If I can be assured that praise from me will not be prejudicial to his future career. I should also like to say how well I thought he replied yesterday to a rather difficult debate from the Ministry's point of view; and that generally we appreciate the great attention that he paid throughout the debate and—if I may quote the noble Lord. Lord Mottistone—through speeches sensible and otherwise. But I shall not attempt to define which is which.
Following the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue, may I say how right was the noble Earl to stress the dangers of chemical warfare; although, I would not believe that having a small deterrent effect would bring about the result that both of us would like to achieve; namely, the outlawing of chemical weapons. It happened that I proposed in Geneva 15years ago the first draft of a
1296
collective ban both on biological weapons (which are even more horrible than chemical weapons) and on chemical weapons, too, after having successfully persuaded U Thant, who was then the head of the United Nations, to have a high-powered research report on both in which participated all the leading nations, those of East and West and the nonaligned—and to which our colleague the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, made a very important contribution.
We succeeded in getting a ban on biological weapons which I thought was extremely important not only because I think that it works but also because it established a principle that one can have a treaty without a cast-iron form of verification. In fact, one can breed the bugs so fast that no system of inspectors would guarantee that any ban on the activity was not being broken. To some extent there is the same practical problem in the chemical field. But I should like to join my noble friends Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Brockway in commending the further efforts now of the Minister of State Mr. Luce and to wish him every success in the further attempts that we are now making in that direction.
In view of the large number of speakers on the list. I think that one needs to limit one's contribution. I want to turn now to what, as a Secretary of State. I constantly found to be an extremely difficult problem; namely, how we define our priorities—because, quite frankly, the tasks with which we are faced are more than our resources will permit us to discharge effectively. There can be no question that the whole of our defence effort has to be directed within NATO because, except through the North Atlantic Alliance, not even the larger member nations these days can be totally independent. We are dependent entirely on NATO and the question is how best to discharge our responsibilities in this field.
I believe that we have taken on more than we can possibly discharge. The Minister, when opening the debate, listed our obligations and contributions. First, he mentioned the independent contribution to NATO—and how it can be independent and integrated with NATO is something that I have never understood—in the field of theatre and strategic nuclear weapons. Secondly, there was the defence of the United Kingdom itself; and, thirdly, our contribution to the European land and air forces, to BAOR and to the tactical air force. Fourthly, there was the very substantial contribution—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, said that it was 70 per cent. of the contribution—to the Eastern Atlantic and the Channel.
While I would not necessarily accept the choice of priorities of the noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton—in fact, I wondered whether it might not illustrate the danger of having one chief giving the only policy advice to the Secretary of State—I thought he was absolutely right to say that we have not established our priorities, because we cannot afford to provide the forces and resources, and particularly the adequate equipment as the costs of equipment and technological advance rise greatly in excess of inflation.

1297
Although we take some pride in paying a bigger contribution per capita to NATO than any of its other members apart from the United States, what we should not forget is that, for reasons on which I shall not enlarge now, we have had a declining relative national income per capita from which we are paying this larger sum. If we continue to try to do all these things we shall not, in my view, do any of them successfully. I know the problem. One ought to raise this in NATO, and one does raise it in NATO. There are always people willing to specialise by giving up things, but nobody comes forward to take on the tasks that one is willing to give up.
What was of particular concern to me was the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, about air defence. I think it will be improved when the Nimrod and the air defence version of the Tornado come along, but certainly, with air refuelling available in regard to potential threats, attacks could come possibly from the east and could come around these islands if necessary. We have a very serious problem in air defence still to face. Probably the most terrifying problem of all is what can he done by mine laying, and how very inadequate still are mine counter measures vessels. I know that Hunt class vessels are expensive, but it is sad to know that they are not being proceeded with and that we are a very long way from having adequate mine hunting and mine clearing capability.
It seems to me that we have at least to begin to make some economics. The very first, and one where I am sure our NATO allies would accept that our contribution is at best marginal, is in the nuclear field. I do not believe that we should go in for a second generation of nuclear weapons—Trident or anything else—because that is one thing of which NATO collectively has too many. I believe that in the arms control negotiations, which one trusts will get under way again, any idea that we should try to exclude the British nuclear weapons from the arithmetic on both sides is not only wrong but is bound to fail. It is quite obvious that if allies of the Soviet Union had nuclear weapons we should insist that they were taken into account, and quite obviously they will insist that any such weapons we have will equally, be taken into account in any agreements which bilaterally the United States and the Soviet Union may reach.
It is also a cause of very grave concern to me that we are wasting so much money on peripheral exercises such as the Falklands. Frankly, we do not have the kind of resources that are being ploughed in there for no military advantage. The Falklands war could have been avoided by proper political steps, as a previous threat of an identical character was averted in 1978. If we had not all got so hysterical about it we could have come to a quite satisfactory arrangement which would avoid the enormous costs and the enormous employment of our forces, our scarce men and equipment, for no defence purpose.
On the other hand, I suppose we have to accept that we have again a non-NATO commitment in Northern Ireland which is likely to continue. I think we should recognise the enormous strain that this puts on the Army, with the number of tours of duty involved, as NCOs of almost any infantry regiment will tell you. Until I stopped it, they were even causing regiments to leave their tanks, guns and signals equipment behind
1298
in Germany to rust in the open while the trained, expert personnel were tramping the streets of Belfast. I did manage to insist on that, and I think it is still the practice that only the infantry units supported by the marines do these tasks now. Certainly we must accept that there is a responsibility there. And I should like to pay the warmest tribute to the Army for the way they have discharged those tasks—a job I am convinced no other army in the world could do.
Finally, I should like to say a few words on the question of procurement. I need to say very little because the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, with his typical clarity and a touch of sharpness, put the problem to us very clearly when he contrasted Chapter Two and Chapter Three of the Statement. We really have to make up our minds whether we are going in for collaborative NATO procurement projects or whether we are going to have everything down to the cheapest estimate. I would warn that sending things out to tender is not the cheapest way when one is dealing with highly advanced technological equipment and when one is going beyond the present frontiers of knowledge in that field.
I would illustrate this— I think the information is old enough now—by saying that I had this experience when three times the aircraft that is now the Harrier—I would be so bold as to say that it is one of the great successes of the British aircraft industry in the postwar decade—had been cancelled by Cabinet decision. It was only when I was able to get together the airframe and the aero-engine people, and go in detail through their estimates, and find out all the sums that they had put in for contingencies, that I managed to get the price down. I am glad to say that when I went hack—I was then Aviation Minister, I did not have the defence funds at my disposal—I was able to get the order for the first 60 aircraft. I am glad that that aircraft is playing such a prominent part not only in our defences but in those of the United States as well. But we would not have done it if we had just put out a specification for an aircraft, still a unique aircraft today, like the Harrier.
What is a matter of very great concern to me is this passion for privatisation; whether the Government are going to extend it to the armed forces generally. as they extended it to the Royal Ordnance Factories, I do not know. These are the oldest nationalised industries. They are even older than the Post Office, which we know has deteriorated enormously since it ceased to be a public institution and subject to parliamentary control. I do not think anyone would deny the decline in the Post Office. One noble Lord has a Question down asking the Government to do something about it in the very near future.
However, the first ROF was established in 1585, almost 400 years ago—I hope that some of them will he left a year from now and at least we can have that celebration. I believe that what is being done is a retrograde step. In my time we went to very great pains—the civil servants concerned and particularly my Permanent Secretary, Sir Frank Cooper—to put the ROFs on a businesslike basis, with their separate funding and separate accounting. They survived enormous problems which would have sunk a private firm, when, for example, there was an end of the Shah's orders for equipment from Iran. That meant

1299
tremendous problems for several of our ROFs and especially the one in Leeds concerned with tanks. I do not think we shall have a tank industry if we go for the privatisation of the ROFs.
I normally go along very closely with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, but of course the tank gun we have lost already in NATO, although I still believe we have the best tank gun in the world. I do not know how we would get on in a whole range of our ROFs without the backing of the research establishments which are funded by the Ministry. What is going to happen to them?
As a final point, I would argue against the concept of buying your stuff in the cheapest market. May I say how pleased I was that the Argentine Government must have done that, because the Falklands war would have been quite a different story if every torpedo or bomb that hit the target had exploded. We were extremely fortunate in that, and certainly I would not want to take any risks with the equipment that we were making available-to our own armed forces.
I think it has arisen since the White Paper was published, but we ought to do something about the Government's thinking now that Thorn has dropped out of the bidding for British Aerospace. I think we ought to know what their attitude is to the probability of GEC, which has an enormous share of procurement, joining up with British Aerospace. That would he a matter of very great significance and I think we ought to be told what view the Government are likely to take if, as we understand, a hid is made by the noble Lord, Lord Weinstock, for British Aerospace.
Finally, I should like to endorse the great tribute that all speakers, very properly and sincerely, have given to our armed forces. I should like, if I may. to get an answer to what I feel is an injustice to our armed forces, namely, the Government having withheld for some time part of the award that was made to them by the Armed Services Review Body. I feel particularly bitter about this, since I was subjected to votes of censure because at a time when we were, as a Labour Government, pursuing a very strict pay policy, we were obliged to follow that course for the armed forces.
The most far-reaching undertakings were given. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House will remember that the most enormous promises were made by the then Conservative Opposition that they would never—but never—fail to honour any recommendation the independent board made for the pay of the armed forces. It was written into their 1979 election manifesto. It was the nearest thing I can recall to a cash bribe offered in an election manifesto in that if the party were elected they would immediately pay the forces the balance of the money concerned. And here now in the year 1984 they are doing just that. I think we ought to be told, particularly in the light of their commitments to the armed forces, why they are doing that, because I do not feel that there is in the present circumstances the justification we had in 1979. Certainly I would go all the way with everyone who has spoken in saying how fortunate we are to have at all levels the quality of personnel that we have in all three services.
6.25 p.m.
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I of course support the White Paper in its main themes but, with great respect, I find it wanting in two respects. The first of them is really rather minor and the second is quite major. On the minor point I will of course spend a minority of time. It is quite simply this. It is the acronym—the great curse of the 1980s: a great waste of time and money. And nowhere are acronyms more widely used than in the field of defence. I contend that they save neither time nor space and that they make the White Paper, like all other defence documents, esoteric and elitist. I do not really understand why we have to say, for instance, CinChan. What is the specific urgency of defence that denies us the time to say "Commander in Chief, Channel"? I am a very simple man, but am I unique in my ignorance of the meaning of UNFICYP, ERCS and AMF? I do know about STEALTH, HARM and ALARM, but I wonder whether even my noble friends on the Front Bench know about SADARM.
To be fair to the White Paper, the acronym is usually spelt out in full once, but even then I am left in the dark sometimes. For instance, I read that UKADGE means "United Kingdom air defence ground environment", and IEPG is of course the Independent European Programme. But what exactly do these mean, even in full? I would say with respect to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State what Lord Byron said to the poet Southey:
"I wish he would explain his explanation".
I said that acronyms were a minor point, a bit of a niggle. But, seriously, I think they are a little bit more than that because they contribute to the public feeling that defence is somehow clandestine and elitist, top secret. They contribute to ignorance, and ignorance breeds fear.
My major point is this. The document does not provide enough information about nuclear weapons. I saw in The Times today a letter from Mr. Duncan Campbell of the New Statesman, headed "Nuclear ignorance". He concludes:
"It is an intolerable and typically British idiocy to argue that the defence of freedom first requires the suppression of free discussion, and to ask that vital arguments he conducted entirely from ignorance".
Ignorance breeds fear, as I have just said. Nowadays there is great fear about the so-called arms race and certainly we live in the age of the great paradox. which is that,
"mutually assured survival is more dangerous than mutually assured destruction".
I am quoting Professor Jones. Mutually assured destruction, with its acronym MAD, has kept the peace since the Second World War. But what of the so-called arms race? My belief is that our nuclear weapons today are less destructive than they were 20 years ago, as they are more accurate. It stands to reason that a missile landing within 10 metres of its target clearly need not be as destructive as one landing within a kilometre. But all that is pure guesswork, for I know nothing of the actual power of our warheads. If the worse came to the very worst—opinions differ—whom are we to believe? One noble Lord predicts the death of all mankind a thousand times

1301
over, but another (who is not here) describes a 2,000 megaton exchange as:
"no worse than a severe depression over the Atlantic".
The truth obviously lies somewhere between the two.
What I ask, given that we have this horrifying but so far unproven mutually assured destruction, are the different levels of destruction? That is what none of us knows. What is the actual power, in megatonnes or kilotonnes of the following: Minuteman, Polaris, Poseidon, Trident, Pershing, cruise, Lance, Honest John and a 155 mm howitzer nuclear shell? I read in the papers, for instance, that our ground-launched cruise missiles have 18 times the explosive power of the Hiroshima bomb. Whether that is fact or fiction, 1 just do not know. As I see it, the main job of cruise and Pershing would be to destroy 400 Russian airfields, and if that is the case, they are probably smaller than the Hiroshima bomb. They certainly would not need to be as big as it.
And we need more information, too, on radiation, because that, at the moment, is the ultimate fear of mankind, and quite an irrational fear. A man, terrified to walk the beaches of Sellafield, will happily go to his dentist where he will pick up considerable radiation from an X-ray; so powerful, indeed, that many a dentist has lost a finger from doing too many X-rays. My understanding is that our nuclear weapons are geared to the air blast with maximum blast and minimal fallout.
If I may possibly dare to anticipate my noble friend's reply to all these very specific questions, I suspect he will tell me that this is all classified information which could be of use to the enemy. Is not that, in itself, dangerous? Should a Russian pick up a cruise on his radar and not know whether its warhead equals 500 or 5 million tonnes, might he not respond in the most violent manner possible? Might it not be better if we each knew the value of the other's warheads; by "we" I mean we, the public. We the public are terrified of the Russian arsenal, but so is the Russian man in the street terrified of NATO's. I am more hopeful that my noble friend might be able to answer this kind of question on a very general level, as recently my noble friend Lord Trefgarne hazarded a comparison between a nuclear exchange and the power of the volcano Krakatoa.
I must say at this stage that, of course, I am in no way in favour of nuclear war, or of any war. I hate all war, and those who feel that conventional war has even a modicum of respectability need only look to Iran and Iraq and, of course, need only remember the terrible and inglorious tragedy that overtook the Welsh Guards at Bluff Cove. But I wonder whether there is just a chance that my noble friend can assure us that in pure megatonnage NATO's nuclear arsenal is no stronger than it was 20 years ago. If he could give that assurance, I believe he would scotch that wretched snake of the so-called arms race with the Soviets, and that would defuse things greatly.
6.33 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I believe that your Lordships will not think me out of order if I join my noble friend Lord Mottistone in opening on a note of sadness, in that my dear friend Admiral Lord
1302
Glasgow slipped his cable only a few days ago just before what would, 1 think, have been his twentieth defence White Paper debate. I do not know whether he would have spoken in it. But for me it is the seventeenth, though I am far from having had the nerve to speak in anything like all of them.
But 17 is enough to give me a feeling of taking part in a kind of annual ritual dance. I make no complaint about that. I have always been fond of dancing, and I like ritual.
But the important thing about ritual is that it should be understood. One must be quite clear about the meaning of the symbols and the reality that lies behind them. The symbols in this ritual are everything that is contained in the White Paper—shoes, ships, sealing wax, aeroplanes, and so on, and all the men and women who have to use them. The reality has to do with defence as such, and defence is the preservation of peace, which is an operation that is divided into two phases, the first being intended to prevent the coming into being of the second. The first phase is that which we call deterrence, and when that one fails we move on to the second phase, which is reacting as effectively as we can to the attack, whatever it may be.
There is an advantage, to my way of thinking, in talking like this, in that I have already stepped outside the actual details of the White Paper. I am doing this on purpose, because the ritual dance is itself hypnotic and we have a tendency to forget what it is all about. It is not all about nuts and bolts and aeroplanes. It is about the preservation of peace all over the world. Our eyes are rivetted, naturally—and this is reflected in the White Paper—on the NATO front in Europe. This is repeated over and over again; it is true, and there is no escape from it.
But it gives rise to what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, has described as the paradox—that the more stable the situation appears to be in Europe, the greater is the threat to us outside it. We can see this happening fairly clearly at the moment, when we have what is probably—thanks to the deterrent effect on both sides—a situation approaching stalemate in which it is perfectly possible, at any rate in theory, for the enemy, if he should choose to become an active enemy, to achieve his aim simply by allowing, not by causing, the oil supplies to be cut off in the Persian Gulf. This is a situation towards which the world and its peace is advancing. But without a conflict, an enemy can win.
If that is so, we are entitled to look about and see whether our allies or our friends, even if they are not our allies, but favourably disposed nations, are doing all that they might. So, are we as safe as we can be? By "safe", I mean safe within NATO or without NATO, but particularly within, because, as has been said many times, we cannot easily operate outside the NATO area. In embarking on this kind of thought, I am, it might be said, stepping outside the realm of defence and into that of foreign policy. In my submission, there is no dividing line between foreign policy and defence. It has been said often enough, and with perfect wisdom and truth, that war is simply a continuation of foreign policy by other means. So is the deterrence of war and the maintenance of peace. Therefore, we may reasonably look about to see

1303
whether all the truth that has gone into the compilation of this White Paper is being adequately supported by our allies.
There comes into my head a fact that I have heard mentioned, though not by many, that from a detached point of view there is nothing to choose between the attitude of the Russians to the Americans and the attitude of the Americans to the Russians. Both are equally bellicose and suspicious. This is very dangerous nonsense, simply because of the obvious fact, as we know very well, that on our side there is no aggressive intention, whereas on the other side there is plenty. Apart from that distinction, on the other hand, there are some great and unfortunate similarities.
I venture to say that one of the more dangerous elements, one of the more destabilising elements, in the world at present is to be found in the United States, and that is the organisation known as the Central Intelligence Agency. It is an instrument of enormous power and of great importance to us, but it is a power not only for good, but also for danger. It is absolutely essential to our defence as an instrument for the collection of intelligence, which is what it is for. But it also has the power to initiate military operations, and it does so. There is no need for me to particularise in any degree at all some of the disastrous situations that it has inaugurated and is inaugurating now.
It might seem almost incredible, if we did not know it existed, that there could be a body with these two functions of collecting intelligence and of acting on it. It is quite inconceivable that our own intelligence agencies could do this. This particular one—though I believe that what I am about to say is not quite as true as it was a few years ago—is not responsible to any governmental body in the United States. It is not responsible to Congress, it cannot he called to order or questioned by any congressional committee, and its money supplies cannot be interfered with. It is answerable, through its head, only to the President himself. This goes with the fact that the CIA and, indeed, the United States have long since departed from the basic concept of the United Nations that no nation shall interfere in the internal affairs of another.
Nobody can pretend that the CIA does not interfere in the internal affairs of nations in Central America, or that the United States have not interfered in, for example, Korea, Vietnam or, more recently, Lebanon. This is an exceedingly dangerous situation. My personal candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize would be anybody who could persuade the President of the United States to abolish, not the CIA, which is vastly important, but its executive function of waging war, because with that function goes not only the danger of the war which they wage but the suspicion and the distrust which it is bound to engender all over the world. It is only by eliminating this distrust between the great powers that we shall ever again see peace in our time, or in our children's or in our grandchildren's time.
Perhaps the President of the United States might also be persuaded (I hope our own Government have a quiet word with him from time to time in the hope of persuading him) not to make inflammatory remarks, calling Russia a nation of evil. This one
1304
remark is probably the biggest single factor which has deprived the United States of the pleasure and privilege of having the Russians at the Olympic Games in Los Angeles. I am not altogether surprised, either. It is well within the bounds of possibility that we ourselves are not universally trusted all over the world.
In no way do I intend to be superior, but these, I believe, are the facts, Our own governmental agencies, our own statesmen and our own leaders might well ponder—I am sure that they do—how they could bring about an amelioration of the situations which exist on the other side of the Atlantic, to the mutual benefit of us all. By "all" I include those who live in the Soviet Union. Having ventured to make those remarks. I hand the floor hack to the participants in the ritual dance and apologise for interrupting their stately sarabande.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Ironside: My Lords, I did not speak in last night's debate because I felt that my remarks were more suited to this afternoon's debate. Nevertheless. I think that the theme of both debates is management of defence, and the management of a budget of some £17,000 million, up from £16,000 million last year, with the employment and deployment of some half a million people, 200,000 of whom are civilian.
Because 46 per cent. of this budget is being spent on equipment, I do not believe that anybody can therefore suggest that industry's role is a minor one. But I do see it as a significant and complementary one. I am therefore glad to see that so much has been spelt out in the Estimates about the way the Ministry of Defence propose to develop more closely their partnership with industry. The new management proposals are, of course, recognised as radical ones, but we must not forget that there is still a clear distinction between the armed services and industry, even though the armed services have become so equipment dependent. There is no take-over, other than a technology take-over, and the principal concern of the services is still that success is measured by fighting efficiency and morale, while industrial success is measured by product performance and reliability.
In each case success stems from greater added value and greater productivity; in other words, greater cost-effectiveness. It is produced by keeping as many people at the business end of things as possible. In the services this is in the front line, and in industry this is on the design and assembly line. Here I note that the sales and added value per employee in the royal ordnance factories has doubled over the last three years. The Government must be congratulated on this achievement, which I believe has been brought about through the move towards privatisation.
Defence business is big business. It is now much more open business, and it is world-wide. Constraints are less and leaks are more, but I very much support what the Government are trying to do in restructuring defence management. In saying this. I declare an interest in the research and development field, which includes defence. I should like to make one or two points which I believe are not brought out sufficiently in the Estimates and which I think relate to the defence scenario as it is now developing and which we need to take into account.

1305
First, the airlift-sealift strategy is not, so far as I can see, covered in the Estimates, but it is clear that defence commitments—at least, those outside NATO—depend upon having an effective air and sealift strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, touched on this point when he referred to the capability necessary to make a military intervention rapidly at great distance. We have never had to worry too much about this in the past as, in the words of the Ministry of Defence:
"The well-established procedures for taking suitable ships up from trade are available".
Airliners can easily be leased or bought up on the market to supplement the RAF air transport wing. But even if the Army do find it more sexy to use the airlift in the good old paratrooper/air assault style, the cost per kilo is high. It is prompt but task-orientated, and only sealift provides the truly cost-effective payload which is invariably required on most expeditions.
We can still rely, naturally, on the Red Duster, but the United States is now faced with a situation in which their maritime flag is barely thought to he sufficient to meet their defence needs, and there is concern in various United States circles over whether or not the US Navy should have a sealift wing. I hope that the Government have this factor constantly under review, in case we may he faced with the same situation. In fact, the Maritime League here have already expressed some concern about this. But I should add, of course, that 50 or 55 front line ships for the Royal Navy are probably sufficient to meet present defence requirements.
Secondly, we sec that defence imports are rising and will continue to rise, hut I would not be happy about this unless I saw exports rising as well to match this trend. The biggest import rise appears to be in the electronics and optical equipment category, which seems to be the biggest export category as well, except for helicopters, where, luckily, imports are nil. As noble Lords probably know, this is really all connected with getting into imaging, which has now become the biggest thing since eyes were invented. This happens to be one reason, I think, why GEC sees that a bid for British Aerospace does make sense.
We shall undoubtedly be faced with increased defence imports because of the independent European programme group's moves towards standardisation or harmonisation, on the one hand, and the adoption of emerging technologies from the United States, on the other hand. This is not all bad, as we must remember that some of the research and development burden has been removed from our backs when we make a purchase. But, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, pointed out, it may complicate the procurement policy for the Ministry of Defence.
This brings me to the third point: the new opportunity/competition situation to be faced by British industry. On reflection, I think that it is an imaginative policy. It will allow the Ministry of Defence to draw more heavily on the skills and the inventiveness of British industry. It will make defence business more open, which will encourage industry to come forward. But there is still a very long way to go in perfecting the right procedures. This was pointed out by the noble and gallant Field Marshal and by my
1306
noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, when they expressed their doubts about the proposed competition policy.
Quality assurance procedures will not be allowed to stand in the way of small firms coming forward with ideas. As far as I am aware, most of the research organisations do not have the so-called 0521 quality assurance approval from the Ministry of Defence, but they are the organisations which will be likely to have the ideas. There is a need for greater quality in defence, quite apart from a crying need for engineering graduates. The Ministry of Defence project at Cranlield to educate graduates under contract is a hold move to help fill the gap between the output of something like 8,000 professional engineers a year in the United Kingdom and the many tens of thousands more turned out per year in Japan, the United States, Germany and France. We need, of course, to go much further, but I am glad to see that the Ministry of Defence is taking the initiative.
The qualitative edge is vital in being able to match the Soviet numerical edge. It is absolutely right that the Ministry of Defence ensures that British industry provides the quality needed—but the ideas must be allowed to come forward. In the Secretary of State's own words, the quality of defence equipment must grow. British industry can achieve this quality growth and the Ministry of Defence has the financial clout to set the pace, but it must use this particular weapon in the right kind of way. I hope that it will seek industry's advice on how best to achieve these aims. In this respect, I would ask the Government to publish more widely the list of contracts awarded, to whom they are awarded, and their value—and to pick out the prime contractors. This is a necessary feature of any policy based on greater opportunity and the competitive spirit.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Airey of Abingdon: My Lords, I am glad that the defence White Paper contains a paragraph about the armed forces and the media. I am not sure that this aspect has been touched on this evening—unless it was while I was away from this Chamber. From the point of view of the services, it is of the greatest importance—and to some extent. it is a completely new problem.
Today, through the medium of television and with instant communication, it is very difficult to know how to deal with this problem. Undoubtedly there are war correspondents who are very courageous and who have experience of some of the fiercest trouble spots in the world. Equally, in time of war, the forces have the most exacting task and are frequently working with highly classified secret weaponry. I was impressed by Max Hastings' book, The Battle for the Falklands, in which he and a fellow journalist wrote:
"Men worried deeply about their families at home and how bad news might be affecting them. They cursed the broadcasters and newspaper photographers when they believed that news and pictures released in Britain would cause fear or pain".
I would remind your Lordships that this book was written by two prominent journalists.
I welcomed the invitation extended to war correspondents to participate in the 1st Armoured Division's exercise, "Eternal Triangle". held in Germany last October. May I ask my noble friend the

1307
Minister whether it would be possible to establish a war correspondents' territorial unit permanently affiliated to the forces; accompanying them on certain exercises, and forging I hope a camaraderie and a sharing of responsibility for secrecy when necessary.
I should like to say—as many other noble Lords have done—how much we miss our noble friend Lord Glasgow, who died last week. He was so pominent in our defence debates in the past, and if I may, I shall quote from a speech he made in your Lordships' House in July 1965. He said:
"In this highly technical age I feel there is a grave danger of forgetting that the old-fashioned virtues of courage, resource and leadership in its widest sense have never been more needed than they are today …. My fear is that we may lose a potential Nelson or Drake because he cannot get an A level in mathematics".[Official Report, 30/6/65; col. 898.]
It was stated by a frigate captain who took part in the Falkland operation, and I quote:
"Most men in a modern warship are highly trained technicians, and the skills of all of them were pressed to the utmost. One did not depend only on brilliant people to excel but on the ordinary blokes to do what was expected of them. It proved that we train our people in the right way".
Here, I should like to welcome the paragraph on the armed service youth training scheme and to mention another scheme in which I take a particular personal interest, as an honorary member of the Midland Branch of the Coastal Forces Association. Their members crewed the famous motor torpedo boats—once Britain's fastest and smallest warships, with their heroic history in the last war. The MTB. 102 has been converted, through a trust, as a training ship for Sea Scouts and members of other youth organisations. Training in this historic ship is much sought after. When the MTB. 102 is no longer viable as an operational seagoing vessel, it is intended that she shall be offered to the Maritime Preservation Society as part of our national heritage.
It is very encouraging that the White Paper recognises that the history of our armed forces is an important part of our national heritage. Approximately 100,000 school children visit the Imperial War Museum in organised parties, and that figure represents roughly one-sixth of the annual total of admissions to the museum. Alas, the numbers have to be restricted because of its size. There is a very imaginative extension to this vastly popular and beautiful museum, and perhaps I may end with a plea that financial help should be given so that more of the young of this generation shall be inspired by the courage of the last.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am privileged to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, for whose late and sadly lamented husband I entertained warm personal affection combined with total political disagreement. However, I cannot follow her altogether in her remarks concerning the role of the press. One can understand the fear expressed by men engaged in battle that disclosure might upset their relatives at home. One can well understand that point of view.
On the other hand, I found myself in greater agreement with what was said by the noble Viscount,
1308
Lord Mersey, when he quoted—I believe with approval—the activities of Mr. Duncan Campbell, who is a tireless investigative journalist. The noble Viscount suggested that ignorance created fear. I am rather inclined to think that in this country there is too much suppression of information and that we all ought to know a great deal more about what is going on. There is far too much secrecy in our country. The more we know about reality, the better it will be, even if when we know the true reality about nuclear warfare we are properly frightened, as I think we should be. So I think there is a role for the investigative journalist. If I misunderstood the noble Viscount, Lord Mersey, in regard to our agreeing about that, he might wish to indicate so now; or am I right in thinking that we see eye to eye on this point, if on no other?
Viscount Mersey: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. I also said that there were widely differing views as to the danger of nuclear war. I believe I quoted the noble Lord himself when I said that he was of the opinion that the whole human race could be killed a thousand times over. However, I also quoted an opinion from another noble Lord who likened a very large nuclear exchange to a rather large depression over the Atlantic.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for making that clear—at least. I hope he has made it clear.
I also find myself in agreement with another speaker on the other side—this is getting rather dangerous! The noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery (I am sorry he has left the Chamber) referred to our proceedings as a ritual dance. There is an element of that. However, it seems to me that over the years the nature of the dance changes and the tune changes. As for some years, both in another place and here, I have been talking about this subject, it appears to me that in this country we have undergone that clarification, which Dr. Johnson spoke about, when we are aware of the possibility of being hanged. We are close to that possibility. In the shadow of the nuclear weapon we become aware of our dangers and are more inclined to discuss the nature of those dangers rather than to devote ourselves to the kind of rhetoric which the noble Earl rightly condemned.
The Statement on the Defence Estimates says that the NATO Alliance remains fully committed to achieving balanced, verifiable, and significant measures of arms reduction between East and West. Sadly, it has achieved the opposite. The record of the United States' Administration is even more dismal than that of Her Majesty's Government. During President Reagan's term of office there have been no disarmament agreements and United States spending on nuclear weapons has more than doubled. Soviet proposals for an immediate agreement to halt production by both sides have been ignored. The United States is committed to increasing its present arsenal of 27,000 nuclear warheads by a further 17,000; and this, apparently, is to take place even if the Soviets abandon all further nuclear deployment and production. That means that the president's words and those of the Defence Statement are the opposite of the truth because they both talk of peace but, in

1309
practice, appear to be making, or at least preparing for, war. If we are not careful, they will finish by exterminating us all.
President Reagan came to office in a bout of hysteria. I was in the United States at the time and almost all Republicans to whom I spoke believed unshakeably that America had been left defenceless by President Carter. That was at a time when, even then, the United States was by far the strongest country in the world and was in a position to eliminate the Soviet Union, and everyone else, twice over. I think that has now increased to about eight times over; but I should have thought that once was enough. However, impervious to reason, the Republicans did not want to know the facts. They just believed, and were determined to believe, in the face of all the evidence, that only this tall man from Hollywood could save them from being over-run by communism.
We know that nations sometimes are infected with something approaching madness. The Czechs and the Chinese have both had doses of it. We ourselves were not at our most balanced during the Falklands affair. But in every country in which American missiles are being deployed a majority of the people appear to be opposed to their presence. Only the Dutch have paid some attention to the apparent wishes of their own people. President Reagan is the only post-war American president who has made no kind of arms control agreement with the Soviet Union and who has never met, or even tried to meet, the Soviet leaders. His own arms control offers seem to me to have been designed from the start to be unacceptable to the USSR—this in spite of being given such titles as the "zero option".
That was merely a ploy to maintain the existing naval and air supremacy of the United States and to deny the Soviet Union a land-based response. In return for that the United States was ready to agree not to add a land-based capability to the powerful technical and nuclear superiority which it enjoys in other fields. American negotiators in these discussions seemed reluctant to reach agreement, and where they have shown signs of a meeting of minds with Soviet representatives they have been withdrawn. Their replacements have been people who seemed to share President Reagan's basic concept of international relations as a struggle between good and evil in which compromise is undesirable and peace a word to he brandished rather than a condition to be sought after.
The United States has moved, and is moving, from a deterrent posture to a war-fighting capacity. In defiance of existing agreements with the Soviet Union it is now developing the crazy concept of an arms race in space. What incentive is there for the USSR to reach fresh agreements with a Government who appear to ignore existing treaties? I have no affection for the Soviet system. It is the product of a country in which representative parliamentary democracy has never thrived. However, there is a degree of economic democracy and a grass-roots representation which means that the countries of Eastern Europe cannot be dismissed and classified with the unstable dictatorships which the United States supports in Latin America and elsewhere. It is not a straightforward case of good against evil on either side. As
1310
Attlee said many years ago, the alternative to coexistence with the Soviet Union is co-death.
The West is committed to arms reduction, according to the Defence Statement. It is committed, as I have said, to something in which it has had singularly little success. But President Reagan does not seem even to share the commitment which the White Paper claims. He is committed only to talking about it on suitable occasions. Before he became president he fought the partial test ban treaty and he denounced arms control agreements as an attempt to,
"buy our own safety from the threat of the bomb by selling into permanent slavery our fellow human beings enslaved behind the Iron Curtain…because we are ready to make a deal with their slavemakers".
Those are not the words of peace. President Reagan opposed the non-proliferation treaty and he opposed the SALT I treaty. He attacked SALT II, which has never been ratified by the United States, but he said he would begin immediate negotiations for a new treaty when he became president, as he did.
Eugene Rostow admitted after 18 months that nothing had happened. He said that things ought to start without further delay. He was, for his pains, fired as director of the American Arms Control Agency. The START proposal, eventually tabled, concentrated on weapons which the Soviet Union had and left out weapons in which the Americans enjoyed a superiority. The United States, under these proposals, suffered no restrictions on its air- and sea-based missiles in which its strength was concentrated. But the Soviet Union, with 70 per cent. of its weapons land based, would, under the American plan, have to reduce its arsenal drastically, while enjoying no reciprocal reduction by its opponents. START was a non-starter, and surely intended to be so.
The present American five-year defence plan increases Tridents by five, up to 16, and together with the MX and other missiles, proposes a grand total of 5,000 silo-busting warheads. That is some arms control! Yet President Reagan says that there is no arms race. He produces charts, like those in the Defence Statement, designed to show a reduction in the American stockpile of nuclear arms. But the effective warheads were more than quadrupled, and now the president proposes to increase those more efficient and more dangerous weapons by 13 per cent., or 3,500 warheads.
As one of the president's admirals has pointed out—and I shall risk another quote—
"If you talk about a 20-submarine force at the end of this century, it will be a smaller number of missile tubes than we currently have operational. From the standpoint of capability it will be a far more capable force as far as warheads on targets….Certainly by increasing the size of the warhead and the accuracy, you improve the capability because to take out any one target, you can reduce the number of warheads per target that you have to shoot".
That is the so-called reduction, and of course it is not a real one at all.
Arms control Reagan-style means reduction numerically, but replacement with more efficient and more deadly weapons, so that the total fire-power is increased. Naturally, the Soviet Union rejected that, as it is technically well behind the United States. The proposal never had a chance, and, as I say, it must have been intended to be a non-starter—a gesture

1311
which might impress the gullible and those who might want to be impressed, but something which was not intended to be taken seriously by the Soviets.
The SS.20 (the Soviet land-based missile) was originally designed as a counter to the Chinese nuclear threat, and was first deployed in Asia. The USSR clearly hoped at that time that, as that weapon was based in Asia, it would not be seen as a threat to the West. But, subsequently, it became a replacement for its old SS.4s and SS.5s in Europe. Although this is a long way behind, one can see operating on the other side exactly the same deadly scientific philosophy of more efficient, larger, and more deadly weapons, and a reduction in numbers, which has taken place on a far more advanced basis in the United States.
I think that the situation was summed up by Richard Burt, President Reagan's man in Europe. In explaining the zero option, he said—and I think that this is my last quote—
"The purpose of this whole exercise is maximum political advantage. It's not arms control we're engaged in, it's alliance management".
That is precisely what it was. It was alliance management because, by the zero option, NATO was moved into supporting something it knew could not succeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will point out that the zero option ignored the existence of the British and French nuclear forces, the growing Chinese nuclear forces, and the proposed deployment of American cruise missiles in Europe.
Despite all this, it seemed possible that some compromise might emerge, and there was the famous walk in the woods; but President Reagan afterwards disowned his representative, Paul Nitze, and that was the end of that. The president was seeking, in the words of his Assistant Defence Secretary, Richard Perle, an agreement which would,
"strengthen the position of the West".
and,
"improve our military situation".
Reverse that, and it becomes clear that such a search must lead to your opponent concluding that you are not seriously seeking agreement. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the Soviets are reluctant to sit at a table, the purpose of which, as they see it, is not to seek agreement, but simply to make more anti-Soviet propaganda.
Fortunately, there is in the United States widespread support for an alternative scenario, which begins with a series of agreed moratoria. I believe that this movement is growing and that it will gain further support in this country and throughout Europe. These details are set out in a pamphlet issued by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, which will. I think, disprove the belief of anyone who imagines that that organisation is simply now what it was at the beginning—an organisation solely concerned with unilateral nuclear disarmament by this country. CND has come some distance since then and has produced a pamphlet which I believe will commend itself to anybody concerned with these matters as at least an alternative which is worth serious consideration. I commend it to your Lordships.
1312
Time will prevent me from describing it to you, but I think in the interests of our people it is time that we distanced ourselves, our country, and our government from what seems to me to be an American march to extinction. As I have said in another context, it is time that we began to take our fate into our own hands. I should much prefer to see it in the hands of a Government of this country, even if they are a Government who I do not support, than in the hands of anyone outside this country.
7.17 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, the Defence Estimates White Paper could give us an opportunity—and has to some extent given us an opportunity—for discussing serious issues concerned with the priorities to be given to various aspects of our defence. But we find ourselves in such discussion under a certain inhibition because of the misuse which is so often made of arguments by defence experts on technical and professional matters by the campaign of disinformation to which the noble Lord, Lord Gisborough, referred earlier in this debate. I am sure that some of the company with which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, finds himself associated in print is very far indeed from his own ideas and his own wish to see this country and its allies strong rather than weak.
However, there is another aspect, and there I think that the White Paper is to some extent deficient. It is I believe based on the assumption that all reasonable people will agree with the basic thrust, which is indeed one that has endured in our defence policy for some time. But I fear that we are under something of illusion—and possibly Her Majesty's Government are under something of an illusion—if we believe that such policies—the combination of deterrence and the search for arms agreements—are now fully understood, or fully accepted, in this country, and not only for the reasons which the noble Viscount. Lord Mersey, gave.
The arguments about deterrence and the arguments about defence and arms control are difficult arguments and would be so if you were presenting them in a forum such as this, where they can be rationally examined. But as my noble friend Lord Gisborough pointed out, what we in this country have seen is a very serious, determined, well-financed campaign by the Soviet Union, directly—and, through its friends in this country, indirectly—to circulate a picture of the world which is wholly inaccurate and which, on the other hand, because its simplicity, commands support.
A year ago the Government were heartened when they believed—with some justification—that this campaign had shown its hollowness by the fact that the ambiguities of the Official Opposition of the day on defence had contributed to their electoral victory. I have talked to a great many people concerned and interested in this field and I believe that since then the position has very considerably worsened.
No doubt from the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, the growth in the strength of CND is something to be welcomed. But for those of us who hold to the rather simple, geometrical formula, CND—KGB, this is something to be deplored. You find perfectly reasonable people in this country believing facts which are utterly remote from the truth.

1313
For instance, a large number of people believe that cruise missiles were introduced into this country and into other European countries in order to suit the convenience of the United States; whereas, as noble Lords are aware, these missiles were introduced because the European allies of the United States were worried about the proliferation of Soviet medium-range nuclear missiles and asked for a counterbalance of this kind to be provided.
One could give other examples of this kind of situation. You begin to get a feeling that you are arguing with people whose ideas of recent history are quite remote. For instance, no-one listening to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway (who is no longer in his place), or the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins of Putney (who is with us) would have gathered, if he had access to no other information, that it is not the United States which has refused to prolong discussions on nuclear weapons; it is the Soviet Union who walked out of these negotiations. It is the Soviet Union who has rejected appeals to return, not merely from the Western countries but from countries on the margin, if you like, of a non-aligned kind, which believed they had some influence in the Soviet Union.
It really is a pity and something at which the Government will have to look, that somehow or other we have failed to bring this home to a great many people who, as I say, are reasonable people, not fanatical, and who believe that somehow or other we are to blame for the impasse of arms control negotiations.
I believe, as does my noble friend Lord Gisborough, that the contest is one now of wills, it is not a contest of weapons. In weapons we have enough to deter, as indeed have the other side. What we have on the side of those who wish to weaken our will is a combination of propaganda directed towards imbuing people with fear of the horrors of nuclear war—and that of course is reasonable—but combined with a denigration of our Government and our allies, which leads people not to say, "We must not have nuclear war; let us therefore be certain that no one will launch missiles against us", but to say, "Let us disarm and be weak in the hope that somehow or other we shall avoid it".
If one looks at the Soviet Union, the Russians do not take this view. I believe, as I think do most noble Lords, that the Russians are quite genuine in their fears of the West and of war, because after all they have been subjected to war to a greater extent than any of us. The Russians fear nuclear war and the West's possession of nuclear weapons but believe that their security lies in their own defence, and in encouraging their own population to have confidence in its leadership and its institutions. We may believe that these leaders and these institutions are flawed, but I do not think we do enough to see that the presentation of our case is sufficiently maintained. It is particularly true—and this is an observation which many have made—that it is the younger generation which is particularly affected by this. It is adolescents who it is easy to grip with a slogan, "peace is better than war"—with which few people would disagree—and translate this into the view that only defeatism can help you to avoid the war that you fear. When one sees the babies against the bomb and the women of Green ham Common, and all these other well meaning
1314
people led astray in this way, then one feels that to some extent our responsibility in giving a leadership has not been fully maintained. The CND and its associates--the whole of the so-called peace movement—are orchestrated from Moscow. The noble Lord may laugh, but we are talking about matters of life and death, and I think the noble Lord would do better to refrain from laughing.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Lord kindly give way?
Lord Beloff: My Lords, yes, I would, with pleasure.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, if the noble Lord does not want anybody to laugh, he really should moderate his statements and stop equating "CND—KGB". While he makes that sort of statement, he is bound to be laughed at.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I would guarantee that I could find, in a file of Pravda, all the positions which CND have successively taken up on the Western alliance and Western arms. Therefore, though the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, may find these views curious, they would not be found curious by anyone who had studied the way in which certain themes and certain policies are disseminated, not merely in this country but, as he rightly pointed out, in the United States as well and among our European allies.
Last night we saw that the Dutch Parliament, with great difficulty—and it suggests a considerable degree of courage on the part of the Dutch Prime Minister—managed at least to maintain the country's pledge to NATO, though putting off—alas—the implementation of that pledge, which is a substantial victory for Soviet propaganda, for Soviet influenced peace propaganda in that country.
I only ask that we should not be complacent. Our position has deteriorated intellectually over the past year. It is necessary that we should obtain from the Government not merely a White Paper which is perfectly reasonable and very well set out; but we should get one in a context which explains why we need a defence policy, and what defence policy means in the context of our national life.
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, let me start today, in contrast to yesterday, by congratulating the Government on their White Paper. I note in passing that it is perhaps because my noble friend the Leader of the House is replying to the debate that the usual number of between 35 and 40 speakers to whom I found myself replying in recent years seems to have evaporated down to 22. I wish that I had had a Leader of the House prepared to answer these debates. I am delighted that my noble friend has decided to reply, although I commiserate with him, and I look forward with great interest to hearing what he has to say on this vitally important subject.
Let me also congratulate the noble Lord. Lord Boston of Faversham, for speaking in a way that I do not think I have heard from the Front Bench of the party opposite for a long time. If the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, had been present he would have been very proud. I almost felt at one stage as though I might be

1315
able to ask the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, to join an organisation of which I now find myself president, namely, the Women and Families for Defence in Britain. Indeed, I thought that we were getting close to what we really should have in this country if we are to deal with the dictatorship world of the Eastern countries and the USSR—a bipartisan policy in defence on all main items.
I echo what my noble friend Lord Beloff has said in asking that the Government should not underestimate the degree to which the young, in particular, of this country are proving to be vulnerable to the campaign of misinformation. I believe that certain statements, based on the Government's election victory, that we have won these arguments are true in terms of the majority when the arguments are properly explained and when the opinion poll questions are asked in a sensible and neutral order. But there is far too big an element that is being led astray by the campaign of misinformation. I found myself almost totally speechless listening to the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Jenkins. I can only sum it up by saying that I think that the speech would be envied by Mr. Gromyko in his most belligerent moments. His attacks on America were certainly as strong as, or stronger than, those I have read of Mr. Gromyko making for some time.
Let me raise just one point in the interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. He spoke of the cost of Trident. I do not want to deal with the other aspects of Trident today, but, as a recent past Minister. I want to assure the House that what I said when I was speaking from the Front Bench, I totally believe. It is that there is no alternative open to the British Government for the end of this century, which Trident is aimed for, that will provide an effective deterrent at anything like so cheap a cost. Spread over the 18 years—it will be 18 and not 15—it is still approximately 3 per cent. of the defence budget. The French pay over 20 per cent. of their defence budget for an independent deterrent. The whole programme costs less than the programme for the production of Tornado by a considerable amount.
The alternative of prolonging Polaris I looked at again and again when in government, as did my Secretary of State. The submarines will not last through to the timescale concerned. The cost of a deterrent of our own when all American production lines are closed is frighteningly high. In the period we are talking about at the end of the century, if we have not managed to reach an agreement with the Russians and the Russian people—and let us hope that we shall—then, at that time, with the likelihood of the kind of anti-ballistic systems that will exist and with the vulnerability of submarines in close waters that is probable, there really is not an alternative. Until we make progress on multilateral disarmament, the Government, in my opinion, have no alternative but to go ahead.
I wish to devote the bulk of my remarks to what was stated by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, on the cost of procurement. This was also discussed yesterday, and other noble Lords have referred to it. I join with those, including my noble friend Lord
1316
Ironside, who have pleaded for just a little sensible application of the principle of more competition in defence areas. I believe that this can be overdone when you look at the need for development work in firms and when you look at the investment of individual firms in the development of new weapon systems. You can reach a stage where firms, particularly small firms, working on parts of weapon systems will be less prepared to put in development work and investment if they believe that the likelihood, after they have done it and after it has all been written up, of their getting a good part of the production contract may be very remote.
Let me first deal with the statement that was perhaps heard more yesterday than today that the sheer cost of the people and the organisation in procurement is so enormous in its own right that it represents a large area for saving. I think that a total figure of 40.000 people was mentioned in yesterday's debate. Half of these are involved in research and development. I shall refer to the record of research and development in a moment. The cost of procurement which includes—noble Lords may not be aware of this—all the service controllers of the three services and their staffs was recently just under 3 per cent. of the cost of the weapons bought in a year. My experience of the cost of buying organisations is that this is not unnecessarily high especially when one bears in mind the enormous complications of the weapon systems concerned and how essential it is to be sure that they will work. I endorse the prime contractor principle that the Government again emphasised. This has led to a reduction of central staff in procurement—the numbers are down substantially—and can lead to a further reduction.
I think perhaps that the main immediate symptom rather than cause—the symptom that is most obvious in terms of the enormous escalation of cost if we call that a disease—is the number of delays that take place in going forward at different phases of development and production of weapon systems and often a final cancellation of those systems. This is caused not by the myriad of committees, although I am not necessarily in favour of them, but by sheer lack of cash and particularly cash on a per annum basis. This is what I have described as the symptom.
The real cause of the disease starts far further back. It starts in an age of change and a technical revolution in our very conscientious operational requirement staffs, particularly the vice chiefs and their staffs, looking at the likely threat ahead of them—that is a nerve-racking thing to do because enormous technical developments are being carried out in the USSR —looking at the threats as they will become, and stating, therefore, many requirements which they should like in the next range of weapons. This disease gets a hold because usually it is not until too late a stage that people are forced to look combinedly at the likely economics of each of the alternative routes and alternative ways which are open to NATO to meet those threats. Too often R & D starts in a whole host of areas and even in initial work towards a weapons system.
As was mentioned in previous White Papers, and as I know is still the Government's policy, it is vitally

1317
important to get economics in at an early stage. One of the best ways of doing it is to get the heads of the defence industry in at an early stage to view the future threat and to do the rough and guess economics in order to face up to the realities of how much of the OR requirements can really be afforded, either by this country or even, at times, by NATO itself. So the first selection process needs to take place at the OR stage, and I think it is the most vital.
The selection by country, which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, mentioned, is desperately important and awfully hard; I shall return to this later. I want to say that much has been done. The late Sir David Cardwell, as head of defence procurement, introduced the concept of the family of weapons and succeeded in negotiating with Europe and the USA a system whereby, for instance, the medium-range air-to-air missile would he developed and made in America and the short-range air-to-air missile of the next generation would be developed and made in Europe. In conjunction with Sir David, I tried very hard to do much the same thing in the torpedo field, and I feel that we lost only because of entrenched national interests of other nations concerned.
The Tornado programme was mentioned, in a sense as a failure, in terms of its cost. In fact, this is a popularly held, largely inaccurate, view. The completion of the Tornado programme at the development stage—I believe there will be a further pick-up at the production stage—was, and will be, in real terms, under 20 per cent. overspent from the original estimate. The Royal Air Force and the air forces of the continent will get an excellent plane—they are getting it—made under collaboration arrangements involving the three countries.
More recently, the EH.101 has been a collaboration with Italy; the AV.8 B, the successor to the Harrier, with McDonnell Douglas in America. The SP.70 is a European collaboration which, when I first heard about it, was described as being too expensive to sell. In fact, I believe we are now thinking that for that kind of advanced artillery gun it is likely to be a leader in the world, and provided security interests allow it, we should he able to sell it.
Therefore, so much collaboration progress has been made. I do not want to say to the noble and gallant Lord that there is not plenty more to be done, and certainly I do not want to pretend that there are not entrenched national interests. I do want to say that it is a fact that they are very difficult to get over, but that quite a lot of thought and an awful lot of discussion has taken place between this Government and their counterparts in order to try to find the politically possible way of selecting between the countries of the alliance.
It is a further fact that there is considerable British prowess in this area. Historically, we have spent a very large proportion of our Government research and development resources on defence. We have a big civilian spill-over as a result of that. We have few enough strong suits in our industrial area as a whole, and I for one believe that we have to be very careful, in the interests of collaboration, not to give away our strong suit to other countries, and particularly to our
1318
great allies, the Americans, whose commercialism at Government level usually exceeds our own.
We have leaders in the Harrier, in the Rapier anti-air missile, in the Stingray torpedo, in the Seawolf anti-missile missile, and in the Search Water radar, which can delineate ships 200 miles over the horizon. These are British successes, based to a degree on the Government research establishments, but developed splendidly by many firms in British industry. We must make sure those are recognised and we must not decry defence sales in this situation.
Until very recently the French have had a volume of defence sales over twice ours, and, of course, the Americans and the USSR a very much greater volume. If we were to be able to get nearer to the French level in terms of volume of sales, it would make a very real contribution to the cost of equipment. about which the noble and gallant Lord is rightly anxious. The Russians get approximately double the quantity of weapons that NATO gets, for approximately the same amount of money. There are two main reasons for this. The first is that their people at every level—in their armed forces, and right through into their factories—cost very much less than do the equivalent people in the West. That is permanent, and will stay. The second reason—in my view it is slightly the smaller of the two—is that they have the standardisation of equipment. There are disadvantages in standardisation. We can examine one set of equipment, and they have to think in terms of many.
I have already spoken for too long. I want to end with just one thought on the deterrence aspect. Many people are questioning whether deterrence remains credible, as based on the weapons as shown in Annex A of this defence White Paper, with the enormous preponderance of Russian superiority in conventional weapons and overall superiority in total nuclear weapons, too. People say that the peace of the world is kept by the credibility of deterrence as long as the defensive alliance only, who threaten no one, have the nuclear bomb.
People now say: how could we ever contemplate using it when the enemy has the ability to retaliate? MV Lords, we are not talking about fighting wars: we are talking about the credibility of deterrence. The thought that the possession by an aggressor of nuclear weapons equal or superior to those of the defenders weakens the deterrent value of the nuclear element in our deterrence is pure conjecture. Thank God, thank Governments, and thank NATO there is no experience of it being tested, and that there need never be any experience—because there is another question to be asked. Even if he had nuclear superiority, would an aggressor who knew that, notwithstanding his nuclear superiority, the defenders had the will to defend themselves, ever attack if he knew that they would use nuclear weapons to defend themselves? The answer we get when we ask that question is invariably, "No, of course he would not do so".
That is the central contradiction. It is the duty of all concerned, until and unless we can raise the nuclear threshold sufficiently, to keep it clear to the potential aggressor that we may well use any weapon at our disposal in order to ensure that he never in fact miscalculates and attacks.
7.52 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, it is getting late and I will try to get into top gear as quickly as may be so as to weary your Lordships' as little as possible. As I studied the White Paper I rapidly came to the conclusion that it contains a great deal with which I agree. It talks of cutting out waste. It talks of avoiding duplication between the services. It talks of increasing efficiency and streamlining the Ministry of Defence. That is all thoroughly commendable and the Government are to be congratulated on a White Paper designed to ensure that the taxpayer gets full value for his money.
At this stage I decided to explore what had been omitted from the White Paper and which, had it been included, would have been informative both to this House and to the country in general. I aimed my inquiries principally at the Royal Navy as I had the honour to serve for over 20 years in that service.
The first point which came to light was the enormous strain put on the Navy by increased standing commitments. These assignments, laid down by the Ministry of Defence on behalf of the Government, have to be met by the commander concerned before other tasks are considered. In the last four years the directed tasks relevant to the Royal Navy have increased by a factor of four. I have always understood it to be a cardinal facet of defence policy that if commitments are increased, then the resources to meet those commitments should be increased in proportion. One might, therefore, have expected the number of hulls to have increased four-fold since 1980. If, for simplicity, we consider just destroyer and frigate hulls, we find that between 1980 and 1984 the number of ships fell from 65 to 54—a decline of almost 17 per cent. By 1985 the number will be down to 52 and thereafter the White Paper tells us that the number will stabilise at about 50 destroyers and frigates. And here the Government are again to be congratulated because the figure would have been down to 42 rather than 50 if a recent decision to reprieve eight destroyers and frigates had not been made.
However, we are not yet out of the wood, because although we shall have 50 hulls in the late 1980s we shall have only 42 ships' companies with which to man them. If I were to say that this was a pity, your Lordships might regard this as something of an understatement, although I have some sympathy with the Government on this point. The shortfall of eight ships' companies is, of course, the result of the recent decision to reprieve the eight destroyers and frigates, to which the Minister referred earlier.
Nevertheless, one does have to face the facts, and it is for your Lordships to judge whether a four-fold increase in commitments is compatible with a 17 per cent. reduction in destroyers and frigates, and whether this is a sound basis for maritime defence. Further-more, one has still to consider how to man 50 ships with 42 ships' companies, which the Government do not appear to have allowed for other than by the reduction of numbers borne ashore. This will, of course, adversely affect the training, which is largely carried out on shore.
Moreover, I am concerned by the move to increase
1320
training at sea at the expense of shore training. Paragraph 220 of the White Paper states:
"Within the individual services the shift from the support areas to the front line is gathering pace. The Royal Navy is drawing on skills and experience within the fleet to reduce the shore training load; this and a vigorous drive to secure economy in all forms of shore support will reduce the numbers of men employed ashore by 25 per cent. between 1981 and 1988".
That reads very nicely. But what will actually happen? I think that this is one of the things to which the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, referred when he said, in his balanced and authoritative speech earlier in the debate, that he hoped that it would be all right when we shifted the emphasis from the support arms—if I may put it that way—to the teeth arms. I share his hope. I share it most sincerely, but in all truth I must own that I have severe doubts about it, and I have severe doubts for the following reasons. First, the ships have to be fitted with the relevant equipment. That is not insuperable but, as your Lordships know, ships these days are very sophisticated and complex pieces of equipment. Every cubic inch is stuffed full of electronic equipment and generally, if something else has to go in, then something else has to come out. However, as I have said, it is not insuperable.
Secondly—and this is more important—time has to be found, within the ship's programme, for training. If people are trained ashore, as at present, they are appointed to a shore establishment where they are trained. One of the reasons that they are trained is that there is nothing else for them to do. You cannot steam at 25 knots to give aid to a civil power in a shore establishment. A ship, on the other hand, is likely to have a very full programme and the chances are that time will never be found for training, with the result that operational efficiency is certain to decline.
So where does that leave us? Government commitments have risen four-fold since 1980. The number of destroyers and frigates has declined by 17 per cent. in the same period; the fleet is not fully manned: and there is a big question mark over naval training in the future. I would like to end on this not very happy note by suggesting that, if more training is to be carried out at sea, standing operational commitments will have to be reduced if the operational efficiency of the remaining ships is not to be unacceptably degraded.
7.59 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords. I feel sure that many of us on all sides of the House will agree with the point that the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, has made about the need to match commitments to resources. I would also strongly agree with the noble Lord that the White Paper is very much at fault in not dealing with this point at all.
The White Paper deals with great emphasis with problems of management, of cost-effectiveness, of improving procurement, of saving jobs and of saving money, but it ignores a whole range of, or deals cursorily and in a bland and boring manner with, equally important, or even more important, defence problems. One of them, as the noble Lord says, is matching commitments to resources. Another is chemical weapons, which were referred to in a sombre and well-informed manner by the noble Earl, Lord Fortescue.

1321
The noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was critical because the White Paper does not cover the vitally important question of the peace movement and subversion. Indeed, almost every speaker has pointed out that on a whole range of important defence policy issues the White Paper is wholly inadequate. It is plain that the British Government are not taking, and have not taken, initiatives in any of these fields. In the field of INF and of arms control, and in the fields that have been mentioned by noble Lords, there is nothing in the White Paper to suggest that the British Government have taken any initiative, or contemplate any initiative, in any of these important fields.
This is at a time when the outlook is bleak; when East-West relations are as bad as they have been for many years past; when the arms race is continuing without any check; when there are no discussions at all about nuclear disarmament; when the discussions that there are about conventional arms in Stockholm and in Vienna are making no important progress at all; when the crisis in Lebanon has not been solved; when a new crisis is coming in the Gulf; and when the Soviet peace offensive, as the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, pointed out, is still in full swing. However, if I may say so, I am a little less pessimistic.
I was struck by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, when he said, "Here in this pamphlet is the latest wisdom from CND". "It is not at all like it was some years ago", he said, "when it was purely unilateralist". That should encourage the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. The truth is that CND has moved away from unilateralism. The peace movement has moved away from unilateralism because we won the argument and because it made no sense particularly at the general election. Nevertheless, as he said, this is an important subject.
With the Government taking so few initiatives, it is natural to turn our attention to the Opposition and ask what the Labour Party is proposing for us. We had this afternoon, if I may say so, a thoughtful and well-informed speech from the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. Having listened carefully, I think I can say that from beginning to end the speech was wholly acceptable to my noble friends and myself. Its acceptability was caused, of course, by the fact that it bore no relation to the defence policy of the Labour Party.
This is the practice in these defence debates. We are used to it. We are a tolerant place, and none of us objects at all to the Opposition Dispatch Box being used persistently for speeches of a purely personal nature. I would be the last to complain about this. But it is confusing, and particularly confusing when we get a well-informed and accurate presentation of the Labour Party's defence policy from the Back-Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, whose speeches we listen to with particular attention for this reason.
Like his party leader, and in line with all his conference decisions, he renounces all nuclear weapons. He is not like the noble Lord, Lord Boston, at all. He renounces all nuclear weapons and demands that NATO's nuclear bases should be removed from this country, whereas all the noble Lord. Lord Boston, could do was to offer his good wishes to the new Secretary-General of NATO, Lord Carrington. The
1322
noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will need some good wishes if the Labour Party ever form a Government, because anything more disruptive of NATO it would be impossible to conceive.
I must pick up one point when I felt that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, was going a little beyond some Labour Party opinion, even, when he declared that there was economic democracy in the Soviet Union. We all know that it is the workers' state; we all know the trade unions are free in the Soviet Union; we all know that the means of production, distribution, and exchange are in the hands of the ordinary working-class family in the Soviet Union: but he goes too far to suggest, even in the Labour Party, that economic democracy exists in the Soviet Union.
It is tempting, of course, to take these extreme views on nuclear weapons when one looks at the excessive reliance on nuclear weapons by the Government. This is plain in the White Paper, and is plain from many of the decisions taken by the Government in recent years. There is a case for saying that an immediate declaration of no first use would not be in NATO's interests. We can understand that because there is a conventional imbalance. It is not as big a conventional imbalance as is often stated. According to the International Institute of Strategic Studies—which, with great respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is the best authority—the imbalance is there, but it is not great and it is not unbridgeable. Nevertheless, it justifies the Government in saying that an immediate declaration of no first use would not be in the interests of the West.
But the Government go beyond that. They deny that we should now be working into a situation where we can get rid of this reliance on nuclear weapons in the event of conventional setbacks. There is no reason whatever why the Government should not at least have a strategy for the future of creating the conditions in which our NATO conventional forces are strong enough to deter or, if necessary, defeat conventional attack by the Soviet Union. I shall not go into all the reasons for believing that to use a nuclear weapon first is a very big and dangerous step indeed. One of the objects of defence policy must be to get NATO out of the need to have to contemplate that. There is no suggestion in the White Paper, or in ministerial statements, that the Government have that in mind.
Nor in the White Paper or in their speeches do they touch on projects supported by a great deal of well-informed opinion—not partisan—on such questions as a zone free of battlefield nuclear weapons. This is not a unilateralist idea, and it is supported by authorities of all political views. Equally, the Government do not deal, either in the White Paper or in their statements, with the concept of a freeze. That, again, is not a unilateralist concept. It is supported by a great deal of well-informed opinion.
Then there is this reliance on nuclear weapons, and their insistence on producing Trident. I have seldom heard a better statement against Trident than that given by the noble Lord, Lord Boston, this afternoon. I would add only one argument to the points that he made. It is an argument that I put to the noble Viscount. Lord Trenchard, when he had Front Bench responsibilities for defence. I said, "Granted that Trident becomes operational in 1995, what will its

1323
vulnerability then be to anti-missile missiles?" With the science of the time and the conventional wisdom at his disposal, the noble Viscount laughed me out of court. But I saw yesterday that the Americans had succeeded in knocking down a missile in space. I ask myself: how much development will there be in this anti-missile missile both in the Soviet Union and in the United States over the next ten years? I would not mind betting that in ten years' time the conventional wisdom is that ballistic missiles must give place to cruise missiles, and that just as Trident at a cost of f 10 billion—because it is going to be £10 billion or more—becomes operational in 1995, all the conventional wisdom will say. "For heaven's sake, ballistic missiles are out: we must have cruise missiles".
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am sorry to delay the debate by intervening, and I thank the noble Lord. Lord Mayhew, for letting me do so. I said clearly—and it is in all the Government's open documents on the subject—that one of the reasons for choosing Trident was a consideration of the degree of defence against ballistic missiles by the end of the 1990s. Nobody would say that any scientist or group of scientists or experts will necessarily get their estimate right, but one of the reasons why the prolonging of Polaris, for instance, is not an answer is the appreciation of the better defences—better, but not total.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, perhaps we can leave this argument to the future, but it will be interesting to see whether there turns out to be substance in what I am suggesting.
I am inclined to make one more point. I believe that perhaps the most important omission in the White Paper is the lack of any acknowledgement that there is a need for a greater collective influence of the European members of NATO within the alliance. This is an increasingly important question, and I should like to say a few words about it. The White Paper is silent on it and does not admit that there is a problem; yet every well-informed person knows that there is a problem, and this has been well illustrated within recent years. The truth is that for various reasons the perceptions of the European members of NATO over the field of East-West relations, and on other subjects such as the Middle East, have proved to be more mature and more positive than the perceptions of the Reagan Administration. That is true. It is well accepted both in the United States and in Western Europe. But it has not been made felt.
Let me give a topical example. We can now see in perspective and with the dust cleared away the negotiations at Geneva about cruise missiles. When we look back we see that a great opportunity was missed. We see that very serious misjudgments were made by the United States. First, they began saying, I remember, that the Russians would begin to negotiate seriously as the time came round for the deployment of the missiles, and that was echoed in this House by Government spokesmen. Then, as the time came for deployment, the Americans declared that the Russians would begin to negotiate seriously when deployment had actually taken place and the peace movements
1324
had been beaten. Again, this was echoed on the Front Bench in this House. These were serious misjudgments, and the whole handling of the INF negotiations was seriously at fault.
If we look back now at the position of the two powers at the break point, we know that the Americans would have accepted no cruise, no Pershing, no SS.20s; and we know that the Russians would have accepted no cruise, no Pershings and 120 SS.20s. That was the break point. There should have been an agreement: if not something between zero and 120 SS.20s, then the "walk in the woods" compromise.
The Europeans could and should have demanded a compromise at that stage. The Dutch, as a noble Lord mentioned just now, are to decide whether or not to deploy missiles according to the negotiating position of the two super powers—and that actually was the policy towards cruise of the Social Democratic and Liberal Parties during the general election. If the Europeans had taken that view collectively—or even if the British Government had taken that view—there would have been an agreement. Instead, the Americans threw out the "walk in the woods" without consulting the European countries because the Pentagon did not like it. That must not be allowed to happen again. There must be provision for reaching a collective European view on this vital question of arms control, detente, East-West trade and the Middle East, and it is most encouraging that some steps forward are being made in the field of defence at the Western European Union.
I renew the request which other noble Lords have made to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, that when he comes to wind up he will reassure us that the Government are taking a positive line on the question of a greater collective influence for the European members of NATO, perhaps organised and expressed through a revised Western European Union. We were not reassured by the Foreign Secretary's statement after the recent meeting of Foreign Ministers of the WEU. Perhaps when he comes to reply the noble Viscount will cheer us up a little and give us some reassurance that in this vital matter, at least, the British Government are going to take an initiative.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, today, as yesterday, your Lordships' House has been extremely well served by statements of weight and substance from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, and we are grateful not only for those statements but also for the fact that the Leader of the House, the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, will reply to this debate. No fewer than 12 noble Lords who took part in yesterday's important debate on management and organisation have spoken today. All those—indeed, every speaker I heard today (and I missed on or two)—would merit the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as having made sensible speeches. I will be asking many questions, and I fully understand that some of them will need to receive a written reply.
When the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, spoke in the Defence Estimates debate last year, he reminded your Lordships of some of the basic fundamental nostrums to which the Labour party subscribes, and to which I reaffirm our commitment here today: first, that our

1325
defence should be adequate and efficient; secondly, that we should ensure that we are getting value for money; thirdly, that defence policy should relate to a clearly defined foreign policy; and, fourthly, that we continue as members of NATO and play a full part in that alliance. So, the question which the noble Lord the Minister must answer tonight is whether we have 20 per cent. more value for the 20 per cent. more money we have spent on defence since 1979. Are our defences 20 per cent. better now than they were when this Government took office? The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. raised this issue and I think that we are entitled to have an answer.
The Observer main editorial dated 20th May had it about right when it started by stating:
"Mr. Michael Heseltine's defence White Paper is a smooth and well-tailored document—as befits its author"
That editorial went on to raise what many will have concluded are major questions: first, the treatment of Britain's independent nuclear deterrent and the Trident programme; and, secondly, allied to this, a lack of frankness about where the money is to be found to meet all the commitments the Government have taken on.
We are right to be worried about the impact of the Trident programme on the rest of the defence budget. This was a matter raised by my noble friend Lord Boston when he asked searching questions, and I believe we are entitled to have some of the answers tonight. I repeat the central theme of the worry: Trident is now expected to cost £8.7 billion and some academics have estimated that eventually it might be between £10 billion and £12 billion—and in its peak years it will account for between 15 to 20 per cent. of all expenditure on defence. We should hear again from the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, the rationale which witnesses Britain acquiring a deterrent larger and more expensive than we need at the expense of our conventional forces. Is it really too late for the Government to think again about Trident? Whatever else the estimates reveal, there is a yawning chasm when it comes to argument, even discussion, on the philosophy surrounding the nuclear strategy policy.
The House knows that an increasingly clamorous debate is getting under way around the argument of whether there be first use or no first use of nuclear weapons. It has been touched on time and again this evening, and latterly by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew. The estimates tell us that the independent British strategic force is, and will continue to be, of the minimum size necessary to provide a credible and effective deterrent. But, as my noble friend Lord Boston pointed out, if it is the minimum now it will obviously be many times more than the minimum when expanded. The cost of Trident will create the very policy vacuum which is used as the argument for bringing in the policy of Trident in the first place.
The Minister who opened the debate laid great stress on competition policy; gloried, in fact, in the progress that the Government have made in this sphere; promises of more competition to come, indicating that in the sphere of support, supply and maintenance the principle to guide Government policy would be that work would only be carried out by Government in-store establishments where it was absolutely necessary
1326
for operational purposes. It is clear that there are literally no limits to the extent to which this Government intend to get out of the government of business. Can we be told whether advice is taken by government from the fighting forces or from any other service input before these dramatic and revolutionary changes are made?
Let us take, for instance, their determination to sell off our ordnance factories. That has been raised by a number of noble Lords here this evening. The Bill to privatise the ordnance factories will be given a Second Reading in this House next week. Ministers in another place have sought to persuade us that it is in the national interest not only to bring in private capital but to allow in foreign investors with all that that could lead to. Ministers have told us that there are built-in safeguards to protect the ability of Britain to control our own munition-making capability. But, knowing the propensity of this Government to trim and to rationalise, but, above all else, their determination to take the government of business out of the business of government, who can believe government professions that they have no intention to stop privatising our defence capability?
If the Government really believe that their policies in this sphere give confidence to defence personnel, the armed forces, employees in the factories, yes, and the people of this country, they are making a big mistake. It is the road down which the Government are marching to where they know not. Privatisation of the ordnance factories is a reckless gamble from a reckless Government.
Paragraph 116 of the White Paper, on page 4, deals with chemical warfare. That was referred to by more than one of the speakers here today: my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham, Lord Brockway, Earl Fortescue and my noble friend Lord Mulley, to mention but a few of the speakers. I believe that the Government will be heartened by the interest in and support for their stance and attitude in general, as voiced by members of the House in that very important sphere. I recognise from reading the White Paper that the scale of operational oversight (that is the national responsibility) is daunting in national security terms. But as the Estimates show in detail, overshadowing all other aspects is our involvement in and commitment to NATO. As the noble Minister who opened the debate said, 95 per cent. of our total defence budget is devoted directly to the alliance tasks.
Curiously we do this against a background of statistical compilation and intelligence which we ourselves admit is far from satisfactory. On page 41 of Annex A we read:
"The only information on expenditure published by the Soviet Union is a single line entry for 'defence' in the annual state budget. These figures clearly present a totally inaccurate impression of both the scale and trend of defence expenditure and are incompatible with known force levels. Because of this lack of information from Soviet sources we have to estimate"—
I repeat "we have to estimate"—
"the scale and trends of Soviet defence expenditure ourselves".
Can we be told here tonight, or later, by the Minister whether and in what way he is satisfied that we have those estimates right?
We know that the Secretary of state nailed his flag to

1327
the mast of cost cutting when he introduced his organisational changes to the House on 12th March. He said:
"It is my intention to improve efficiency and to achieve significant savings".
A major area of controversy surrounds the division of expenditure between nuclear and conventional weaponry. These are matters which require a mass of intelligence and data which, in the nature of things, are properly denied to the Opposition. But we on these Benches have repeatedly raised our concern that the seemingly uncontrollable cost of the Trident programme will distort dramatically our ability to combine with our NATO allies in securing adequate conventional capability.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised questions in the defence debate last year which were not answered. If Trident represents but 2 per cent. of the nuclear capacity of the West, with the other 98 per cent. coming from America, surely that 2 per cent. can be better spent on a progressively modernised conventional contribution. Do the Government still persist, in the light of that prognostication, to assert that the acquisition of the Trident system and the acquistion of more and more nuclear weapons will make war less likely? The escalation not only in cost but in destructiveness is a horror story to beat all horror stories. Is it necessary? Are we in charge of our own destiny? Do we really wish to be a party to a constant search for more horrendous devices?
The Government will plead in aid the result of the general election—complete endorsement of all aspects of their defence posture. But they should not underestimate the growing abhorrence of millions of our people at their enslavement. It is an enslavement by association with the horror of a nuclear holocaust. Whatever the provocation, whatever the action taken by an aggressor, growing numbers of the British people are quite unable to envisage their representatives being party to pressing a button to unleash on the world the nuclear darkness which will herald the destruction of mankind and civilisation.
As my noble friend Lord Boston put it very pertinently in his opening address, the real controversy surrounding the exact status of control on that button will not go away. The important and serious questions raised last week in your Lordships' House reveal deep unease about the nature of our relationship with the government of the United States. There are many fields in which one could criticise the Prime Minister and the Government for striking isolated postures in international affairs. We would applaud her if she would show a more independent and robust spirit in her relationships with the United States of America.
The established fact that missiles are now based at Greenham Common and that they can be used and operated without our say-so is a grim measure of the extent to which we have become subservient in our relationships. If the Minister who is to reply will refute the charge that I make, then we shall be very pleased to have, which we have asked for more than once, the authority upon which these buttons cannot be pressed without collaboration from the Government.
1328
When we are looking at the Defence Estimates, the United Kingdom continues to spend more on defence than any other European member of NATO, both in absolute terms and per capita. We also spend a higher proportion of our GDP on defence than any other major ally. While that is a bald statement, it is one to he questioned. A fair equitable share is one thing. To boast that we actually pay someone else's share as well as our own, is, so far as I am concerned, a matter that needs to be answered. Can the House be given a satisfactory explanation for why the per capita payment towards NATO from Canada is 273 dollars per person per year; Holland 294 dollars, Germany 364 dollars, France 396 dollars, and the United Kingdom 435 dollars? Will the Government explain why we appear to be paying more than our share?
My noble friend Lord Mulley drew the attention of the House to the apparent—I say apparent—contradiction in how this Government treat our armed forces when in Opposition and when in Government. The noble Viscount who is to reply needs to tell us why a two-stage pay award under Labour was heinous and outrageous, deserving of censure, and yet is perfectly reasonable when promulgated by this Government. If it was an insult then. why is it not an insult now?
We on these Benches support much that is said in the White Paper as to the stature and status of NATO. I particularly commend paragraph 101, which says:
"history shows that a nation that desires peace in freedom cannot simply rely on the hope that it will be left alone. If the preservation of liherty requires eternal vigilance then the maintenance of peace demands unremitting effort".
We on these Benches say "Amen" to that.
Although the summit meeting last week was the London economic summit, it dealt, quite properly, with the issues of East-West relations and arms control. We share both the disappointment of the Government and their hope that the suspended arms control talks be speedily resumed, and we believe that, without the pre-condition offer of President Reagan, to recommence them is sensible and timely.
I ask these questions arising from that statement. What steps are the Government taking to get those talks going again? How far are we examining the causes of the breakdown to see whether we can induce Russia—and I acknowledge that the talks broke down because Russia left the table—to return to the table? Can the Minister say a little more about what is in the Government's mind when the communiqué refers to precise commitment to the principle of the non-use of force? The communiqué talks of pursuing the search to extend the political dialogue and long-term cooperation with the Soviet Union, and I wonder whether the House can be told of any new initiatives that are in mind?
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, aided and abetted by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, chided the Labour Party with divisions on the issues of nuclear policy. Yes, my Lords, in the Labour Party we confess to harbouring dissidents within our ranks. We do not all think alike. We argue and we disagree among ourselves. But we do not need to take seriously any charge of disunity from the Alliance, which is so riven by so many conflicts among its own forums of policy-making. I have in front of me a report from the Sunday Times of September last year, under the headline:

1329
"Owen gets tough with the Liberals".
It states:
"David Owen yesterday carried his new authority as Social Democratic Party leader into the heart of the Liberal Party reproving its dissidents, routing its unilateral disarmers".
It goes on:
"The parties might disagree as friends, but they must have none of the rancour, backbiting and bitterness of Labour feuds".
—although they can disagree!
It continues:
"Liberal unilateralists broke their silence when Owen asked whether Trident should be cancelled. 'Yes,' they shouted. When he said that cruise missiles would be stationed in Britain for three or four years by the time of the next election, they cried 'Shame'. When he asked whether the Polaris submarine should cease patrolling 10 years before the end of its useful life, they again shouted 'Yes'.".
My Lords, I simply raise those points because they were raised, and they are not part of the Defence Estimates debate. We are discussing the Government policy. But I think that the noble Lords, Lord Kennet and Lord Mayhew, will be interested to see what is the up-to-date policy of the Labour Party. If it were possible to put down in this place an amendment to a Motion, "That, the estimates be received in another place on Monday next", this is the kind of amendment that would certainly commend itself to noble Lords on this side:
Line 1, leave out from "House" to end and add:
"believes that the plans outlined in the Statement on the Defence Estimates 1984, Cmnd. 9227,"
and we are discussing them now—
"avoid the real and fundamental issues relating to the defence and security of the United Kindom; is convinced that the enormous and increasing cost of buying the Trident nuclear system from the United States will mean further cuts in, and weakening of, our conventional non-nuclear forces; deplores the fact that the White Paper contains no initiatives to stop and reverse the escalating and dangerous nuclear arms race; and calls upon the Government to work within NATO for a change in its existing strategy to a stragey based n the no-first use of nuclear weapons, to cancel Trident and to remove all nuclear bases, including Cruise missiles, from the United Kingdom.".
That is the policy which, if 1 had been in the other place, I should certainly have supported.
In conclusion, my Lords, last year we debated the estimates immediately following a series of demonstrations throughout Europe against the impending siting of cruise missiles on European soil. In no place was that public expression of fear for the future of mankind more massively supported than here in Britain. So, again, history repeated itself. Last Saturday witnessed another eruption, a peaceful demonstration, when hundreds of thousands of men, women and their children truly peacefully demonstrated, giving President Reagan an invitation to take his cruise missiles home with him. The marches will go on. The message will be repeated. Cruise missiles on British soil will make war more certain, not less. Do not dismiss those who march and who carry the message as fools, knaves, or dupes. They are none of those. However, they are also not naive enough to expect this Government radically to reverse their defence posture.
I share the reservations of the Government that we shall want more than the suggestion that those who support the marches live in Poland, Russia, and Czechoslovakia. We shall want agreements with the USSR on arms control and reduction, and these will
1330
not come easily, or overnight. Those who march, in my view, have courage, strength and faith to sustain them on their long march. Their numbers are growing. They will use their conviction that nuclear weapons are evil to try to persuade this Government to join them. What is more to the point, my Lords, millions share their view that one day they will win, because they know that they are right.
8.37 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, tempted me slightly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, before him. However, I shall be tempted only into making one (what might be called) outrageous political comment—and I do not think that it will be that—before I seek, as I think it is my duty, to reply in detail to many of the points made in this very important debate. My one comment would be this. If I were the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I do not think I would bother too much playing around with trying to knock the Liberals down so hard, because, after all, in life, I always try to attract those people who might vote for me. Over the time I have been in this House I have never been aware of the Liberal Party voting for any other than the Labour Party. So that I must say it seems rather surprising that they seek so much to distance themselves from the Labour Party and that the Labour Party try so much to distance themselves from them. It is very interesting because, when it comes to the matter of a vote, I have not noticed that distance. Perhaps I am going to be rewarded soon and, when I am, I shall be interested to see it.
Perhaps now, my Lords, I can turn to the debate in detail. First of all, I should like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham, Lord Graham of Edmonton, Lord Mayhew, and many others who paid tribute during the debate to my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, not only for his speech in introducing the debate, but also in regard to the way in which he conducts the defence questions in this House—and, indeed, very difficult questions, as I think noble Lords on all sides of the House very genuinely recognise. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, that he should not worry that his commendation of my noble friend might do my noble friend some harm, because it will be allied with my very strong commendation. If my commendation is no good, well, it would be a sad day. But I hope it will be good, and I am immeasurably grateful to my noble friend for the way in which he conducts the defence business in this House, and I am very grateful for what has been said about him.
My noble friend's speech at the start of the debate also helps me very much in another field. It saves me from going over much of the general ground which he put forward. I am grateful for that because I wish to try to reply in detail to as many of the points made as I possibly can, and I wish to confine myself to a limited period. Therefore if I do that, and I do not therefore deal with some of the more very general points which he has made already, I am sure that the House will probably think that that is the best way for me to proceed.
There is one general point with which I think it is

1331
important for me to deal because it was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, right at the start of the debate; by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet; by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, who speaks with all the authority of a previous Secretary of State for Defence; by my noble friend Lord Trenchard and by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew—that is whether Trident is the right policy; whether it can be accommodated within the Defence Estimates as it stands. I would seek at this stage to plead in aid one very important view. There are those who accept that this Government should have their independent nuclear deterrent. They believe that they wish to maintain Polaris. But yet they say that they do not wish to move to Trident and they therefore hope that somehow Polaris can be continued for a very long period and will serve as a nuclear deterrent for a long period. I do not believe that that position is credible; nor indeed—which is far more important in my view—does the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, who, after all, had responsibility at the time when the decision was taken. He, in a very important maiden speech in October of last year, made some comments which are very important indeed. He said (at cols. 155–156 of Hansard for 25th October):
"There are those who would cancel Trident and keep Polaris against an uncertain future, perhaps for use as a bargaining chip in arms negotiations. This is in fact an option for unilateral disarmament. In the hands of such a Government that would cancel Trident but maintain Polaris, Polaris as a bargaining chip would be useless. The Russians would only have to wait and it would go—time expired—and in my view the sands of time would run out very quickly."
He finished this point of his speech by saying:
"If we cancel Trident we will be out of the nuclear business and it seems to me that is not what the British people want."
There are those such as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, and others with great responsibilities and great knowledge who do not agree with that view; but I think I am entitled to rest on the view of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin, as expressed at that time, and also with the view of my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who also had responsibility at the Ministry of Defence and made a very important point on that very issue and on the cost of Trident. I do not accept for one moment what the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said about the costs. When I hear any estimate of future costs, I know that such matters can be very dangerous things to get involved in too far ahead. I have had much experience in these things because I have been a Minister for far too long not to have seen some of the troubles over costs which have arisen. But when I hear the noble Lord say that several academics take the view that costs are going to be vastly in excess of estimates, and use that as a political argument, I always think that we are entitled to have a certain doubt as to the wisdom of the academics who are quoted, because usually one can find some other academics at the other end of the scale who will say exactly the opposite. I do not accept therefore what the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton said.
It is well known that over the period of its procurement, Trident will cost on average only 3 per cent. of the defence budget, and 6 per cent. of the equipment budget. It is also felt by those who took the decision and were part of it that Trident is far the most
1332
cost effective purchase on this basis that we could have. Therefore I believe that it is right and I believe that it will be seen to be right. Those who do not wish for us to continue with a nuclear deterrent at all are entitled to their view; but those who wish to see us continue with one should have regard to some of the views—particularly those which I have quoted—from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Lewin.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennet, Lord Boston of Faversham, and others, raised the question of dual key. That has been answered on so many occasions by my noble friend in this House and by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place that I do not think there is any point in me adding to the answers by saying exactly the same as they would. It is the truth, and I have not anything else to say other than the truth.
I turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked about Western European Union, as indeed did the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew.
Lord Kennet: Before the noble Viscount leaves the question of dual key, has he any comment to make on the statement by the Chief of Staff of the United States Army, which I have now read out twice in the House and on which I have had no comment from the Government at all, which divides the cruise missiles into two classes; those which can be quickly launched by SACEUR and those which cannot?
Viscount Whitelaw: Yes, indeed, I have an answer for the noble Lord. I was just coming to it but I will now come to it directly and give the other answer I was going to give him afterwards.
I quite agree that it is important that I should get this answer for him. When the question was asked at the time, I realised it was important and so did my noble friend. So investigations were made with the United States Government to see what exactly had been meant by General Meyer's comments. The answer—strongly supported by the American Government in the discussions they had with the Ministry of Defence—is that these words do not bear the interpretation which some commentators have sought to put on them. The American Government totally confirm that there can be no question of a military commander ordering the release of nuclear weapons without the appropriate political authority. I am glad to give that absolutely categoric answer which has been checked with the United States Government. I believe it has been checked and would be supported by many of those who had particular responsibility in this field.
I now turn to the other point that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, made about Western European Union. The Government are glad to note the revival of public interest in the possibilities for improving European co-operation on defence and security, including proposals for making greater use of the Western European Union. We are playing an active part in the current discussions among the Western European members about ways of reactivating the organisation. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, will feel that is a reasonably satisfactory answer and is reasonably encouraging.
May I now turn to the question on defence

1333
procurement, collaboration and competition raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver. The noble Lord was also supported in questions on this subject by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing, by the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, by my noble friend Lord Trenchard and by my noble friend Lord Ironside. I recognise at once that there is no-one—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carver, will accept this from me—who is capable of stating his case with greater authority, with greater determination and with greater assurance. The only point that I think I am entitled to make is that sometimes the assurance is just tinged with a little more question than he would appear to give it at the time when he is making it. On this occasion it is fair to say that he would he the first to recognise, as I think he did say, that this was a question to which there was no simple black and white answer. It is right in principle, and I would accept exactly what he says; It is very important that his views should be strongly stressed, and strongly stressed to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence and to all the others concerned with it. But it is equally true—as my noble friend Lord Trenchard made clear—that this collaboration and competition has got to be conducted against a background, however hard one tries otherwise—I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord found that himself—of people who are determined to pursue their own national interest. I know it has to be overcome; I know it is right to overcome it; but I do not think the noble and gallant Lord himself believes that it is all that easily overcome. Nevertheless, it is surely right that it should be stressed, and I think all the other noble Lords who spoke on this subject agreed.
My noble friend Lord Ironside, as well as speaking on this, spoke on various technological aspects of the defence programme about which he is extremely knowledgeable. He welcomed the privatisation of the Ordnance factories and their improved performance preparatory to privatisation. "Improved performance" does seem to have happened in other fields prior to privatisation. It seems to have a good spur for the future. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, gave notice of the views which he and his party have about the privatisation of the Ordnance factories. I was therefore all the more pleased to note the strong support given to it by my noble friend Lord Ironside.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone spoke about "The Services and the Community" and about the search and rescue operations conducted by the services. We would all agree that those are extremely important. He also referred to the need to reduce the defence estate and to get rid of property which is no longer required. I am not frequently able to speak away from any sort of brief or any sort of knowledge except my own experience as a Member of Parliament for 30 years, and from my own prejudices. All my own prejudices are that not only the Ministry of Defence but nearly all other Government organisations are the slowest people to get rid of property and land which they do not want, have no hope of wanting and are never going to want again. One sometimes wonders whether anybody will ever get any sense into the management of the Government estate. I have long since been a great critic of that, inside every Government of which I have been a member. That is a long time now, but it
1334
never gets any better! However, perhaps one day it will; and I could not agree more with what my noble friend said.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about chemical weapons, and he welcomed what my honourable friend in another place, Richard Luce, had to say on this subject about the need to seek to outlaw these odious weapons. On the other hand, my noble friend Lord Fortescue pointed out on the other side, I think very fairly, that unless such agreements can be reached the danger of being unequipped and not ready to deal with these horrible weapons is a very real one. I think my noble friend made a very important point, which I am sure will be considered very carefully.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has apologised to me for having to leave. He spoke first of all about the air defence of the United Kingdom and the fact that it is based on aircraft which are far too old. He has great experience in these matters, and, indeed, speaks with very great authority. He then went on to mention the work services and the amalgamation of the work services. He speaks to one who feels strongly on this matter because, again, that is part of the management of the Government's own estate; and, just as getting rid of surplus properties has long been a slow process, equally the building of new ones or improving others has also been a slow process.
Always one hopes for progress; and I am able to tell my noble friend that there has been some progress on one aspect which he mentioned. It is that there is an experimental scheme to give responsible military budgets for minor works and maintenance direct to established commanders. This is well on the way at HMS "Dolphin" for the Royal Navy, at Colchester for the Army and, for the RAF, at Linton-on-Ouse. I am pleased to hear that is happening. I hope it will go well, and I hope that it will be a long time before somebody restricts the amount of money that these commanders are allowed to spend, as they may be tempted to do even before they have been allowed to spend it! But I believe that these schemes are in fact in operation, and that is very important.
My noble friends Lord Gisborough and Lord Beloff spoke of the extremely important matter of disinformation and propaganda. In the process they sought to answer some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, spoke on one aspect of "having a ritual dance". I will simply say that I agree with the criticisms made by my noble friends of what he said, and I will not seek to indulge in a ritual dance with him myself. I do not accept his views; he knows that I do not accept his views; and he knows I never will—just as I know that he would never accept mine. So it would be a ritual dance for us to continue on that basis.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, raised the question about an extra debate. I can assure him (because this is something I simply cannot duck; I may be able to duck practically every other question I am asked, but when I am asked something concerning the "usual channels" of this House that is something I cannot duck, nor indeed would I wish to do so) that I have promised that in the next parliamentary year, 1984–85, we shall try to find two days on which to debate the Defence Estimates, approximately a week

1335
apart. When I say "try", we really do mean to do this. Indeed, my noble friend the Chief Whip has written about this and has expressed his determination on it; and I may say that when my noble friend expresses his determination I am delighted to find, since I have been working with him in this House, that he invariably succeeds—or very nearly invariably succeeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Hill-Norton, then welcomed some of the improvements so far as the Royal Navy is concerned. He also made a reference, which I found very acceptable because it enables me to associate myself with it, to the RUC and the UDR in Northern Ireland. It seems many years ago now since I was there and used to be visited by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Carver, who made various strictures on my behaviour, which I always fully understood but did not always agree with. Nevertheless, I think we all agree about the performance of our regular forces, the RUC and the UDR in Northern Ireland over all these years. It is terrifying for me to think that it is now over ten years since I left there, and in all that time I have thought that that is the most remarkable achievement which has been carried through by all those concerned. It is something of which this country should be very proud.
But I have a nasty feeling that we are slightly less inclined than we were to notice what is going on, and I think that this is rather a worrying aspect. Too often the hardships and difficulties pass almost unnoticed, or appear rather low on the pages of our newspapers. I do not think that is good, because the courage is probably all the greater when things are quiet. It is much more difficult, as, in a humble way, I once learned in life, to be courageous when things are very quiet than when you are being pushed around and under great pressure. I think that when things are quiet it is much more difficult.
My noble friend Lady Vickers paid a tribute to the work of the forces in the Falklands, and I think we would all wish to associate ourselves with that. She also raised various detailed questions about the dockyards. I hope she will understand that as they were so detailed I have asked my noble friend to write to her on those particular points.
The noble Lord, Lord Mulley, raised the question of priorities, as a former Minister for Defence Procurement, and I paid considerable attention, as we all did, to what he said on this matter. He raised the question, as did the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, about service pay. It is true that the Government have decided to stage the pay on this occasion. It will be paid in full, of course, and the recommendations of the review body will be implemented in full by 1st November. I recognise that this is a disappointment to the armed services, but it is something which we believe we have had to do in the circumstances as they are at present. If I have to take the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Mulley, I certainly will take them, only to give them back quite quietly (or, rather, not quietly, because I am incapable of that, but give them back) by saying that the number of times in my ministerial career on which I have been censured by an opposition for something which I have constantly seen them doing is probably quite as many
1336
as he has experienced, and we both have to take it on that basis. But I do want to emphasise that there will be full implementation of the review body's recommendations by 1st November.
My noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery raised the question of CIA activities. I think it would be improper for me to do other than note what he said from his very considerable experience. It would be improper for me, as a Minister of this Government, to make any further comments on the matter. My noble friend Lady Airey of Abingdon raised the question of the services and the media. I agree that is very important, but it is two-way and I hope that the experience of the Falklands has taught both sides in this particular problem some lessons for the future. It is important for the services to work out how they are going to deal with war correspondents and the media, and I entirely agree with my noble friend. She raised the question of help for the Imperial War Museum and the need to educate our young people in the history of the armed forces as part of our heritage, and I am sure that we would all agree with her about that.
My noble friend Lord Ashbourne, with considerable knowledge of the Navy, raised the whole question of value for money which he thought we were getting out of the White Paper. He also raised the problem of commitments, which I think are very important, and indeed having the resources to meet the commitments, about which anyone who has been an officer and who has knowledge of the forces will feel very deeply.
I hope that I have managed to answer nearly all the points which have been made by noble Lords in this debate. I should like to end by saying that the Government accept what has been said on many sides: that the importance of Britain's contribution to NATO, our part in NATO as part of the NATO Alliance, has been crucially important and has been a vital factor in the true situation that peace has now been maintained in Western Europe for 40 years. I believe that NATO has had a considerable part in that. I think everyone would accept that and the British nation with members of all parties and all Governments in that time, have every reason to be proud of what we have done.
I finish on that note by saying that it does on that basis give me particular pleasure to refer to the appointment of my special friend and colleague Lord Carrington as Secretary-General of NATO. It is also most appropriate to refer to it in your Lordships' House where he enjoys such particular affection and respect. NATO is indeed fortunate to have him as Secretary General. We shall need him and we, and all the other member countries, know that the alliance will be exceptionally well served at a crucial time.
I wish finally to associate myself wholly with all those noble Lords in all parts of the House who have agreed on the immense contribution made by our servicemen in the three services. I should like again to thank all those noble Lords for the various points they have made during this debate this afternoon, and I commend this Motion on the Defence Estimates to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Video Recordings Bill
9.2 p.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 12 [Supply or possession of video recording on certain premises]:
The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 30, I should remind your Lordships that the debate upon it was adjourned at the previous sitting pursuant to Standing Order No. 55. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord wishes to contribute to the debate, I shall now put the Question.
Debate on Amendment No. 30 resumed:
Page 8, line 36, at end insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act").
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I hope that the House will forgive me for making a few final submissions to the House on this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was kind enough to reply in some detail to the amendment, which is accompanied by the schedule later in the Bill, and I want quite shortly to put to the House considerations in my mind about the position we have now reached on this amendment.
I think that acceptance of the idea of specially licensed video shops for the supply of 18R material was surely implicit in the original Bill itself. That Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading in another Place. Everybody knew about sex shops, but the Bill made no mention of them and no debate or decision took place in the Standing Committee to put sex shops into the Bill. It was at the very last stage on that last day, 16th March, that the words "licensed sex shops" came into the Bill at all.
Whatever the explanation of that surprising state of affairs in another place, of one thing I am quite sure; that is, that the consequences of the decision taken could not have been fully appreciated and this is really my submission to the House. Members in another place could not have known what, apparently, the Home Office themselves did not know; namely, how many, how few and how unevenly scattered about the country sex shops are. I have given the best estimate available from trade sources which is that there are about 100 in England and Wales, none in Scotland and none in some quite extensive areas in the rest of the country.
This sweeping curtailment of the convenience of supply to adult consumers of this classification of recordings is severity, if not actual malice. It is unfair to the public and unfair to suppliers as well. The effect of this dramatic step is not really understood yet, and I was hoping that wiser and less punitive counsels would prevail here.
The sponsors of the Bill cannot object to what they themselves put in the Bill originally, and it stayed in the Bill throughout the whole time of the Committee stage in another place. So what objection to this amendment and to the schedule there can be must either be the practical proposals in the schedule, or the idea that the Bill, as it stands now, represents some compromise or consensus reached in the last hours of the Bill in another place.
1338
But even consensus politics should be open to scrutiny in this House. On the various provisions and conditions in the schedule there is room for accommodation, and the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made eight points of criticism of the provisions of the schedule to this amendment. I am ready to deal with them all in a co-operative spirit, but there is no point in taking up the time of the House in fruitless discussion of the detail, if the main purpose of the amendment is unacceptable on any terms whatsoever. I hope that we are not deceiving ourselves. May we be told quite frankly: is there any hope of reaching agreement on this amendment, if the eight points of difficulty raised by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can be met or overcome?
I want to make it clear that I do not want to block this Bill. I want to improve it and make it a better and a fairer Bill than it is at present. This is not a wrecking amendment. It is what was in the Bill to start with and it remained there all through. It does not upset any balances in the Bill, beyond a reasonable extension of the rights of the adult citizen to get what he or she wants and may lawfully obtain.
Can we have the truth about this? If the truth is that the sponsors and the Government want to keep to the timetable imposed on this Bill by the Private Member's Bill procedure and are resisting all amendments, in the meantime. which might give rise to a debate in another place, I would submit to them respectfully that this is their chosen instrument for carrying out their promise to legislate. I believe that they chose wrongly, but it is possible for the Government to reverse the course they have taken, if they so wish. There are precedents for Government giving extra time in another place for the consideration of the final stages of a Bill which represents a body of opinion on a matter of public concern. There is no reason, except doctrinaire observance of the conventions, why the Government should not get this Bill in their own time and should not be bound by the self-imposed timetable of the Private Member's Bill procedure.
I hope, therefore, that at this hour we can be candid about it. I am waiting to hear, especially from the Minister, if he feels so disposed, of any gesture which can be made from the Benches opposite to try to remedy this dramatic and, in my opinion, grossly unfair curtailment of the opportunities for the procurement of a lawful product by adult citizens who want it. This is a serious blemish on the Bill as it stands. I renew my support for Amendment No. 30. I am ready to withdraw it, if the awaited sign is given. I cannot say more than that.
I hope that some word will be said about where we are on this Bill. There are other amendments to follow which are of some importance, though they are not so important, perhaps, as this amendment. Are we merely knocking our heads against a brick wall? Are the Government adamant that they are not prepared to concede anything which may give rise to debate in another place when the Bill is returned to them? Or is the House prepared, however modestly, to exercise its revising role and have a look at what is proposed in the Bill, especially at the slightly more liberal approach to the opportunity for acquisition of this product, for which the amendment provides. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for restating the arguments so fairly and succinctly. For my part, I said last week all that I wished to say on the issue and I do not propose to repeat it, but I feel that I must take the first opportunity to say something about what has happened since last week. In The Times of last Saturday there was a report, clearly inspired by discussions with noble Lords, which said:
"Government ministers in the Lords are to attempt to crush efforts by a Labour peer to block legislation controlling the distribution of video recordings. Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who opposes the Video Recordings Bill on civil liberties grounds, last Wednesday night upset the Government's hopes to get it through its report stage in one sitting, when he kept the House talking into the early hours and then forced a division at a time when there was not a quorum of 30 peers.".
I do not know who gave that information to the political reporter of The Times, but as far as I am concerned that is a gross distortion of the events of last Wednesday night and Thursday morning.
In the course of that debate there was a very long debate, initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Henderskelfe, on the exemption of video programmes which had already been approved by the BBC and the IBA. It was a very properly and very effectively initiated debate. There was also a debate which lasted for 30 minutes, mainly initiated by my noble friend Lord Mishcon, on the export of video works. Again that debate was very properly initiated and very effectively debated. I initiated a debate which took some time, though I cannot quite tell from Hansard the number of minutes it lasted, on the ages which would be used in the classification system.
The point I am trying to make is that many noble Lords took part in the debate and that it is quite wrong for The Times to put all of this on to my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. It is also quite wrong that anybody should suggest such a thing to the political reporter of The Times. It can only have come from somebody in this House. I want to register my support for my noble friend and my distaste at the way in which the press is being used to point the finger at him for what is a perfectly proper exercise of his responsibilities as a Member of this House.
I want to say one more thing before I sit down. I have been personally attacked by a number of noble Lords for supporting my noble friend and for pursuing the matter of a Division in the early hours of the morning. I have indicated already that I thought the debate was perfectly proper. I now want to indicate that I think pursuing a Division was also perfectly proper. The strictures placed upon us by my noble friend on the Front Bench, among others, were not proper. I am sorry—I will withdraw that remark; it was not that they were improper but that they were misguided, I would prefer to say.
The procedure that has been adopted in respect of this major issue of civil liberties has been for a Private Member's Bill from another place to come here; for it to be sponsored and to be supported on numerous occasions by the Government. It cannot be improper for noble Lords to continue to question those important issues of public concern whenever and however they feel that they should.
If this Bill is a matter of such importance to noble
1340
Lords and to the Government, then I suggest that under the rules of this House it is proper for those who propose this Bill to see to it that they have a quorum of 30 Peers prepared to go into the Division Lobbies to support this legislation. If they had not done so, how could it be said that the Opposition carrying through a Division was somehow contrary to the spirit of the rules of this House? Nobody has suggested that it was contrary to the letter of the rules of this House.
I firmly reject the accusations which have been made to me personally and particularly those accusations which have been made to my noble friend. If this matter is of such importance that it proceeds through this House by means of a Private Member's Bill, then surely it is not unreasonable to see to it that 30 Members out of more than 1,000 Members of your Lordships' House should be in attendance to see this legislation through and to support its terms.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I believe that I should ask for the leave of the House as I have already spoken to this amendment.
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Nugent of Guildford: I shall be pleased to answer briefly the arguments of the noble Lord. Lord Houghton, in reply to the original debate we had. I did recognise, as I told him at the time, that his amendments and his new schedule had been carefully considered. I proceeded to go at least a little way to analysing the schedule he proposed, which sought to control the granting of a licence for video shops, which could then trade in 18R video works. I do not propose to trouble the House with a rehearsal of the points I made to the noble Lord on that occasion. No doubt noble Lords will remember them, and they are in any event all on the record.
The fact remains that there are fundamental differences between the system of control which the noble Lord proposes in his schedule compared with the schedule to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which controls the licensing of sex shops and to which local authorities throughout the country agreed. Noble Lords will remember that local authorities, when asked to assume that responsibility, were most insistent upon the conditions under which they were prepared to do so.
The noble Lord's schedule was a very long way from that legislation. It would need fundamental amendment and a great deal of negotiation with local authorities before agreement could possibly be obtained. At the end of it, I am quite certain that the noble Lord would not achieve a figure of 1,500 or 2,500 licensed outlets—or anything like it—because local authorities simply would not be willing. We are dealing with a fundamental point here. The idea is all right but the practice is a very long way from being possible.
Another point that I should like to make to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—or it ought to come from my noble friend, because we have been locked together for so long debating these matters—is that in considering the number of outlets, the noble Lord does

1341
have a good point when he argues that the number of sex shops throughout the country is very limited, and that compared with the total number of outlets now for video works it seems diminutive. On the other hand, the number of places at which one can see an 18R film is also very limited. Such a film can be seen only in a film club or in a sex shop, and there are not so many of those about. Not only is there the limitation of the age regulation—for the person to be 18 years of age or more—but there is also the very considerable limitation on the number of places where such films can be seen.
I quite agree that we are going further than that, but we are not straying quite as far as the noble Lord indicated. I feel that I must advise the House that there is not the technical basis for considering the noble Lord's very carefully thought-out amendment. It does not meet the conditions which we all have in mind for this particular outlet.
Before I come to the final point, it is a fact that with enormous difficulty the other place reached a consensus on this difficult matter, and this is the point on which they struck the balance. Those who wanted to exclude R18 material altogether from classification agreed to accept that it should be classified provided outlet was limited to these very tightly regulated sex shops, with all the conditions of physical control which exist to ensure that only adults can get at them. Of course, we are the revising Chamber and it is right for us to offer our views and to send down amendments whenever we think them appropriate, but it would be
1342
lunacy, if we want the Bill, to amend this particular point. It would make absolutely certain that the Bill would he lost.
I am quite certain that most of us here, and most Members in the other place, want to see the Bill on the statute book. They believe that classification is necessary. Therefore, I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that while recognising that he has made a very sincere and carefully considered attempt to put forward an alternative it is not possible to say that we could take it away and consider how it might be applied. It simply does not fit. Therefore, I must ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I rise only for one moment to deal with the remarks of my noble friend Lord McIntosh which I am quite sure were extremely well meant. He referred to the strictures for which I am supposed to be responsible on my noble and much respected friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. If he will do me the courtesy of reading Hansard he will find that there were no strictures. My speech constituted a plea. The plea was unsuccessful, but I do not regret one word of what I then said.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: No, my Lords.
On Question, amendment negatived.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9, line 3, after ("enactment") insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it is possible for me to do so, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 en bloc. They are all associated amendments.
Amendment No. 32: Page 9, line 10, after ("shop") insert ("or a licensed video shop")
Amendment No. 33: Page 9, line 13, after ("shop") insert ("or such a video shop")
Amendment No. 34: Page 9, line 23, after ("enactment") insert ("or a video shop for which a licence is in force under this Act")
.4mendment No. 35: Page 9, line 37, after ("shop") insert ("or a licensed video shop")
Amendment No. 36: Page 10, line 1, after ("shops") insert ("or video shops")
Amendment No. 37: Page 10, line 3, at end insert ("or being video shops for which licences are in force under this Act")
I cannot withdraw these amendments because I feel that they are all part of the package which I have presented and, therefore, I respectfully ask that the House should deal with them. Therefore, if it is in order, I move Amendments Nos. 31 to 37 inclusive.
Noble Lords: And Amendment No. 38.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he includes Amendment No. 38 in the package, too?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: Yes, my Lords, I am prepared to do that. I thought that it was probably not closely enough identifiable with the other amendments. I thought that I might be out of order in trying to associate Amendment No. 38 with the others. However, if it is the wish of the House I certainly do so.
Amendment No. 38: Page 10, line 4, at end insert—
("( ) In this section "video shop" means any premises used for a business which consists to a significant degree of selling, hiring, exchanging, lending, displaying or demonstrating video recordings.
( ) A video shop is licensed for the purposes of this Act if a licence in respect of such a shop is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Schedule to this Act.")
Amendment No. 51: After Clause 23, insert the following Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
LICENSING OF VIDEO SHOPS
Miscellaneous Definitions
1. In this Schedule—
"the appropriate authority" means the local authority for the area in which the relevant video shop is located; and
"the chief officer of police", in relation to any locality, means the chief officer of police for the police area in which the locality is situated.
Grant, renewal and transfer of licences for video shops
2. Subject to paragraph 6(1) below, the appropriate authority may grant to any applicant, and from time to time renew, a licence under this Schedule for the use of any premises as a video shop for the purposes of this Act on such terms and conditions and subject to such restrictions as may be so specified.
3.—(1) Subject to paragraphs 5 and 17 below, any licence under this Schedule shall, unless previously cancelled under paragraph 10 or revoked under paragraph 11(1) below, remain in force for one year.
(2) Where a licence under this Schedule has been granted to any person, the appropriate authority may, if they think fit, transfer that licence to any other person on the application of that other person.
4.—(1) An application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall be made in writing to the appropriate authority.
(2) An application made otherwise than by or on behalf of a body corporate or an unincorporated body shat) state—

(a) the full name of the applicant;

(b) his permanent address; and

(c) his age.

(3) An application made by a body corporate or an unincorporated body shall state—

(a) the full name of the body:

(b) the address of its registered or principal office; and

(c) the full names and private addresses of the directors or other persons responsible for its management.

(4) An application shall state the full address of the premises.
(5) Every application shall contain such particulars as the appropriate authority may reasonably require in addition to any particulars required under sub-paragraphs (2) to (4) above.
(6) An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall give public notice of the application.
(7) Notice shall in all cases be given by publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper circulating in the appropriate authority's area.
(8) The publication shall not be later than 7 days after the date of the application.
(9) Notice of the application shall in addition be displayed for 21 days beginning with the date of the application on or near the premises and in a place where the notice can conveniently be read by the public.
(10) Every notice under this paragraph shall identify the premises.
(11) Subject to sub-paragraph (10) above, a notice under this paragraph shall be in such form as the appropriate authority may prescribe.
(12) An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall, not later than 7 days after the date of the application, send a copy of the application to the chief officer of police.
(13) Any person objecting to an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall give notice in writing of his objection to the appropriate authority stating in general terms the grounds of the objection, not later than 28 days after the date of application.
(14) Where the appropriate authority receive notice of any objection under sub-paragraph (13) above, the authority shall, before considering the application, give notice in writing of the general terms of the objection to the applicant.
(15) The appropriate authority shall not without the consent of the person making the objection reveal his name or address to the applicant.
(16) In considering any application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence the appropriate authority shall have regard to any observation submitted to them by the chief officer of police and any objections of which notice has been sent to them under sub-paragraph (13) above.
(17) The appropriate authority shall give an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a committee or subcommittee of the authority—

(a) before refusing to grant a licence, to the applicant;

(b) before refusing to renew a licence, to the holder; and

(c) before refusing to transfer a licence, to the holder and the person to whom he desires that it shall be transferred.

(18) Where the appropriate authority refuse to grant, renew or transfer a licence, they shall, if required to do so by the applicant or holder of the licence, give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decisions within 7 days of his requiring them to do so.
5.—(1) Where, before the date of expiry of a licence, an application has been made for its renewal, it shall be deemed to remain in force notwithstanding that the date has passed until the withdrawal of the application or its determination by the appropriate authority.
(2) Where, before the date of expiry of a licence, an application has been made for its transfer, it shall be deemed to remain in force with any necessary modifications until the withdrawal of the application or its determination, notwithstanding that the date has passed or that the person to whom the licence is to be transferred if the application is granted is carrying on the business of the video shop.
Refusal of licences
6.—(1) A licence under this Schedule shall not be granted—

(a) to a person under the age of 18; or

(b) to a person who is for the time being disqualified under paragraph 11(3) below; or

(c) to a person who has, within a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date when the application was made, been refused the grant or renewal of a licence for the premises in respect of which the application is made, unless the refusal has been reversed on appeal.

(2) Subject to paragraph 17 below, the appropriate authority may refuse—

(a) an application for the grant or renewal of a licence on one or more of the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (3) below;

(b) an application for the transfer of a licence on either or both of the grounds specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of that sub-paragraph.

(3) The grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) above are—

(a) that the applicant is unsuitable to hold the licence by reason of having been convicted of an offence under this Act;

(b) that if the licence were to be granted, renewed or transferred the business to which it relates would be managed by or carried on for the benefit of a person, other than the applicant, who would be refused the grant, renewal or transfer of such a licence if he made the application himself; or

(c) that the grant or renewal of the licence would be inappropriate having regard to the layout, character or condition of the premises in respect of which the application is made.

Power to prescribe standard conditions
7.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this Schedule, the appropriate authority may make regulations prescribing standard conditions applicable to licences for video shops, that is to say, terms, conditions and restrictions on or subject to which licences under this Schedule are in general to be granted, renewed or transferred by them, in so far as those conditions regulate:

(a) displays or advertisements on or in such video shops; and

(b) the visibility of the interior of such video shops to passers-by.

(2) Where the appropriate authority have made regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above, every such licence granted, renewed or transferred by them shall be presumed to have been so granted, renewed or transferred subject to any standard conditions applicable to it unless they have been expressly excluded or varied.
(3) Where the appropriate authority have made regulations under sub-paragraph (1) above, they shall, if so requested by any person, supply him with a copy of the regulations on payment of such reasonable fee as the authority may determine.
(4) In any legal proceedings the production of a copy of any regulations made by the appropriate authority under subparagraph (1) above purporting to be certified as a true copy by an officer of the authority authorised to give a certificate for the purposes of this paragraph shall be prima facie evidence of such regulations, and no proof shall be required of the handwriting or official position or authority of any person giving such certificate.
Copies of licences and standard conditions
8.—(l) The holder of a licence under this Schedule shall keep exhibited in a suitable place to be specified in the licence a copy of the licence and any regulations made under paragraph 7(1) above which prescribe standard conditions subject to which the licence is held.
(2) The appropriate authority shall send a copy of any licence granted under this Schedule to the chief officer of police for the area where the video shop is situated.
Transmission and cancellation of licences
9. In the event of the death of the holder of a licence granted under this Schedule, that licence shall be deemed to have been granted to his personal representatives and shall, unless previously revoked, remain in force until the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the death and shall then expire; but the appropriate authority may from time to time, on the application of those representatives, extend or further extend the period of three months if the authority are satisfied that the extension is necessary for the purpose of winding up the deceased's estate and that no other circumstances make it undesirable.
10. The appropriate authority may, at the written request of the holder of a licence, cancel the licence.
Revocation of licences
11 .—(1) The appropriate authority may, after giving the holder of a licence under this Schedule an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by them, at any time revoke the licence—

(a) on any ground specified in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 6 above; or

(b) on either of the grounds specified in sub-paragraph (3)(a) and (b) of that paragraph.

(2) Where a licence is revoked, the appropriate authority shall, if required to do so by the person who held it, give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decision within 7 days of his requiring them to do so.
(3) Where a licence is revoked, its holder shall be disqualified from holding or obtaining a licence in the area of the appropriate authority for a period of 12 months beginning with the date of revocation.
Variation of licences
12.—(1) The holder of a licence under this Schedule may at any time apply to the appropriate authority for any such variation of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which the licence is held as may be specified in the application.
(2) The appropriate authority—

(a) may make the variation specified in the application; or

(b) may make such variations as they think fit; or

(c) may refuse the application.

(3) The variations that an authority may make by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(b) above include, without prejudice to the generality of that sub-paragraph, variations involving the imposition of terms, conditions or restrictions other than those specified in the application.
Fees
13. An applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule shall pay a reasonable fee determined by the appropriate authority, not exceeding £350.
Enforcement
14. Any person who, in connection with an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule, makes a false statement which he knows to be false in any material respect or which he does not believe to be true, shall be guilty of an offence.
15. A person who, being the holder of a licence under this Schedule, fails without reasonable excuse to comply with paragraph 8(1) above shall be guilty of an offence.
Offences relating to persons under 18
16. A person who, being the holder of a licence for a video shop—

(a) without reasonable excuse knowingly permits a person under 18 years of age to enter the video shop; or

(b) employs a person known to him to be under 18 years of age in the business of the video shop, shall be guilty of an offence.

Appeals
17.—(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, any of the following persons, that is to say—

(a) an applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence under this Schedule whose application is refused;

(b) an applicant for the variation of the terms, conditions or restrictions on or subject to which any such licence is held whose application is refused;

(c) a holder of any such licence who is aggrieved by any term, condition or restriction on or subject to which the licence is held; or

(d) a holder of any such licence whose licence is revoked may at any time before the expiration of the period of 21 days beginning with the relevant date appeal to the magistrates' court act for the relevant area.

(2) An applicant whose application for the grant or renewal of a licence is refused, or whose licence is revoked, on any ground specified in paragraph 6(1) above shall not have a right to appeal under this paragraph unless the applicant seeks to show that the ground did not apply to him.
(3) In this paragraph—
"the relevant area" means the petty sessions area in which the premises are situated; and
"the relevant date" means the date on which the person in question is notified of the refusal of his application, the imposition of the term, condition or restriction by which he is aggrieved or the revocation of his licence, as the case may be.
(4) An appeal against the decision of a magistrates' court under this paragraph may be brought to the Crown Court.
(5) Where an appeal is brought to the Crown Court under sub-paragraph (5) above, the decision of the Crown Court shall be final; and accordingly in section 28(2) of the Supreme Court Act 1981 after the words "the Gaming Act 1968 or the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982" there shall be added the words "or the Video Recordings Act 1984".
(6) On an appeal to the magistrates' court or the Crown Court under this paragraph the court may make such order as it thinks fit.
(7) Subject to sub-paragraph (8) to (11) below, it shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to give effect to an order of the magistrates' court or the Crown Court.
(8) The appropriate authority need not give effect to the order of the magistrates' court until the time for bringing an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination of abandonment of the appeal.
(9) Where a licence is revoked or an application for the renewal of a licence is refused, the licence shall be deemed to remain in force—

(a) until the time for bringing an appeal under this paragraph has expired and, if such an appeal is duly brought, until the determination or abandonment of the appeal; and

(b) where an appeal relating to the refusal of an application for such a renewal is successful and no further appeal is available, until the licence is renewed by the appropriate authority.

(10) Where—

(a) the holder of a licence makes an application under paragraph 12 above; and

(b) the appropriate authority impose any term, condition or restriction other than one specified in the application,

the licence shall be deemed to be free of it until the time for bringing an appeal under this paragraph has expired.
(11) Where an appeal is brought under this paragraph against the imposition of any such term, condition or restriction, the licence shall be deemed to be free of it until the determination or abandonment of the appeal.
Commencement of Schedule
18. This Schedule shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.")
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 31 to 38 inclusive are moved en bloc.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, surely the correct procedure is for Amendment No. 31 to be moved by the noble Lord and. in moving it, speak to Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 at the same time. I think that that is the correct procedure.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, if that is the wish of the House, Amendment No. 31 proposed.
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Speaker: Amendment No. 32, Lord Houghton of Sowerby.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I move.
The Deputy Speaker: Not moved. Amendment No. 33.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords. I think I moved it. I move.
The Deputy Speaker: Not moved.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am a little confused on the order, my Lords.
The Deputy Speaker: Is the noble Lord moving Amendment No. 33, or not?
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I want all the amendments to be dealt with by the House. Have I moved only Amendment No. 31? Can we not take them en bloc, or do we have to take them separately? This is the point.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord the Opposition Chief Whip was absolutely in order when he said that the first amendment was moved and the others were consequential upon that. All I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has to say is, "Not moved", because the other amendments have gone in with the original amendment, Amendment No. 31. If the noble Lord is agreeable, that is how we shall proceed.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My only difficulty, my Lords, is this. If amendments are not moved, it appears that the record contains no reference to the fact that they have been dealt with and disposed of by the House. I am very anxious indeed that, when we come to the schedule, the schedule shall go on the record, so that those who may be interested in our debates shall see exactly what was before the House. That is why I wish the House to dispose of all the amendments, so that they go on the record. I submit to any ruling as to how that can be done.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord is already on the record as having spoken to the long list of amendments which he has just repeated; so they are on the record. The amendments which we now come to cannot stand on their own because the paving amendments have fallen. Therefore, the noble Lord would be moving something which could not stand, and he would be in an illogical position. I think that the House quite sympathises with his enthusiasm in this case, but I hope that I can persuade him that the rules of order and logic mean that he should say, "Not moved", as he comes to each of these amendments and rely upon the record already in Hansard to show the enthusiasm which he feels.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am prepared to do that, my Lords, if, as I say, when we come to Amendment No. 51, the schedule which I proposed and spoke to can be included in the record. The reason I am in doubt about that is that, at the time of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, I

1349
proposed a whole new schedule to deal with dog control and it had a paving amendment before it, like this. When it came to the end of the day, there was no record of what I had moved in the proposed schedule. I am rather afraid that I might suffer the same misfortune tonight. If the schedule can go in the record, I am content; otherwise. I must try to move it.
Lord Elton: My Lords. perhaps I may just say—and I am always happy to bow to superior experience and wisdom—that the schedule must depend upon the original clause which the noble Lord sought to insert in the Bill. Presumably the schedule cannot exist in the Bill without the clause upon which it is dependent. The noble Lord wants the schedule to be printed in the Official Report, but it can be printed in the Official Report only if he moves it. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, shakes his head. I am quite happy to be corrected on this, and I am quite happy for it to appear in the record, but I do not see that we have the machinery to get it in the record by this means at this stage.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, the position is that the procedure for the printing of Hansard has been changed in the past 18 months or so, and if a noble Lord moves an amendment which is associated with a number of other amendments, the text of all the amendments with which it is associated is printed in Hansard because of the very difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to in the previous Bill, and that difficulty is now eliminated.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, may I suggest that we now continue where we were and deal with the amendments which have been moved en bloc already by the noble Lord? He will now I hope say "Not moved" until the end of Amendment No. 38.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as I understand it—and I hope noble Lords will sympathise with my confusion—on Amendment No. 31 the Not-Contents had it. With the leave of the House, we are now dealing with Amendments Nos. 32 to 38 en bloc.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I would rather the Not-Contents still "have it" all round the clock so long as I can get my schedule on the record. I thought a moment or two ago I had a real friend in my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, indicating that if amendments are moved all together the whole bundle are moved as one and they go in the record as one. That is really what I am asking. One cannot begin to dissect the package of amendments that I have moved and associated together and the record contain reference to only one of them. That will not make any sense to people reading the official record.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I understand that the amendment with which we are now dealing, which has been proposed, is Amendment No. 32.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, in order to get it on the record I must formally move Amendment No. 32.
[Printed earlier: col. 1343.]
On Question, amendment negatived.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, with the leave of the House, Amendments Nos. 33 to 38 have been moved en bloc. The Question is that these amendments be agreed to.
On Question, amendments negatived.
Clause 15 [Penalties]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 11, line 20, leave out ("summary conviction") and insert ("conviction summarily or after trial on indictment")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I referred to the possibility that the noble Lord the Minister might have something to say on this matter. I thought it was a matter reserved for a further consideration without commitment, but I will gladly hand this over to my noble friend Lord Mishcon.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, it is extremely gratuitous of my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I much appreciate it and I promise to be extremely brief. This matter was argued very cogently at the Committee stage and the Committee was extremely impressed, not with the speech that I made but with the contribution that I remember was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. The whole purpose of this amendment is to give the right of trial by jury in regard to offences which are very serious and which quite obviously register against the good name of any person convicted. The main reason behind the giving of the opportunity for a jury trial was because of the provisions of this Bill—and I am looking at Clause 9, dealing with offences and penalties—where, in subsection (2) the defence is stated to a charge of committing an offence under this clause, by proving that an accused believed on reasonable grounds that various matters had occurred. They are set out in Clause 9(2)(a) and (b). It is eminently the practice and tradition of our law, and of our criminal law, that where anything depends upon the reasonableness of a ground, that is eminently a matter for a jury to decide.
That was the point that was underlined when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, made his contribution; and I believe, as I said, not so much convinced by what I said as by what the noble and learned Lord said, the Minister gave an undertaking that there would be consideration given to the arguments that were then advanced. I hope that that consideration has led to a favourable decision, and with that hope I sit down.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we return here to a matter discussed at Committee stage. The amendment would ensure that offences under Clauses 9 and 10 are triable

1351
either way, summarily or on indictment. As the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has reminded us, following a persuasive speech by himself and a very persuasive intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford and I undertook to consider the question further in the light of those comments. I now come bearing the fruits of our further consideration, though I am afraid that they may not be altogether of the colour that the noble Lord opposite hoped they might be.
I remind your Lordships that one of the main purposes of the Bill is to ensure that swift justice may be dealt to those who evade the certification system introduced by the Bill; for example, by supplying video nasties. At present, where cases are brought under the Obscene Publications Act, for instance, there may be several months' delay before suppliers of articles alleged to be obscene appear in court. Meanwhile, there may well be nothing to prevent them carrying on their trade in this objectionable material. The Bill seeks to cut through that log-jam.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, considered that a defendant who wished to argue, say, that he believed on reasonable grounds that a video work had been classified or was exempted, or that a supply was exempted, should have the opprotunity to argue his case before a jury. When responding to such points, it is always a comfort to have precedents on one's side, particularly since at the Committee stage the noble Lord asked me to find precedents. I should therefore like to cite one or two examples of existing offences that are triable summarily only but on which the courts may need to form a view on the defendant's state of mind. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which deals with the licensing of sex establishments, makes it an offence for a person to make certain false statements,
"which he knows to be false in any material respect or which he does not believe to be true".
Paragraph 23 of that schedule provides that a holder of a licence for a sex establisment who,
"without reasonable excuse knowingly permits a person under 18 years of age to enter the establishment; or employs a person known to him to be under 18 years of age in the business of the establishment",
is guilty of an offence.
Turning to other areas of the law, there are, for example, provisions for defences based on reasonable belief to be raised in connection with summary offences contained in Section 40 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, Section 3(4) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968, and Section 33(5) of the Fisheries Act 1981. So what we are proposing is by no means new.
I should also like to point out that certain offences under Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 and under the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982 are subject to fines of up to £20,000 and they are triable summarily only. Again, therefore, we are not creating a precedent.
As I pointed out in Committee, the issues to be tried under this Bill will mostly be simple. The Government believe that magistrates will be perfectly capable of
1352
dealing with them, and, particularly, given the precedents we have cited, we see no difficulty here even though fines may be levied up to £20,000 and defendants may rely on defences based on reasonable belief. We do not therefore believe that the Bill should be altered in the way that the amendment proposes. We prefer swift justice and a swift end in particular to breaches of the law. I hope therefore that noble Lords will draw some reassurance from the precedents I have mentioned and will be content not to press this.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I ask for permission to speak again, but what I am, in fact, doing, as noble Lords will appreciate, is to abbreviate the proceedings because my amendment, worded slightly differently, follows upon the amendment of my noble friend Lord Houghton. I am therefore trying hard to make one debate of it, and not two. Therefore, I ask for your Lordships' leave.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply—very disappointed. I am very disappointed because the precedents that were brought before your Lordships have no relevance, if I may respectfully say so, to the point that I was making and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was making. Precedents were quoted about, "without reasonable excuse", "he knows", or, "is deemed to know", or, "should know". Obviously these are matters that are capable of being tried by magistrates without giving the accused the right of a jury trial.
But, following upon my own efforts in this direction the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed to the matters that would have to be decided, and they relate particularly to Clause 2, which deals with exempted works. The exempted works are those:
"… designed to inform, educate or instruct;
… concerned with sport, religion or music; or
… a video game".
These are matters absolutely unrelated to any precedent which the noble Lord the Minister has cited to the House. Obviously it is, and must be, the right of any person charged with an offence to appear before jurors and see whether those jurors feel that in all the circumstances it was a reasonable belief that he had in regard to his explanation that they came within the exempted Clause 2.
I am not impressed, and I hope your Lordships will not be impressed, by the term, "swift justice". If the noble Lord the Minister had ventured to say, "swift and complete justice" he would have had the sympathy of the House; but swift justice without complete justice is not worthy of your Lordships, not worthy of this House and not worthy of our great legal tradition. There ought to be a right of trial by jury; there ought to be a system whereby trials can be brought on speedily.
These are simple issues. There is no earthly reason for any delay, either by prosecution or defence; and it is not a defendant's fault if the courts cannot fit in a case with the proper amount of speed on what the noble Lord the Minister himself described as a very simple issue. One must not make the accused responsible for the courts' failure to do that, and I do not believe the courts will fail. My Lords, if the

1353
Minister cannot accede to the amendment, in spite of my plea to him, this is a matter on which I would ask for the opinion of the House to be taken.
9.42 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 39) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 12; Not-Contents, 39.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L.

Beswick, L.

Mishcon, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Kagan, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Attlee, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Barrington, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Bellwin, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Belstead, L.

Mottistone, L.

Buckmaster, V.

Norwich, Bp.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]

Coleraine, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Reading, M.

Denham, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Elton, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Glanusk, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grantchester, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Ingleby, V.

Vickers, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 40 not moved.]
9.51 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 11, line 33, at end insert ("In this subsection "the standard scale" has the meaning given by section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 41. Perhaps I might be allowed to speak to Amendment No. 42 at the same time.
Amendment No. 42: Page 11, line 34, leave out subsection (4).
These two amendments are related to Clause 15(4), which deals with the meaning of "the standard scale" in subsection (3) and ensures that it has the meaning assigned to it by Section 75 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. It also provides for this section to apply to Northern Ireland, and ensures that for the purposes of the penalties in Clause 15(3) any inflation-proofing order made in respect of fines applying in England and Wales will extend also to Northern Ireland.
However—and this is the main point—as a result of the Fines and Penalties (Northern Ireland) Order
1354
1984, which was recently made and which comes into force next month on 18th July, references to "the standard scale" are, for Northern Ireland, automatically translated into references to the standard scale established by that order. The ad hoc extension to Northern Ireland of the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 is therefore no longer required. These amendments make the necessary adjustments to this Bill, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Nugent of Guildford Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 42:
[Printed above.]
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 (Entry, search and seizure]:
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 12, line 33, after ("constable") insert ("named therein")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 43. I referred at an earlier stage of the Bill to the fact that in previous legislation on a subject of this kind the provisions regarding a warrant for entry and search referred to "a constable named therein". This Bill refers to "any constable". We are on this and other amendments getting close to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I believe that that Bill tries to rationalise, or simplify, the varying standards of treatment of these matters in a great variety of separate Acts of Parliament.
The Lord Chancellor, in his speech the other day on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, referred to the piecemeal legislation in different parts of the statute book all relating to the powers of the police in the conduct of matters relating to entry and search. It may be, therefore, that the new doctrine about warrants to be given by magistrates or circuit judges—warrants giving authority for entry to be made by force if necessary to search for evidence—will not contain a reference to a named constable. The Minister may have some information on this. I do not press this amendment because I think that the relevant clause of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (Clause 16) does not specify a named constable. So there is no point in having a debate here on the question of a named constable if a new pattern of law in this field is to be settled in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I should be glad to receive guidance on this and to learn whether or not it is a matter which we can dispose of quite quickly here. This is Amendment No. 43. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, there are obvious practical difficulties in meeting the point of the noble Lord's amendment regarding a named constable. Of course, it is a named constable who has to make the application for the warrant, and he must give his evidence under oath to the magistrate who is to issue the warrant. But when it comes to making the entry, if the police forces are required to apply the warrant to a named constable only when the entry may be a few weeks later, or at some later date, all kinds of difficulties may arise; the constable may even

1355
be off duty sick at the time, or be doing something else. There are clearly practical difficulties in meeting the points which the noble Lord raises. As he rightly says, there are substantial safeguards in Clauses 15 and 16 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, but there is no requirement in them for the specific naming of the constable who is to make the entry.
Looked at from the point of view of the private citizen—which is the aspect from which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is, quite rightly, looking at it—I do not think it really adds to his safeguards if the constable who is to make the entry is specifically named. There are other safeguards of which the noble Lord is well aware; in particular, that the magistrate must he satisfied that the constable has good reason to believe that an offence has been committed, and the constable must satisfy the magistrate before whom he gives his evidence and makes out his case that this is so. There are safeguards there. However, the actual naming of the constable who will make the entry would not, I think, add significantly to the safeguards to the private citizen, but would cause very considerable practical difficulties.
If the noble Lord feels very strongly about this, he has an opportunity to raise it again on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, in particular on Clauses 15 and 16, and it might be appropriate there. I hope that the noble Lord will feel, in the light of the answer that I have been able to give him, and as the situation appears here, that the amendment would really be undesirable. I hope therefore the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am satisfied with that explanation. It may be that in the course of my researches I came across an antiquity in an earlier Act of Parliament when they were more meticulous about these things. I can quite see the difficulty of having a named constable throughout the piece, especially in these days. In any event, I think this will all come out in the wash on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, if it is of sufficient importance to raise it there. With the leave of the House, I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 12, line 37, leave out ("anything") and insert ("any video recording, video spool or video case")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is perhaps of rather more substance, though here again the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill contains proposals regarding it. It is Section 16 that I again refer to—a search of premises, a list of goods seized and other matters related to this form of crime control.
Here we have to have regard to the particular nature of the products which are the object of suspicion, when a warrant for entry and search is being applied for and when the search and seizure is being carried out. There can only be one thing in a video recording shop and that is a video recording. That is where the mischief lies, if any mischief is there at all.
This word "anything" has some dangers which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hooson, in column 418 of the debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill last week. He thought that a memorandum by chief constables on this subject required consideration in connection with the Bill. Lord Hooson said, when he was talking about the evident weaknesses of the Bill, that first, parts of its provisions are far too complicated and obscure and are greatly in need of simplification, and, secondly, it fails to distinguish between what is evidence and what is information.
The important points when goods and products are being seized in a raid are: what are they looking for and what are they taking? Sometimes the police can take documents which are not in themselves evidence because they require evidence from another party to turn them into evidence. They are ex parte documents. Yet the Bill refers to "anything". It is probably desirable to specify what may be taken. This is not a grocer's shop, or even a sex shop, where there is a variety of goods and equipment.
In all events material is being sought which is obscene in the opinion of the constable and in breach of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. When the Bill is enacted the police will be looking for video recordings which are in breach of the provisions of the Bill, which may not necessarily be obscene, but which may lack the necessary classification which gives them some immunity from police prosecution—or not, as the case may be. But should not the seizure process in the Bill be more specific about what may be seized? In the Children and Young Persons (Harmful Publications) Act back in 1955 it was specified that in the search the officer might "seize any of the following things", which were listed, but equipment was involved there, and different kinds of equipment. Here, as I understand it, we have only one thing. Certainly in the raids currently being made, and quite a number of them are undertaken, they seize video recordings; they seize spools; they seize tapes—they are the only things that they can be taking to be in breach of the law, which they are defending. The same will surely apply when the Bill becomes law. Why should the word "anything" be in the Bill when it is not "anything"; it is things which are related to the charge which may be made; and that is only one thing, or one set of things, or one type of thing—and that is the video recording or spool. I shall be called to the Bar any minute! The "anything" is too wide, too dangerous, I think.
I shall come in a minute probably to some of the things that are happening on raids at the present time which are gravely disturbing. But I do not think they arise on this particular amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, the noble Lord once again has understandably tried to introduce safeguards for the benefit of the private citizen or trader who is concerned. But I think that we must also look at the practical problems involved. What the Bill says is:
"anything found there which he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence in any proceedings for an offence under this Act".

1357
I suppose that one could draw up a list. It would not be very easy, but one could. It seems to me that there will be other things besides video works or tapes. There may be documents, invoices, cheques, receipts and so on; for we are concerned not only with what one has got there but with evidence of trading. Supply is part of the offence. Therefore, I think it is essential to go wider than just the objects which the noble Lord has included in his amendment:
"any video recording, video spool or video case".
I do not think that that would be sufficient for the constable when he was gathering the material that could meet what is in the clause; that is, anything which,
"he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence".
I think that if the noble Lord will look at this problem in that context, he will see that it really would be necessary usually to gather more than the objects which he has mentioned. It seems perfectly reasonable to say as the limitation "anything" which he thinks reasonably would be required. Clearly if he has taken something which is unreasonable he could be taken to task on that. The alternative would be, if noble Lords really thought an amendment on this line was needed, that we would have to attempt to draw up a list. It would have to be quite compendious if it were going to cover everything that we could possibly conceive might be reasonably related as evidence.
I hope the noble Lord may feel that his point is met by the words that are here, in the confidence that when the constable's seizures are looked at he must meet the point that they are articles which,
"he has reasonable grounds to believe may be required to be used in evidence".
If they are not, then, clearly, he is outwith the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord will feel, in those circumstances, that he might be able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is extending the possibilities of the range of search far beyond what will ever be regarded as reasonable or necessary in cases like this. I have in my possession a good deal of evidence of what is happening in the courts in different parts of the country concerning prosecutions being undertaken under the Obscene Publications Act.
In all the cases I have looked at, the police are taking away tapes, cassettes and spools—the things that are in the shop—and not documents. They are charging people under the 1959 Act with publishing obscene publications. The obscenity lies in the publication, in the thing, so surely it will be in the future. If there is a charge that a person or a trader is holding unclassified video tapes and, in breach of the earlier clauses of the Bill, is trying to sell them or use them in a club, it will be the spools and the tapes that will be the object of police attention.
A case which took place in Leeds recently referred to the fact that the police raided three local shops in one group and seized suspected nastier. They were after things that were spools or videos, and not documentation. I am quoting from the report of this case which appeared in the Sunday Times of 27th May. The fact
1358
that the jury were told that the police had gathered evidence against the firm by having a constable join the club and give a bogus address raised a new dimension in the activities of the police.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting him before he embarks on that fascinating subject, I think I can help him. The offence may be having in his possession works which he intends to supply. He may deny the intention of supplying them when the offence is the supply. If there is then an invoice or a letter of acknowledgment of an order, that surely must be evidence that an offence has been committed, and without that evidence the prosecution would fail. That is only one example. There may well be others. But I think I have said enough to show the noble Lord that it is not just the objects themselves that have to be taken.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that. All I can say is that the range of possibilities in searches under this Bill will be far wider, apparently, than any possible under the Obscene Publications Act. What will this look like in practice when raids are made on private homes, shops and warehouses, and documentation is sought which may give evidence of an intention to supply, contrary to the Bill? Really, the search for firearms could not go further, could it? When cases of this kind occur, there will he the most appalling row as to the effect of this Bill on the rights and privacies of citizens. This particular case in Leeds contained other quite disgraceful elements. The jury, after six and a half days, threw out the charges and awarded costs against the police. But it takes a pretty good firm to be able to stand up to that kind of treatment.
I can only register dissatisfaction with the explanation, because I think there is a danger here that must not pass unnoticed. Therefore, I cannot withdraw the amendment because that would imply satisfaction with the position as it has been explained by both noble Lords opposite. I must therefore ask the House to dispose of this amendment in its own way.
On Question, amendment negatived.
10. 14 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 12, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) Any video recording, video spool or video case seized under subsection (2) above shall within one month be returned to the premises from which it was taken unless within that time proceedings under this Act are instituted with regard to it.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this, again, deals with matters related to the seizure of goods by the police after executing a warrant to enter and search premises and to remove what they feel is likely to be evidence against the person concerned. At the present time there seem to be no rules about this at all. It may be that under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill some more general consideration will be given to how long goods may be retained where they have been removed forcibly to be considered for prosecution. At present, when these goods are seized first of all in a number of cases there is difficulty in getting a list of what has been taken, although I believe

1359
that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is going to make provision for that.
What is more important is the amount of stock that can be removed and retained by the police without any charge being made or without any return of the goods that have been seized. I have a great deal of evidence about that. For example, video recordings seized at the beginning of April in some cases have not yet been returned; nor has any charge been preferred; nor have they been summoned to appear before a magistrate to show cause why the goods should not be forfeited. They are just bereft of the stock while the police are making up their minds. And in many cases the police are making up their minds by referring matters to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
In some cases I have here, the police are removing copies of spools which have been the subject of prosecutions and acquittals elsewhere, and I really believe that there is confusion arising between what is classified for viewing by the censorship authority and what may be open to prosecution under the 1959 Act. I think that for the sake of the reputation of the censorship authority it will be desirable to give their judgment some credence in the eyes of the law: otherwise there is going to be a raid on a shop or a home to get hold of video tapes which have already got a classification and which may even already have been the subject of prosecutions elsewhere. When is there going to be law and order among the police and those responsible for raiding? That is what is involved here, because if they are able to hold material like this they can ruin the trader by taking his stock away from him and doing nothing about either returning it or prosecuting him. That, in the case of books, has been done quite widely in some areas. You ruin the bookseller by taking away half his stock, and similarly you can do that in these cases.
That is why I think that it should be a requirement of this Bill that goods seized should be returned within a month to the premises from which they are taken unless within that time proceedings under the Act have been instituted with regard to it. As a matter of fact of course if the police want to, they can take copies or have copies made; and in some conditions of search and entry photocopies are made of documents which have been removed and which have to be returned within a certain time limit.
So there can be nothing unreasonable in this. The period of one month may be a little short; but I think three months is absolutely the outside, and probably too long. Is there going to be no safeguard at all against this procedure? I think that is very important indeed. In many cases, I am advised that the shopkeeper is so dejected, and probably frightened to some extent, that when the stock is taken he lets it go. He never hears any more about it and he just gets out of the situation as best he can. This is getting very near a police state in too literal a form and we ought to have adequate safeguards. But this stuff should go back unless prosecutions are to be launched or proceedings taken to require the person raided to appear in defence of what was taken and to make his case against forfeiture. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say anything on the previous amendment because I was, on the whole, convinced by the answers given by the Government and the sponsor of the Bill that evidence as to the supply of video recordings ought also to be seized. I appreciate that that means that the wording of the present amendment may be defective, because it still refers to video recordings, video spools or video cases, and not to all that matter which would have been seized under the Bill as at present drafted.
However, my noble friend has raised here a matter of the utmost importance: a matter of general civil liberty which is not in any way related to the justification or otherwise for the Bill itself. It is a fact—it cannot be denied—that there have been many examples over previous years where the police have, in effect, punished those who they wished to punish simply by seizing material and failing to return it or to bring prosecutions. I believe that fair-minded people would think that that was an abuse of police procedures and not what was intended by the law under which the seizures took place.
It may be that the definition of "video recording, video spool or video case" is inadequate. It may be, as my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, that the period ought not to be one month. It may even be that the term, "proceedings under this Act" is inexact. I do not know, as I am not a lawyer. But the principle that seizure should be for the purpose of prosecution, and that a decision should be taken within a reasonable period to proceed with that prosecution, or to restore the material seized, surely cannot be denied.
I have sufficient confidence in the Government and in the sponsor of this Bill to believe that they will separate the undoubted defects of the wording of this amendment from the purpose behind it, and indicate that they will see some way in which the intention, which I am sure all of your Lordships would wish to see, is pursued to enable this amendment to be withdrawn.
Lord Monson: My Lords, unlike the preceding two amendments, which obviously presented certain difficulties—and, like the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I agree that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, made out a convincing case against those two—I cannot see that there are any real snags in this amendment. I submit that acceptance of this amendment would help to minimise unnecessary interference with the freedom of the individual, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, can see his way to accepting this amendment; or, if he cannot do so for drafting reasons, to bring forward something himself very similar at Third Reading.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, we recognise that the noble Lord has a point; that a safeguard is needed in this field, and that a trader should not be victimised. But, as he rightly said, one month is probably too short. What we are relying on in this case is the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, where it is the Government's intention to make an amendment to Clause 21 of the Bill which will ensure that seized property is retained only so long as is necessary in all the circumstances. Clause 20 of that Bill will ensure

1361
that the owners of seized property have adequate right of access to, or copies of, such articles. These provisions will make a general safeguard. It is not thought possible to put a specific time limit on it; but obviously this is a point which will have to be discussed on that major Bill when it comes before the House. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, will already be aware that this point is not fully covered in Clause 21. However, it is the Government's intention to move an amendment which will do precisely this. The difficulty about a short period of one month would be that an unscrupulous trader could go to ground for a month. If we assume that he has committed an offence, his material, which had been seized, would have to be returned to him; so he could bob up again and go back to trading. Consequently, we have to find a balance which will safeguard the legitimate trader against unreasonable action but which, on the other hand, will catch the man who is clearly committing an offence.
I believe that the major Bill, which is about to come before the House—the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—will provide the safeguards which are reasonable and practical in the circumstances. It will also provide the safeguard which the noble Lord and his noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey very rightly feel is necessary. With that assurance I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied that his point is going to be met in this way.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I suppose one can only soldier on and hope that some of the aspects of this Bill, which have a bearing on general conditions of citizens' rights in similar circumstances, will be attended to. I feel very discontented with any explanation given when I find that one trader who had 55 tapes taken from his shop after a raid on 12th April, although a list of them was given to him, heard nothing about them afterwards. It is now 14th June. What is so vexing about these raids is that many of the spools already have classifications as films from the British Board of Film Censors.
We are coming up against the old difficulty. I have here a list of 14 cases which have been referred by the police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Six of them have BBFC classifications—either X or 18—and some of them are awaiting classification as films; yet off they go to the DPP, including two which were disposed of in the Leeds case the other week. Talk about public expenditure!
It seems to me that the bureaucracy which is at work in this field really has to be taken in hand. One way to take it in hand would be to say that these things should be kept for no longer than a limited period without them being returned to the trader, and that they had better get on with it, otherwise serious harm will be done both to the reputation of the police and to the economic interests of the trader.
In view of the fact that we can have another go at this question on the other Bill, which will probably be more relevant, because it will be related to other matters, and that we shall not be under the same conditions as to time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Arrest]:
10.30 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 46:
Page 13, line 7, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this matter was taken very much to heart by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. I see that his name is down to Amendment No. 47. Therefore I graciously give way to him, so that he may deal with his own amendment. I think the best course is for me not to move this amendment, so that Amendment No. 47 may be called.
[Amendment No. 46 not moved.]
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 47:
Leave out Clause 18.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House may recall that at Committee stage a very short debate took place on this clause. The main ground for the objections to this clause was that it would give, under this Private Member's Bill, a right to a constable to insist upon a person giving his name and address; and, if the constable reasonably suspected that the information given to him was false, the right to arrest the person involved without a warrant.
We have—as has been pointed out on many occasions in the course of our discussions today—a Police and Criminal Evidence Bill coming before us. Many of us know of the reserve that we have in this country towards the question of identity cards in peacetime, or towards anybody having the right to stop a British subject—and I say that on purpose because of certain restrictions which exist in regard to aliens in establishing whether or not they have overstayed their permitted residence in this country. The right of any constable, without any more ado, to call upon any person to give his name and address if the constable sees fit is an invasion of our civil rights and it is one that has to be looked at very carefully.
I do not want to argue my case in regard to this Bill, because my main argument is that this matter is one that will be considered under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. Therefore, for us to pass such a clause at this stage would be an absolute nonsense. It would require, I suppose, a repeal clause in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
I do not leave it at that, because if your Lordships will study the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill (which has of course only received a Second Reading in your Lordships' House), you will find in Clause 3(3) a very interesting provision. Clause 3 deals with the very important stop and search provision; a provision very much like the one now before us. It concerns the stopping of a person for the purpose of obtaining information or for searching that person for what he may have on him. Clause 3(3) of the Bill states:
"The record of a search of a person should include a note of his name, if the constable knows it, but a constable may not detain a person to find out his name".
This means that under the provisions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill the constable's powers of stop and search cannot be exercised in order to find out a person's name to the extent that if that person does

1363
not give his name (let alone if he gives a false one) the constable can arrest him.
If that be so, is it not reductio ad absurdum to have in this Private Member's Bill dealing with video recordings—a matter to which many of us attach a great deal of importance, and we do wish this Bill well—a power that is greater, so far as I can read, than that which is contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill? In regard to stop and search, that Bill —as I have said—specifically provides that a constable cannot detain a person for the purpose of establishing his name. I do not believe that I need say any more, because the argument is perfectly clear. I beg to move.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I will be brief. This is a monstrous provision in a Bill of this kind. To relate this power to what we are dealing with is absolutely ridiculous. I am beginning to wonder whether this Bill is dealing with the most dangerous product in circulation in Britain today or whether it is that the sponsors of the Bill and its supporters have lost their sense of proportion. I think it is the latter.
When one considers that these powers are to be used not necessarily for the carrying about of obscene publications or anything harmful at all but something that does not have a classification, it is like being stopped by the police and asked to produce an identity card. It is almost as bad as that. I cannot understand why this kind of provision has been put in the Bill except with malicious intent. There is undoubtedly a moral malaise here about the video industry which is at present reverberating throughout the whole trade and in people's minds as well. Grave harm has been done in all sorts of ways and the Bill is continuing that sort of mischief. I shall be coming in a moment to other dangers to which I think the Bill gives rise, but at the moment I think we should take this clause out of the Bill.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we return here to a point which I said I would look at after the Committee stage. Subsection (1) of Clause 18 provides that if a constable has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person has committed an offence under the Bill, he can require him to give his name and address and, if the person refuses to do so or fails to comply, or gives particulars which the constable reasonably suspects to be false—like "Charlie Chaplin"—the constable can arrest him without warrant. Thus, the effect of the subsection is to provide the police with a power to arrest for an offence under the Bill if, and only if, it is impracticable or inappropriate to proceed by way of summons. The normal way of proceeding should be by way of the police laying information before the magistrates' court and the court deciding, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, to issue a summons. But we must be realistic and acknowledge that there will be fly-by-night characters who may sometimes be involved in the illegal supply of videos. In Committee I mentioned the man at the factory gate who had a case full of unclassified or unclassifiable material, and when stopped, refused to say who he was and scarpered.
Noble Lords opposite were concerned, and are probably concerned now, that this is an unprecedented power and suggested that this is comparable to the
1364
war. I did not have the dexterity in Committee to call up sufficient precedents or, in fact, any relevant precedents. However, I have since had time and now draw your Lordships' attention to Table 9.3 in Appendix 9 to the Law and Procedure volume published by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure which lists a number of offences carrying a power of arrest on failure to provide name and address. I shall give your Lordships just a few of them: offences under the Children and Young Persons Act 1933—which predates the last war—the Firearms Act 1968, the Licensing Act 1964 and the Road Traffic Act 1972. There are many others such as the Conservation of Seals Act, the Conservation of Wild Creatures Act, and so on.
Some are not punishable with imprisonment. However, more recent precedents include paragraph 24 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982—which as your Lordships will recall, deals with the licensing of sex establishments—and Section 6(1) of the Cinematograph (Amendment) Act 1982. Both of these contain similar powers of arrest and neither contains an imprisonable offence. Furthermore, there is a wide range of non-imprisonable offences, listed in Tables 9.1 and 9.2, which carry an unqualified power of arrest: not even dependent on failure to provide name and address. I hope, therefore, that this disposes of the suggestion that the powers in Clause 18 are without precedent or in any way new.
But I think there is another matter which noble Lords opposite are worried about. If your Lordships' House passes the Video Recordings Bill and it receives Royal Assent before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, subsection (1) of Clause 18 will be repealed by Clause 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. This will mean that the offences provided by the Video Recordings Bill will become subject to the general arrest conditions of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. These arrest conditions will provide a power of arrest similar to that given in Clause 18: the presumption is that the process will be by way of summons, but if the suspect refuses to give a name and address, or gives false particulars, the police may arrest him.
I recognise, of course, that Members of your Lordships' House may wish to test the powers of arrest proposed in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It has been suggested that it would not be proper to pass Clause 18 in the Bill before us now when we have not yet had an opportunity to grapple with the related proposals in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. I think that the precedents I have cited to some extent undermine this argument, since it is clear that Clause 18 is not breaking new ground. As the noble Lords opposite will appreciate, and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, from his long experience in these matters, it is necessary to treat each Bill as a separate entity, and it would not be appropriate to delete Clause 18 on the basis that we expect the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill to fill the resultant gap by introducing general powers of arrest. As I indicated earlier, however, the Government support the retention of Clause 18 because we believe that the arrest powers it provides are necessary to ensure that the Bill is enforced.

1365
I come back to the man at the factory gate, as well as to the many precedents, of which I have quoted some. There is no good in your Lordships' passing a law if you pass it in a form in which it is totally impossible to enforce. If a constable has to say, "Very good; thank you for letting me look in your suitcase; I will keep the suitcase; you can now go", your Lordships are not passing a law in a condition in which it can be enforced.
10.42 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he can help a moment. He said that if Clause 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is passed in the form which he has just read out, then Clause 18 of this Bill will be superseded. Does that apply also to the other precedents that he has given us?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the broad answer is, yes. I was hoping to turn up the reference, but, again, I am not sufficiently dexterous, because I find it very difficult to carry the clause numbers of two Bills in my head simultaneously. But the intention is to sweep up many scattered and incomplete pieces of legislation. I do not really want to get on to stop and search, and so on, but your Lordships addressed this in the Second Reading debate on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, which, happily, we have already held. Your Lordships will be aware that the purpose of this is to bring our law into an understandable and complete form, and it will have that effect.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will be pleased at that, because I think the Minister has set our minds at rest. Clause 18 is really only concerned with there being reasonable grounds for suspecting that someone has committed an offence. If we look at the sharply drawn areas where an offence can take place following this narrowly drawn Bill concerning the particularly repulsive and unpleasant matters that it deals with, I should have thought that, on balance, in the good ordering of the nation, it is very proper for a constable to be allowed to do this.
I have just come from watching Beating the Retreat by the Royal Marines. I had the privilege to serve alongside that gallant body of men. They were always taught that the one thing that they were allowed to give if captured by the enemy—even the enemy!—was their name and number. I do not think that there is anything improper in an ordinary citizen of our country telling a perfectly decent and good constable his name and address. To say that that is an infringement of the sacred liberty of the subject is taking it so far that I hope that all reasonable Members of this House at this late hour will courteously but firmly reject the amendment.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may say so with great deference to the right reverend Prelate, I am really amazed at his contribution to this debate, having valued so much his contributions to many other debates, and especially on this Bill. My amazement, if I may say so, extends to the noble Lord the Minister. The precedents and provisions that he has referred to—which I freely admit I have had no opportunity of
1366
going into, but which seem to be very similar to the point that I was trying to make—were put in Bills at a time when there was no intention to codify the whole of the law relating to the police and criminal evidence.
This Bill, a Private Member's Bill, is coming before us just at the time when we are going to debate all those powers. The noble Lord the Minister has put this to the House in a very extraordinary way. He has said this: take the factory gate example and if a police officer finds, at the factory gate, a man with a case full of video nasties but the gentleman concerned refuses to give his name and address, or decides to give a name and address which the constable believes to be false, what is the constable to do? Having found the man in possession of the video nasties, unclassified, and obviously in the course of an attempt to supply them, the proper course for that officer to take is to arrest the man, but not arrest him for failing to give his name or because he thinks he is giving a false name, but because of what he has found in the case. There is no difficulty about that.
The next point that the noble Lord the Minister makes is that we have a Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which we are going to examine in this House. If we decide in the course of that Bill that we are giving here a power which is inconsistent with what we deem to be suitable in that Bill, then the correct thing to do in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is to negate the power which this House has given in this Private Member's Bill.
That has two false assumptions. The first one is that the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is going to be passed, either on the same day as or before the Video Recordings Bill. Many of us have tried to assist the speedy passage of the Video Recordings Bill—a matter which has not always met with the pleasure and satisfaction of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and several of the noble Lords who support him. But that has been the effort of the majority, so far, who have been present in your Lordships' House through these deliberations. Therefore the result is going to be, one hopes, speaking personally, that this Private Member's Bill will be passed very quickly.
There are before us in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—and I speak with a little knowledge of this matter—a great number of Committee days and Report days on the various stages of that Bill. It would be idle to forecast when that Bill is going to leave your Lordships' House. There will not be any people who will be deliberately delaying the provisions of that Bill. I cast no aspertions on anybody when I say that in relation to this Bill. All I am saying is that you then get the ridiculous position that this power will be exercisable in the interim period between the passing of this Bill and possibly the negation of that power in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill.
I revert to the point that at the present moment under the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, as drawn up by the Government, on stop and search you have to have reasonable grounds for suspecting that a criminal offence has been committed before you can stop and search. I read out a clause in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill which I will read again, which specifically provides that the record of a search which is carried out under the provisions of that Bill—the same sort of search at the factory gates—to which the

1367
noble Lord was referring, is to include a note of the name of the person searched, if the constable knows it. But a constable may not detain a person to find out his name, and if a constable does not know the name of the person who he has searched, the record of the search will include a note otherwise describing that person.
If I may turn, with great deference, once more to the right reverend Prelate, that provision in the Bill is put there by the Government, after going through the other place, precisely because in peacetime it is thought to be absolutely the right of any citizen, peacefully and properly walking our streets, to be required by any officer of the law unless the officer has reasonable grounds for thinking that an offence has been committed, for asking for—
Lord Elton: Before the noble Lord sits down and with the leave of the House, to which I think I am entitled, may I just ask him to put the record straight on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. If he turns to Clause 24 he will find the general arrest conditions which come into effect when a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence has been committed. The general arrest conditions are,
"(a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be ascertained by, the constable".
There is then a right to arrest. So we are not acting against what we propose to do in our codifying legislation. If the noble Lord would be good enough to consider the person coming under suspicion of misconduct on a public service vehicle, again he will find that if the person does not give his name and address to the officer in question, then he can be arrested. I give that as a different example from the man with the suitcase. Perhaps the example of the man with the suitcase was too closely connected with the offence. The noble Lord could say that it was certain he was committing it.
I have given two precedents. I have many precedents. I have one new one that exactly fits this Bill. I have shown that what we propose is consistent with the Bill, the other Bill—the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill—on which I have no doubt that the noble Lord will wish to contest this issue and may seek to persuade us to amend this present Bill retrospectively.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for intervening. Usually, it is a very helpful intervention. I know that he meant that one to be helpful as well. Frankly, it was not. If he looks at Clause 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, he will find—I was trying awfully hard not to take longer than necessary, but it is not my fault if he refers to another part of the Bill—it has a very important safeguard. Quite apart from the reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, a constable,
"may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him"—
and these words are not included in the Bill that the noble Lord is supporting on behalf of the Government—
1368
"that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied".
Those words do not appear in the Bill now before us. The general arrest conditions—they are the ones that the noble Lord has correctly read out—are that the name of the relevant person is unknown and cannot be ascertained by the constable. Obviously, in a case like that, unlike the example of the suitcase where the goods are there and where further matters have to be investigated, this would absolutely not be applicable.
Lord Elton: My Lords, with the further, and final, leave of your Lordships, in order to save time and, I hope, to mollify the noble Lord, would it help if I say that if the powers of arrest in the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill are amended so that Clause 18 of the Video Recordings Bill is no longer consistent with that Bill, the Government would not stand in the way of amendments to this Bill, to which we expect to receive Royal Assent before that Bill, put forward during later stages of the other Bill? I hope that I have carried your Lordships through those Bills correctly. If the noble Lord understands me, I shall sit down.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, yes, I do understand. I answer the point by saying that it is, first, unjust that this Bill will be running, one assumes—one cannot assume otherwise—before the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill receives Royal Assent, and therefore this power would be exercisable. The proper way to deal with this is not to have any such provision in this Bill at all, but to leave things until the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill is considered. Then, if both Houses of Parliament have passed it, it is absolutely proper that it should apply to this Bill. But this is putting the cart before the horse—a cart, if I may say so, that traverses a wrong ground in regard to the whole of our civil liberties and law as it stands at the moment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, when the noble Lord began his argument—forgetting what he has just been saying on the sequence of Bills—he said that it would be perfectly right for the constable to arrest the man in question if he saw the video nasties and did not go on about the name. If they were written material, that is perfectly right. But video nasties cannot be seen if they are unmarked. You have to show them on a video tape recorder. My feeling was that the noble Lord's argument was undermined from the beginning, because he was talking about something which is not like reading a book and one might have to arrest a man anyhow in order to see whether the video nasties were nasty. I think the substance of what this clause has in it gives him the powers to do that.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, obviously the noble Lord made the point before I sat down; therefore, that gives me the right to continue to speak. I was using shorthand, I hope with your Lordships' approval, without going into great detail at this hour, and I was doing it for this reason. This Bill deals with the whole of the question of classification. Therefore, if there are found in the possession of anybody, videos which have not got any classification at all, then, prima facie, unless they are educational matters or things of that kind and therefore exempted, there is an offence under this Bill.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, we know.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the reason is that the classification marks are not on them. It is obvious.
10.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 40.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Monson, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L. [Teller.]

Parry, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Ullswater, V.

White, B.

Mishcon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Attlee, E.

Longford, E.

Avon, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Barrington, V.

Lyell, L.

Belstead, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Beswick, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Brentford, V.

Mottistone, L

Brougham and Vaux, L

Norwich, Bp.

Buckmaster, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L. [Teller.]

Cathcart, E.

Coleraine, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Reading, M.

Craigmyle, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Denham, L.

Saltoun, Ly.

Elton. L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Swinfen, L.

Grantchester, L.

Swinton, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Tranmire, L.

Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

Trumpington, B.

Ingleby, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
11.4 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at five minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PAROLE: REFUSALS
  PAROLE: REFUSALS