Sitting of 29 November 1984

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

    Republic of Ireland (Constitutional Talks)
    Mr. Winnickasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what talks he intends to have with the Government of the Irish Republic concerning the constitution of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Andrew Bowdenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what recent discussions he has had with Ministers from the Government of the Republic of Ireland.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I had a meeting with Mr. Barry, the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Ireland, on 25 October, when I also met Mr. Noonan, the Minister for Justice. I met Mr. Barry again with other Ministers at the Heads of Government meeting on 18 and 19 November. These were useful occasions and I look forward to future meetings within the framework of the Anglo-Irish Intergovernmental Council. Such meetings do not affect the constitutional status of Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Winnick: Does the Secretary of State appreciate the immense harm caused to Anglo-Irish relations by the Prime Minister's remarks after her meeting with the Irish Prime Minister? Would it not be wise for the right hon. Lady and the Secretary of State, who is new to the job, to realise the need for sensitivity? Is he aware that if mainstream Irish nationalism is treated with contempt the only gainers will be the Provisional IRA?
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already answered that question. The process of regular discussion and consultation between the two Governments, the giving and taking of advice, is very useful and important for all who are concerned with Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend ignore the characteristically unhelpful comments of the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick)? Will he confirm that although the three proposals in the Forum report are not acceptable to the majority of Northern Ireland people, there is an opportunity for a unique relationship between the two sides and ourselves without impinging upon the spirit or the letter of the constitutional guarantee?
    Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Forum report is a stimulating document in which much common ground is revealed on issues such as consent and violence.
    1072
    Much has been said of the three possible solutions in the Forum report, but it leaves the door open to other possibilities.
    Mr. McCusker: When the Secretary of State next meets Dublin Ministers, will he ask them to describe in detail the abject misery and nightmare existence which they allege is endured by hundreds of thousands of people in Northern Ireland for which he is responsible? What does the Secretary of State intend to do to remove the deprivation which, according to allegations made at the weekend, is suffered by hundreds of thousands of Northern Ireland people who are being denied basic political rights?
    Mr. Hurd: I hope that we shall have the support of Unionist Members on both sides of the House in proving that the Province's institutions are there to serve all who live in the Province.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: At the recent meeting with Mr. Barry, or at the summit, did the Secretary of State or the Prime Minister raise with representatives from the Republic of Ireland the arrogant, abusive and illegal claim of jurisdiction over Northern Ireland contained in articles 2 and 3 of the Republic of Ireland's constitution?
    Mr. Hurd: No, Sir.
    Ms. Clare Short: Does the Secretary of State admit that the only policy that the British Government have for Northern Ireland is desperately to keep the lid on it and that they have no solution to all the conflict, misery and death? Does he agree that Britain is simply willing to wait until some explosion occurs to force constructive action that will bring us to a long-term settlement?
    Mr. Hurd: The hon. Lady cannot have read the communiqué from the summit or what has been said since. Her description of our policy is a travesty. On the one hand, for the reason that I have just given, we are searching for closer and more effective co-operation between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland. Within the Province, a particular part of my job is to do my best to encourage those who are elected to represent the different traditions there to come together and to show that the institutions of the Province exist to serve all its inhabitants.
    Mr. Dubs: While making every possible allowance for the Secretary of State's newness to his job, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is not aware that his mind-boggling complacency will arouse the anger of many people who want to see a settlement of our difficulties in Northern Ireland? Does he realise— if not, is it not about time that he did so—that his speeches and the conduct of the Prime Minister are a stab in the back for the Prime Minister of the Republic and the hopes of many people for peace in both parts of Ireland?
    Mr. Hurd: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, who is usually fair in his comments and criticism, should take up that theme. I shall, with great pleasure, send him the transcripts of the press conferences of both my right hon. Friend and myself, and with his usual fair-mindedness he can judge for himself. I am not in the least complacent—no member of the Government is—about the situation in the Province. The levels of violence are unacceptable, the levels of unemployment are deeply tragic and disturbing, and the political institutions are obviously not normal.
    Mr. Archer: I welcome the Secretary of State to his first Northern Ireland Question Time since assuming his present high office. Has he grasped the catastrophic change in atmosphere which has taken place since the summit, with parties which were previously prepared to talk and exchange proposals now expressing bitterness and frustration, and with everyone adding his three penn'orth of petrol to the fire? Is the right hon. Gentleman not appalled at the fact that this change has stemmed from the crass insensitivity of the Prime Minister following the summit meeting, and is there any reason to hope for anything better from the February summit?
    Mr. Hurd: I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the February summit, because there is work to be done along the lines that I indicated—but not altering the constitutional status of the problem—on which we need the co-operation of the Irish Republic. I do not agree with the rest of what he said. I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman back to the communiqué issued after Chequers, which sets out the lines of work which the two Governments agreed to follow. That is what we are doing.

    Devolution
    Mr. Maudeasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he anticipates laying proposals for devolved government before the House as envisaged under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1982.
    Mr. Tim Smithasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on his recent round of talks with Northern Ireland party leaders.
    Mr. Hurd: I have talked to the leaders of Northern Ireland constitutional parties twice in recent weeks and I have met the Assembly's Devolution Report Committee. All have said that they want to make progress and have shown some understanding of each other's anxieties. I shall continue to encourage them to build on these expressions of intent.
    Progress will be made only when the parties reach common ground on a political framework for Northern Ireland which commands widespread acceptance throughout the community. This is, of course, the criterion laid down in the Northern Ireland Act 1982.
    Mr. Maude: Will my right hon. Friend take every opportunity to impress upon the Unionist parties that it is in their interests, as well as in the wider national interest, to take all steps to encourage and to show greater generosity to those representatives of constitutional nationalism in the Northern Ireland community?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I took office and read the Ulster Unionist document "The Way Forward" I was struck with the following phrase:
    "It is the responsibility of the majority to persuade the minority that the Province is also theirs".
    People in the House and the country who follow these matters now wish to see what action the Unionist parties propose to take to bring this about.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend ruling out any possibility of amending the Northern Ireland Assembly Act so that devolution can take place? If so, and as he has a breathing space, may I suggest that it might be useful to set up a commission— perhaps a Royal
    1074
    Commission— drawn from a wide spectrum of the community to consider the possibility of a better structure of local administration for the Province?
    Mr. Hurd: I have no plans to bring forward to the House proposals to amend the Act, as I do not think that at this moment the possibilities are exhausted.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the Minister recognise, as I do, the signs of an incipient pantomime season in some of the statements from the Opposition today? Will he acknowledge that, despite Opposition Front Bench comments about parties being willing to talk, one significant party has not been prepared to come into the Assembly to talk? Does he appreciate that it is extremely difficult for the parties in the Assembly to come forward with plans unless those people are prepared to share with us in wrestling with the problems involved in finding a solution to Northern Ireland's constitutional issues?
    Mr. Hurd: I understand that difficulty, but I think that the ingenuity of political leaders in the Province should find a way round it if they are to turn into reality the general professions that they have made in recent months.
    Rev. William McCrea: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity to impress upon the SDLP the need to talk to Unionist representatives of the Province instead of running to Dublin every other day?
    Mr. Hurd: It is very important for all the constitutional parties in the Province at this particular time to find ways in which their leaders and members can discuss the problems of the Province together.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Despite the comments of hon. Members opposite, is my right hon. Friend aware that we commend his restrained approach to these problems? Unlike his predecessors in office, however, will he avoid an absolute commitment to legislative devolution, because many of us, on both sides of the water, believe that Northern Ireland should be fully governed like any other part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Hurd: I am certainly aware of that view and I have read the skilfully written pamphlet to which my hon. Friend and others have put their names.

    Provisional Sinn Fein
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will proscribe Provisional Sinn Fein.
    Mr. Hurd: I do not think that proscription is the right course at present, but the Government keep this under close review and would not hesitate to use the power if the circumstances warranted it. The absence of proscription confers no immunity on any individual members who commit terrorist acts.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that answer will disappoint many people in Northern Ireland and on the mainland, especially in the light of the comments made by the leader of Sinn Fein in the aftermath of the Brighton bombing? If he is not prepared to consider proscription, will he take up the suggestion made in Sir George Baker's recent report that a debate should take place in Northern Ireland about the possibility of banning from fighting elections parties that support violence?
    Mr. Hurd: The practical difficulties of enforcing proscription would be very great. The propaganda advantage to the IRA would also be very great. I note the hon. Gentleman's second point, however, and I hope that it will not be too long before the House has the opportunity to debate the report of the late Sir George Baker and the Government's attitude to it.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has banned one party—the IRA—but Sinn Fein is part of the IRA and in many areas the officers are synonymous. If, as he now says, a ban would not be effective, what is the point of banning the main organisation when he is not prepared to ban a section of it?
    Mr. Hurd: People who commit illegal acts are liable to prosecution, whatever the organisation to which they belong. I believe that it is better to deal with terrorists by pursuing and prosecuting people for criminal offences that they commit rather than for the views that they hold or the organisations to which they belong.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is absolutely right to proscribe organisations that are overtly paramilitary, dress up in paramilitary uniforms, carry weapons, and murder? Is he further aware that it was I who, despite the close connection between the two organisations, deproscribed the Provisional Sinn Fein, with other organisations, in 1974? I fully agree with him that if anyone in Provisional Sinn Fein is doing anything that is against the law the best way to deal with that person is to collect the evidence and put it before the courts. To do anything else would simply play into the hands of Provisional Sinn Fein, which, despite its activities, believes that it has a political view to put forward. Is not the only way to defeat it to defeat its political arguments?
    Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
    Mr. Maginnis: Is the Secretary of State aware that one Peter Sherry, who stood as a Sinn Fein candidate in a local government by-election, recently used his manifesto to forecast which people would be murdered, and three of those murders have already been carried out? In view of that misuse of the democratic procedures, will the right hon. Gentleman view more seriously and urgently the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker)?
    Mr. Hurd: I know that the prosecuting authorities, as is right, carefully study any statements by Sinn Fein leaders and representatives to ascertain whether they would justify prosecution. I am sure that they will note the hon. Gentleman's comments.
    Mr. Archer: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the best way to defeat paramilitaries is to remove the alienation and despair on which they feed? Will he make a start by relaxing those elements in the legal system which are destroying the confidence of many decent, law-abiding people, such as supergrass trials with overloaded indictments? When will the House have an opportunity to debate the Baker report?
    Mr. Hurd: The matter raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman falls clearly within the ambit of the Baker report. Obviously it is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to say when the debate will take place, but I hope that it will not be delayed for too long.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Gerald Bowdenasked the Secretary of Slate for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in Northern Ireland in the completion of local authority emergency planning and the raising and training of civil defence volunteers.
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of civil defence emergency planning in Northern Ireland.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Northern Ireland is one of 11 home defence regions in the United Kingdom, and civil defence emergency planning in the Province is being developed along broadly the same lines as those in the rest of the United Kingdom. I am satisfied that reasonable progress is being made in developing preparedness in Northern Ireland.
    The current legislation requiring local authorities in England and Wales to undertake emergency planning does not at present apply in the Province. Discussions have begun between the Northern Ireland Office and district councils on the latter's role in emergency planning, with a view to the introduction of similar legislation to that applying in England and Wales. These discussions will include the question of harnessing local voluntary effort.
    Mr. Bowden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there can be no effective civil defence in Northern Ireland unless and until emergency planning officers have been appointed at both county and district level?
    Mr. Scott: The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different, in that under regional control, as we have no county organisation in Northern Ireland, there are four area organisations, which correspond to the health and social service area board organisations. Both the regional and area levels are under the control of my Department. We have made substantial progress in identifying plans and individuals who will fulfil those roles. Discussions along those lines are in progress with the district councils.
    Mr. Hayes: Will my hon. Friend do all in his power to encourage the greatest and closest co-operation between the Northern Ireland radioactivity monitoring organisations and their equivalents in the Republic?
    Mr. Scott: The United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation, of which Northern Ireland is a part, exercises regularly. Volunteers and others from Northern Ireland regularly take part in exercises in cooperation with their counterparts in Great Britain.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: What purpose-built buildings are available at regional and area level? Will my hon. Friend ensure that those buildings are adequate?
    Mr. Scott: We have an intermediate programme for adapting certain buildings to be better able to provide for the purposes of civil defence. There is a provision over the period 1986 to 1988 for purpose-built buildings.

    Milk Quotas
    Mr. Nicholsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress he has made with the application of milk quotas in Northern Ireland.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): Forty per cent. of producers in Northern

    1077
    Ireland have had their quotas confirmed. The remainder have submitted applications for special case or exceptional hardship treatment. Four local panels have dealt with almost all of the special cases initially referred to them. In addition, some 400 requests have been received for review by local panels following initial rejections by the Department and work is progressing on the consideration of these appeals.
    The dairy produce quota tribunal has considered nearly 50 per cent. of the exceptional hardship claims received.
    Mr. Nicholson: Is the Minister aware that Northern Ireland is the only part of the United Kingdom which at present stands to pay the super levy within the regulations? Will the Minister assure the House that no money will be collected from Northern Ireland dairy farmers or forwarded to Brussels until all appeals are heard, and until we are sure that all EEC countries will stand firm and carry out their part of the bargain?
    Dr. Boyson: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, the number of people who are prepared to be bought out as outgoers in Northern Ireland is less than in the rest of Great Britain. On his second point, on 20 November, in the House, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that either all member states would collect the super levy or none would do so. She said:
    "We shall not be in a position in which Britain keeps the rules while others do not."—[Official Report, 20 November 1984; Vol. 68, c. 143.]
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Minister give an assurance to the House that those who have won their cases before panels and tribunals will receive this extra allocation? Can they be sure that what has now been allocated to them will be received?
    Dr. Boyson: That assurance cannot be given at present, because the panels and tribunals have been acting separately. We still do not know the amount of buy-out by the outgoers. The decision will have to be made to link the 3 per cent. which we hope we can distribute to the hardship and special cases with the number of claims. Until the whole matter is finished that assurance cannot be given.
    Mr. Beggs: Will the Minister tell us what impact the cut in milk production has had on cheese production and the manufacture of products other than butter in Northern Ireland factories? Will at least some of the butter presently stored in the United Kingdom be made available cheaply in Northern Ireland to Northern Ireland consumers?
    Dr. Boyson: I am aware that the hon. Gentleman's last point is of interest to many hon. Members. I cannot give the details of the effect on cheese and butter production, but I shall write to the hon. Member. The number of people employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland increased slightly last year. There are no signs of a decline.
    Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Has my hon. Friend any details of the impact of milk quotas on employment in Northern Ireland?
    Dr. Boyson: I am pleased that my hon. Friend asked that question, because it allows me to reiterate the fact that the number of people employed in agriculture in Northern Ireland increased last year. I am sure that all of us welcome that. There is no evidence that there has been any decline this year.

    Flags
    Dr. Mawhinneyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he intends to introduce legislation to bring the Province into line with the rest of the United Kingdom with respect to the flying of flags.
    Mr. Scott: We have no present plans to do so.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Does my hon. Friend understand that his answer will cause grave disappointment to some of his hon. Friends and to the Unionists, who are always pressing Her Majesty's Government to treat the Province in exactly the same way as they treat the United Kingdom? At least in this instance, will he explain why the Government are treating the Province differently?
    Mr. Scott: I am not without sympathy for the point that my hon. Friend puts forward. Perhaps I can clear up one misapprehension. It is not illegal to fly the tricolour in Northern Ireland, only to do so in circumstances likely to cause a breach of the peace. However, I understand that other legal powers are available to the police which enable them to act in those matters. My hon. Friend must recognise that this is a sensitive matter.
    Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that when the flag of the Irish Republic is flown in Northern Ireland it is flown not as a friendly gesture to a neighbouring state but rather as a claim by the Irish Government to sovereignty over Northern Ireland? Will he also confirm that there are a number of councils in Northern Ireland, such as Londonderry, which do not allow the Union flag to be flown on any buildings over which they have control?
    Mr. Scott: Of course, I understand that there are some circumstances where the Irish tricolour is used provocatively. There are also times, I imagine, in Northern Ireland when it is used to express the aspirations of one third of the community.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is not a third.
    Mr. Scott: The Government are pledged to respect the tradition of that one third of the population.
    Mr. Archer: Is the Minister aware that many people in Northern Ireland will appreciate his answer? Does he not understand that the Flags and Emblems (Display) (Northern Ireland) 1954 Act is a gratuitous and pointless provocation to nationalist feeling and that repealing it would be a modest step towards the hope of restoring some progress through constitutional politics?
    Mr. Scott: This is a sensitive matter. It is something that the Government will consider, but I cannot at this point commit myself to any definite action.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House on what he bases his allegation that a third of the people want to go into the Irish Republic? Recently, an outstanding Roman Catholic leader calling himself Father Paul said that not 20 per cent. of Roman Catholics would vote for a united Ireland.
    Mr. Scott: I am not even sure that raising the tricolour necessarily demonstrates a wish to join the Republic. It indicates an aspiration—one might say a tradition—within Northern Ireland, to which we owe respect.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. Nellistasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry.
    Dr. Boyson: The Government announced on 6 September that the proposed Kinsale gas project would not proceed as it would not be economically viable for Northern Ireland. We have always made it clear that we could not continue to subsidise a gas industry that had no real prospects of viability; we have now asked towns gas undertakings in the Province to consider their position.
    Mr. Nellist: Should not the Minister explain to the House that that decision directly affects the jobs of 1,200 workers in the gas industry and indirectly those of many hundreds more? It also affects services to over 68,000 households, which depend on gas as their sole source of energy. According to Coopers and Lybrand in 1981, the decision not to go ahead with that project and the implied dismantling of the gas system in Northern Ireland would cost £124 million. Should not the Minister explain the need for a fully nationalised gas industry and a commitment by the Government to the jobs of workers in that industry and to the services that they currently provide?
    Dr. Boyson: The decision was made purely on economic grounds, in that what one spends on gas subsidy one cannot spend on other things. It is a question of preferences. At present, the subsidy for 3 per cent. of the energy used in the Province costs £12 million a year. No one appreciates more strongly than I do the concern for jobs in Northern Ireland, but there is a subsidy per man of £12,000. The decision was made purely because the heavy fuel cost with which the gas from the Republic of Ireland is linked rose tremendously in the past year, while the demand for gas by both domestic consumers and industry fell.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister ensure that if the gas industry goes out of operation liquid gas will be considered, in order to compensate those users who wish to use it rather than turning to more expensive forms of heating?
    Dr. Boyson: We have not closed any of the 13 gas enterprises in Northern Ireland. We have said only that we cannot continue with an open-ended subsidy, or any subsidy at all. If any of the towns gas operations can continue economically, they may do so with our blessing. If those companies decide that they must go out of business because of the costing, we shall have to consider the Government's responsibility in connection with alternative fuels and equipment, and what the hon. Gentleman has said will be taken into account.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Following the collapse of the natural gas project, will my hon. Friend say whether there is any opportunity or likelihood of Northern Ireland overcoming its dependence on very high-cost energy sources?
    Dr. Boyson: I am grateful for that question. Recently there has been a considerable discovery of lignite reserves in the Province. Northern Ireland's problem is that it has no native energy supply. However, hundreds of thousands of tons of lignite have been found, not only near Lough Neagh, but in four or five other areas of the Province. We
    1080
    hope in January to fire about 500 tons in the west Belfast power station, to find out whether lignite can be used for electricity generation.
    Mr. Archer: Has the Minister read the report of the joint working group of the Northern Ireland gas employers board and the gas trade union group, which suggests an alternative project for saving the jobs? If he has not read it, will he undertake to do so if I send him a copy?
    Dr. Boyson: I always welcome any gift from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, especially during the Christmas season. However, I have read the report, but neither we nor our advisers in the Department are convinced that the idea is economic. If it is economic and people want to do that they can—we are merely ending an open-ended subsidy.

    Magherafelt High School
    Mr. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many mobile classrooms there are at Magherafelt high school.
    Mr. Scott: Twelve, Sir.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Minister agree that the large shift of population from Belfast to large new housing estates, and the need to build schools without extra funding in those areas has contributed to the large number of mobile classrooms at Magherafelt high school and other schools? Will he embark on a long-term programme to replace those hutments with permanent accommodation so that children can enjoy a proper standard of education and accommodation?
    Mr. Scott: I accept that the large-scale use of temporary classrooms is unsatisfactory and should not be prolonged for any longer than is necessary. The provision of permanent accommodation must depend on the priority accorded to the different schemes by education and library boards and the availability of resources from the centre.
    Rev. William McCrea: Does the Minister agree that a complex involving an infant school, a primary school, a high school and a college of further education on one small piece of ground in Magherafelt is inadequate and that it is time the board took further steps to get sufficient ground to meet the need?
    Mr. Scott: The board has plans for the installation of rather more permanent accommodation. That has been approved since 1979, but so far no plans have been advanced. The matter depends on the priority accorded by the board to it in the forthcoming financial year.

    Security
    Mr. Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Sir John Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hurd: Since my predecessor last answered questions on 26 July, two policemen, three soldiers and nine civilians have died in incidents arising from the security situation in the Province. So far this year, the efforts of the security forces have resulted in 508 people

    1081
    being charged with serious offences, including 40 with murder and 65 with attempted murder. In the same period, 188 weapons, 26,560 rounds of ammunition and 7,521 lb of explosives have been recovered. I pay tribute to the members of the security forces and the innocent civilians who have been tragically killed. I should like to pay tribute also to the dedication and bravery of all the security forces who work tirelessly to protect the people of Northern Ireland from violence.
    Mr. Latham: As terrorist violence remains the greatest single issue affecting the United Kingdom, will my right hon. Friend confirm that improving cross-border cooperation with the Republic remains at the core of the Government's policy, whatever the ups and downs of our bilateral relations?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend will have seen the passage in the communiqué which resulted from Chequers, in which both Governments committed themselves to maintain and, where possible, improve such co-operation.
    Sir John Farr: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating the security forces on the wonderful job that they are doing. Will he re-examine cross-border security and ensure that there is absolute unanimity about cross-border problems in regard to communications between the two sides?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree that that is an important feature. Security policy in the Province is not static. We are constantly examining new ways in which the security forces can wear down and defeat the terrorists, but obviously we cannot talk about them.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Although the battle against terrorism is vital to Northern Ireland, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is equally important to combat ordinary criminals in the Province? Will he take steps to persuade the Chief Constable to put more police into my constituency, where crime is on the increase?
    Mr. Hurd: I shall ensure that the Chief Constable is made aware of the hon. Gentleman's comments.

    Castlereagh (Development)
    Mr. Peter Robinsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will consider a modest relaxation of planning law for development outside the Matthew stop line in the borough of Castlereagh.
    Mr. Chris Patten: Such development would not require a change in planning law; however, it would not be in accordance with the approved development strategy for the Belfast urban area.
    Mr. Robinson: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the statement issued by his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hampshire, North-West (Mr. Mitchell), issued on 10 August 1981, which said that the presumption should always be in favour of the application, particularly if job creation resulted? Will he review that and see what resistance there has been from divisional planning officers to the laudable sentiments in that statement of his predecessor?
    Mr. Patten: I have read that statement, as I have read a number of other good statements by my predecessor, I do not believe that there is any resistance on the part of
    1082
    DPOs, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman says. As he will be aware, we are about to respond to the Northern Ireland Assembly on planning policy in general.
    Mr. William Ross: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that the small relaxation sought would not meet the need in regard to planning law in Northern Ireland, and, in particular, in Castlereagh? Will he consider going much further and giving planning control to councils such as Castlereagh so that they can exercise that authority on behalf of all who live within the boundaries?
    Mr. Patten: I shall not be able to do that next week. However, I shall soon be able to respond about planning and planning law in general in Northern Ireland. I hope that, once again, our views will be regarded by the hon. Gentleman as useful.

    Apprenticeships
    Mr. A. Cecil Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any plans for increasing existing skills through a programme of balanced apprenticeship training in Northern Ireland.
    Dr. Boyson: Employers are basically responsible for determining numbers and training of apprentices. The Government, however, already support employers by providing extensive off-the-job training in 11 Government training centres and by funding the skill training scheme operated by the individual industrial training boards.
    Mr. Walker: I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response to my question. Is he aware that Short Brothers provides the largest number of balanced apprenticeships in Northern Ireland? Does he agree that the acquisition of a contract for the Short's Tucano trainer would result in a further expansion of the number of apprenticeships available to young people in the Province?
    Dr. Boyson: I am aware that anybody connected with Northern Ireland or Shorts would agree with the second part of that question. I visited the apprenticeship centre at Shorts this year and I am glad to say that there has been an increase from 65 apprentices last year to 118 this year. The Government are funding 20,000 young people in various training schemes. Indeed, in Government training centres more apprentices are being trained this year than last year.
    Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister accept that the promotional literature being presented by Shorts is factually correct? Will he commend it to his colleagues in the United Kingdom whose constituencies could also benefit from the increased employment that would result from the supply of parts for that basic trainer if the contract goes to Shorts?
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that all hon. Members will pay close attention to what the hon. Gentleman has said and will mark his question in Hansard and circulate it around the United Kingdom.

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Fatchettasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many young offenders sentenced to indefinite terms of imprisonment at the Secretary of State's pleasure were released in 1983.
    Mr. Scott: Two, Sir.
    Mr. Fatchett: I am delighted to hear that two have been released, but is it not now necessary for the Minister to recognise the plight of many others, all of whom, by definition, were committed for offences at a young age, many of whom are now opposed to political violence, and all of whom look forward to a date when they can be released from prison, which will give them some hope as individuals for the future?
    Mr. Scott: I am aware of the strong feelings on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland on this matter. My primary concern must be the safety of the public, but it might help the hon. Gentleman to know that five cases that are subject to the Secretary of State's pleasure have been given release dates in 1985.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I welcome that announcement, but will the Minister bear in mind the great hardship that has occurred in those cases because the parents do not know the release date? If those people had been over age they would probably have been released long ago. Both parts of the political and religious divide are concerned about the matter. Will the Minister keep in mind the debate that was held in the Assembly on this issue?
    Mr. Scott: I cannot envisage circumstances in which the penalty for murder can be other than an indeterminate sentence. However, I am aware of the pressures and uncertainties that many families of those young people suffer. I hope, in the not-too-distant future, to be able to issue guidance to the parents and to the prisoners, which should help to remove some of the uncertainty.

    Coal Imports
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to offset the increase in price of coal imported into Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Dr. Boyson: None, Sir. Pricing is a matter for the coal trade. I expect prices to fall when normal supplies are resumed.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that The Daily Telegraph, the Tory house magazine, of 21 August 1984 states that the people of Northern Ireland are having to pay £10 a tonne extra for domestic coal because they can no longer get cheap supplies from Britain? What is all the nonsense that we have heard for the past two years, with the Government saying that there is cheap coal abroad if only we could get at it? The truth is that the people of Northern Ireland, as well as the people in Great Britain, are having to suffer because of the Government's stupid policy of trying to run down British pits while importing dearer coal from abroad.
    Dr. Boyson: I am sure that the whole House will welcome the news that the hon. Gentleman is a regular reader of The Daily Telegraph. One of the problems with coal supplies for Northern Ireland is that long-term contracts are made with the NCB but at present coal is having to be bought on spot markets round the world. Long-term contracts are not being made, so that coal can once again be bought from the NCB. The hon. Gentleman should welcome that.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Ray Powellasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    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 meeting President Mitterrand in Paris this evening and shall attend a dinner to be given by the President at the Elysee.
    Mr. Powell: This week we have heard a lot about the Prime Minister's speech on Monday night to the Carlton club on the subject of upholding the rule of law and the enemy within. Will she explain to the House and the nation why the Employment Act 1980 and the Shops Act 1950 should be treated entirely differently by her and her Ministers? Why does she allow the courts to treat the Employment Act in one way, with its harsh, obscene sequestration of trade union funds, while condoning blatant abuse of the Shops Act? Is——
    Mr. Speaker: I ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief.
    Mr. Powell: Is that not another example of the Tories' double standards?
    The Prime Minister: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman would have profited if he had read the lecture in full. He might then have learnt that the law in this country is impartially administered. The courts are the servants of the law and not of the Government.
    Mr. Stokes: Will the Prime Minister be good enough to give an assurance that if the House should be so foolish as to allow in television cameras the cost will not fall on the taxpayer?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that the situation would be the same as that in the other place, and that no extra money would be provided for televising the House, should it decide to allow televising of its proceedings. But in one way the BBC licence fee is raised automatically by the amount that the Government decide on, having received all the representations. People have no option but to pay it if they wish to receive television broadcasts.
    Mr. Kinnock: Yesterday the Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that unemployment was higher than the Government had assumed or expected. In the light of that, what possible justification can there be for taking away £340 million of regional job development money or for allowing the closure of one third of Britain's skillcentres?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman heard the statement on regional policy yesterday, or read it. If he had done so he would have learnt the answer to his question, which is that the changes in regional policy are designed to obtain better value for the money that is spent in the regions and to ensure that it is directly related to the number of jobs that are anticipated. It would seem much better to relate it to job creation than to capital allowances, which could give a subsidy towards replacing jobs with machinery. I doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that.
    Mr. Kinnock: Not only did I hear the utterly unconvincing statement yesterday, which is a betrayal of regional interest, but I looked at reactions to it this morning. Is the Prime Minister aware of criticism of it from the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, trainers, managers and employers? When today's unemployment figures stand at a November record of 3,223,000, why does the right hon. Lady still want to hit simultaneously at investment, employment and training? What makes her insist on destroying the means of people, regions and firms to help themselves to get work?
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman heard the statement he will know that the average cost per job is £35,000, which seems a high cost for creating jobs. I should have thought that he was keen on getting better value for money. Indeed, he said as much in a speech on 6 October 1983, when he spoke about Labour party policy. He said:
    "We plan to get the maximum advantage out of that expenditure and we very much do want value for money because it is our money."
    That is our policy, and I am delighted to have his support for it.
    Mr. Kinnock: We want better value for money and better jobs for money. The Prime Minister wants neither.
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is speaking nonsense. If he wants better value he will get it from the way that we are going. If he wants better and more jobs, will he stop supporting the miners' strike?
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: In seeking to assist my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, may I ask her to assure us, especially 130 of her colleagues who will not accept the decision of the Secretary of State for Education and Science, that he will not be allowed to phase out the minimum maintenace grant and, for the first time in nearly a quarter of a century, to charge fees for higher education courses?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend will be aware from the autumn statement that this year money for education has been increased by £140 million. There are many demands on funds and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has followed some of the demands made previously in the House that more should be given to science. Part of the money that comes from the change in student awards goes to increasing the sum spent on the science budget. In the next two years £10 million will go towards improving laboratories and equipment, and in each of the next two years £14 million will go to enable the research councils to undertake more high quality research projects. My hon. Friend will know that 100,000 families will not make any contribution to students' grants. He will also know that we have the most generous system of student grants——
    Mr. Winterton indicated dissent.
    The Prime Minister: If one lived in Japan it would be lower, in Sweden it would be lower, and in the United States it would be very much less generous.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House not to shout and laugh when the Prime Minister is answering questions, because when that happens I cannot hear her, and neither can anyone else.
    Mr. Steel: Given today's disgraceful unemployment figures, how does the Prime Minister expect students to find part-time jobs, as recommended by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, to finance their education?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, many of them frequently do. In addition to the £700 million that taxpayers give towards student grants, there is also an extra amount of about £100 million that is not taken into account in that figure for housing benefit and supplementary benefit in the recesses.
    Mr. Lofthouseasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Lofthouse: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday's statement on regional policy will have a devastating effect on many communities? Is she further aware that it is another kick in the teeth for the mining communities, especially in west Yorkshire and the Castleford travel-to-work area— [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If hon. Members listen I shall tell them. Is the Prime Minister aware that if she has no plan to assist those areas we shall have a continuation of the unfortunate incidents that have occurred in my constituency during the past week, and that she will be held responsibile?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense, and he knows it. How he dares to say that in a week during which—long before the announcement was made—we have seen violence at a level and of a pitch that we never expected to see in this country is a mystery. If the hon. Gentleman wants the maximum number of jobs from the expenditure of money, he should approve of a system that links the subsidies to the jobs created. It would be ridiculous to link it to anything else.
    Mr. Robert Banks: Will my right hon. Friend reflect on the traffic chaos last night caused by the student demonstration on Westminster bridge? Does she agree that the organisers of such demonstrations not only cause enormous irritation and inconvenience to the general public, but prevent the emergency services, doctors and surgeons from getting through to people whose lives may be at risk? Should not court fines reflect the gravity of those circumstances?
    The Prime Minister: I believe that it was a disgraceful demonstration, which stopped traffic, ambulances and fire engines, and undermined any sympathy that some people may have for the students. [Interruption.] I repeat that no students anywhere in the world are treated more generously than British students. In Sweden and Japan they would receive loans, and in many other countries they would receive part loans and part grants. Britain has the most generous student grants in the world, and such demonstrations undermine the faith of those of us who have continued to give student grants.
    Mr. Foot: How does the Prime Minister conceivably justify the withdrawal of special area assistance from the areas that have already been hardest hit under her Government? Why does she show such enthusiasm for this measure of combined stupidity and meanness?
    The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the total available for regional aid covers a larger area than it did previously— [Interruption.] Not so much will be given to special development areas, but there were many problems in those parts of the country which were just outside development areas, especially in the west midlands. The regional grants cover a wider area and make grants available to more people. They also link the grants to the number of jobs created. I should also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Government, by knocking off the national insurance surcharge, have probably done more for jobs than any other Government.
    Mr. Bellinghamasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 29 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
    Mr. Bellingham: Did my right hon. Friend hear about the corporation dust cart that screeched to a halt outside a Scottish bank yesterday morning, whereupon the driver leapt out and placed his application for British Telecom shares at five minutes to 10? Is it not good news for Britain that at the beginning of next week probably over 1 million more people will become first-time share owners? Does
    1088
    she agree that one of the things that riles Labour Members is that many of those new shareholders will be Labour supporters, who have ignored threats of renationalisation?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, the denationalisation of British Telecom will bring many people into share ownership and independence for the first time. The Labour party cannot tolerate that, because it wants people to be under its thumb and not to be independent with their own shares and their own homes.
    Mr. Benn: Has the Prime Minister's attention been drawn to the case of Brenda Greenwood, the first miner's wife to be thrown into prison for voicing her opposition to pit closures? Is she aware that her attempts to crush and criminalise all opposition will fail in Britain, as it did in pre-war Germany?
    The Prime Minister: Unlike pre-war Germany, this country has a totally independent system of the rule of law. [Interruption.] I would have hoped, if it is not a forlorn hope, that one day the right hon. Gentleman and the Opposition would totally condemn violence and see that the violence on the picket line and the violence perpetrated in the name of this strike is stopped. From the fact that they do not we shall draw our own conclusion—that they wish to continue the strike by that method.

Business of the House
3.31 pm
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House 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 3 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill (1st Day). Motion on the European Community Document 5937/1/84 on social regulations on tachographs and drivers' hours.
TUESDAY 4 DECEMBER— Completion of Second Reading of the Local Government Bill. Motion on European Community Documents 7805/84 and 9613/84 on the lead content of petrol and motor vehicle emissions.
WEDNESDAY 5 DECEMBER—Debate on a motion to approve the intention of Her Majesty's Government to sign the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong, Cmnd. No. 9352.
THURSDAY 6 DECEMBER— Debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's "Autumn statement". Completion of remaining stages of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill.
FRIDAY 7 DECEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 10 DECEMBER— Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill. Motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order.
[Relevant Documents:
Monday 3 December

(a) 5937/1/84—Draft Social Regulations relating to road transport and recording equipment.

Tuesday 4 December

(b) 7805/84— Draft Directives on lead content of petrol and vehicle emissions.

(c) 9613/84—Amendment to draft Directives on lead content of petrol.

Relevant Reports of European Legislation Committee:

(a) HC 78-xxxiii (1983–84) para. 2.

(b) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) para. 2.

(c) HC 5 -ii (1984–85) para. 1.]

Mr. Kinnock: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that the Prime Minister will be making a statement after next week's EEC summit. However, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the House will be able to debate the results of the summit in Government time the following week?
The right hon. Gentleman will know that yesterday's High Court ruling by Mr. Justice Hodgson throws doubt on the legality of the £120 million order granting supplementary finance to the Common Market. What do the Government intend to do about the order? May we have an assurance that none of the money has been paid to the Common Market in advance of parliamentary approval, as I know that the right hon. Gentleman is particularly vigilant about these affairs?
In next Monday's debate on the local government legislation, will the Secretary of State for the Environment be announcing an independent audit into the cost of abolishing the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council as recent responsible estimates put the cost at £1,000 million for that abolition?
1090
May I ask for additional time for two debates—first, on Monday week, on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order, and secondly, on Wednesday next, on the motion to approve the Government's intention to sign the draft agreement on the future of Hong Kong?
Will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements he has made for a debate on the subjects raised in early-day motions Nos. 161 and 162, since clearly they have aroused the interest of 148 of his right hon. and hon. Friends as well as of all right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and of a very large number of people outside?
[That, in the opinion of this House, access to first degree courses should not be inhibited by the level of parental contribution in respect of student fees and maintenance.]
[That this House, recognising that the United Kingdom has one of the smallest percentages of 18-year-olds entering higher education of any Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country, concerned at the United Kingdom's inadequate levels of skilled manpower and believing in education as a ladder of opportunity for all young people of ability, regards the proposed large increases in parental contributions as misconceived and of a severity which will make it difficult if not impossible for many families to pay the full contribution; and calls for policy on student grants and fees to be totally reviewed rather than subject to repeated piecemeal adjustments.]
Mr. Biffen: Of course, I note the anxiety of the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister should report to the House after the European Community Summit meeting. The possibility of a debate is a matter that we can consider further through the usual channels.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the payment of funds to the Community, which has been the subject of judicial comment. This is now being studied, and I shall ensure that the House is informed when I am in a position to do so.
I am afraid that I cannot anticipate the content of the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment in Monday's Second Reading debate. But I shall draw to my right hon. Friend's attention what the right hon. Gentleman said about the audit.
The right hon. Gentleman requested extra time to debate the motion on the Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984 (Appointed Day) Order and in respect of the proposed Hong Kong agreement. I hope that I shall be able to accommodate him on both.
Finally, the right hon. Gentleman made a good-natured inquiry about the early-day motions on student grants signed by a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I am sure that it will not have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that the matter is referred to in "The Autumn Statement" by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and will be appropriate for reference in the course of Thursday's debate.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be an opportunity for a full debate on the miners' strike before the House goes into the Christmas Recess? I am sure that he will agree that there have been many important

1091
developments, including the increasing flow back to work of miners and today's schism in the NUM executive, which the House should debate as soon as possible.
Mr. Biffen: I understand my hon. Friend's interest that there should be a debate on the miners' strike. It is almost certain that the business of the House will provide a chance for some reference to be made to it. However, at this stage I cannot in any sense guarantee that there will be a full day's debate in Government time.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Has the Leader of the House seen the motions in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends on regional aid? When will these and all the issues of the statement by the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry be debated, and when shall we be able to question the Minister on his inability to understand where the unemployment is?
Mr. Biffen: I have noted the action that the hon. Gentleman has taken in respect of these orders, and I realise that the House will want to debate the Government's regional policy and the orders. I shall ensure that such a debate will be held as soon as it can be reasonably arranged.
Mr. Michael Latham: To save the time of the House, will my right hon. Friend confirm that he could avoid a debate on early-day motion No. 162 if the Secretary of State for Education and Science withdrew his proposal and responded to the feelings of many right hon. and hon. Members on this matter?
Mr. Biffen: It is not for me to confirm that there would be such a neat mechanical relationship between one gesture and another. But if my hon. Friend wants to make his point at greater length, he will have his chance on Thursday.
Mr. Michael Foot: The Leader of the House will have seen the furious protest from the Opposition Benches when the statement about regional policy was made yesterday. He will also have seen that demands were made by the Opposition on behalf of people in all parts of the country pressing for a debate on the subject before the Government proceed with this monstrous measure. May we be assured not merely that we shall have one day's debate but that there will be a full debate covering all these matters? Some of us represent parts of the country where there is between 20 and 25 per cent. unemployment. The Government's proposals mean that even the aid that we are getting at present will be cut. That is what the Government are doing, and we want to debate it fully.
Mr. Biffen: I tried to give a reasonably forthcoming answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) when he put that point to me. I accept the passion that the right hon. Gentleman invests in this topic. He is right to say that many hon. Members from all parts of the House wish for an early debate. I shall do my best to discharge that requirement.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that unlss there is a helpful statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science some of us might find it rather difficult to support the Government on Thursday?
Mr. Biffen: It it is very kind of my hon. Friend thus to inform me. I only hope that he informs his Whips with the same charm privately as he does me publicly.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the debate on the Hong Kong issue on Wednesday will be an historic occasion and that a great many hon. Members will wish to speak? Did I understand him to say earlier that he would provide additional time for that debate?
Mr. Biffen: I am happy to confirm the premise of the hon. Gentleman's point. It will, indeed, be an historic debate. In response to a request by the Leader of the Opposition, I said that we would extend the time for debate to midnight. Legislation on that matter will be forthcoming, so those unlucky on Wednesday will have their opportunity when we discuss the legislation.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a full debate on the law of the sea convention prior to 10 December, by which time, if we do not sign it, we will lose our pioneer investor status?
Mr. Biffen: I do not necessarily agree with the reflection of my hon. Friend in making his request. There will be an Adjournment debate on that very topic next week, initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend). Perhaps my hon. Friend would get in touch with him.
Mr. David Winnick: Regarding Question Time, is the Leader of the House aware that 40 minutes for foreign affairs, including the EEC, is somewhat inadequate? Is he making any progress in doing something about that?
Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that yesterday 145 questions were tabled to the Prime Minister for answer in two weeks' time? As it is becoming a running farce, is it possible for the usual channels to consider the suggestion that anyone who wants to table a question to the Prime Minister must go to the Table Office to do so?
Mr. Biffen: Any attempt to reform Prime Minister's Question Time would be such a fundamental change in the culture of this place that it would best be undertaken by the Procedure Committee.
On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I regret to say that I have already replied to him with a buck-passing answer suggesting that the matter be referred to the usual channels.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Did my right hon. Friend see reports that stated that one in three applicants for British Telecom shares failed to fill in the form correctly? Will he therefore arrange for our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to come to the House at an early stage to answer calls from Conservative Members not to reduce student grants because the level of education obviously needs to be kept up?
Mr. Biffen: I must say, that is very good—nine out of 10. If my hon. Friend starts with the premise of the circumstances of the applications for British Telecom shares, I should prefer him to stay with that and reflect on what a resounding success it was.
Mr. Robert Kilroy-Silk: Given the depth and scale of unemployment, poverty and destitution experienced by the people of Merseyside, will the Leader

1093
of the House arrange for a debate on Merseyside so that we can specifically identify those aspects of Government policy that are clearly responsible for the present problems, and discuss what, if any, proposals the Government have to ameliorate them?
Mr. Biffen: I do, of course, understand the deep social and economic problems on Merseyside and the way in which the hon. Gentleman has intimately identified himself with them. Given the constraints on Government time, I hope that the point that he wishes to make can be made during the debate on regional policy that has been promised.
Mr. Tony Speller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the Government's policy announced yesterday, the need for a debate on regional policy is more than ever urgent? Is he further aware that only today I heard that 30 new jobs were cancelled in Ilfracombe, which has lost its status because of the Government's ill-considered thinking.
Mr. Biffen: I thank my hon. Friend for that trailer to his intended contribution to the debate on regional policy.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: In view of the authoritarian ideas developed in the Prime Minister's speech at the Carlton Club, will the right hon. Gentleman organise a full-scale debate in the new year so that we may consider not only the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to which the Prime Minister referred, but the 1640 revolution which established parliamentary democracy and parliamentary Government in Britain?
May we also consider the Acts of Parliament that have been abolished, such as the Combination Acts about which the Prime Minister was careful not to talk? May we have such a debate so that the nation knows that there is a real feeling in the country for fighting for basic democratic rights which were completely ignored by the Prime Minister in her speech which, incidentally, I read in full?
Mr. Biffen: I have many responsibilities at the Dispatch Box, but I shall neither seek nor undertake the task of correcting the hon. Gentleman's misconceptions about British parliamentary, economic and social history. I can tell him that those who fought for parliamentary liberties in the 17th century did not do it by resorting to rent-a-mob tactics.
Mr. Heffer: No—civil war.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of the Government's repeated statements about the need to uphold the courts of the land, why was the Leader of the House not able to give the Leader of the Opposition an absolute assurance that he would remove from the Order Paper the order for supplementary payments to the Common Market until the courts have determined the validity of the order, in the light of Mr. Justice Hodgson's decision yesterday? Will he at least make a statement saying that there is no question of any money being sent until the courts have declared this order to be valid.
Mr. Biffen: It would be absurd if I removed that order from the Order Paper, thus anticipating a judgment which has not yet been made. I gave a forthright reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I stand by that reply and do not intend to add to it.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House consider making proposals to improve public access and facilities for lobbyists in this building? Is he aware that in the past few weeks elderly lobbyists have been forced to wait outside in the cold and rain before being allowed in? Is he further aware that there are no refreshment facilities for people who are not in the company of a Member of Parliament, and that the facilities for disabled people are poor?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on 8 November people in wheelchairs were forced to wait in the cold of Westminster hall and were not allowed into the Central Lobby until I made arrangements? Is not the way that members of the public are treated when they try to come to the House disgraceful? May we have some sensible plans for allowing the public into the building?
Mr. Biffen: I think that the whole question of lobbying could properly be considered by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the House of Commons (Services) Committee. I accept that the matter should be further considered. If the hon. Gentleman submits his evidence, I shall draw it to the Committee's attention.
Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend my be slightly wearied by the fact that I keep asking him when the Government will make a statement on the disposal of nuclear waste in Cleveland. Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have raised the subject 13 months in a row but that the Government keep shying away? The patience of the people of Cleveland is wearing very thin, Sir. Will my right hon. Friend please do his best for us?
Mr. Biffen: I shall do my best. I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to the plea that my hon. Friend has made yet again today. I know of his deep concern for the part of the world in which he lives. I appreciate why he wishes to draw my attention to it.
Mr. John Maxton: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Secretary of State for Scotland held a press conference in Edinburgh this afternoon to announce that he was refusing the legitimate demand of Scottish teachers for an independent inquiry into their pay and conditions of service? Will the right hon. Gentleman convey the anger of the House to the Secretary of State and tell him that we believe that he is treating the House with contempt, as he has many times before, by holding press conferences in Scotland instead of coming here to make statements to the House. Will he insist that the Secretary of State makes a statement next week so that we may question him?
Mr. Biffen: Of course I shall refer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland the point that the hon. Gentleman has just raised. I would not for a moment seek to get involved in controversies of a Scottish character, but my first reaction is that it cannot be entirely reprehensible that my right hon. Friend should try to do something in Edinburgh which relates to Scottish education.
Mr. Tony Marlow: As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a healthy majority for "The Autumn Statement", but on the other hand there is no majority in the House for the ill-thought-out proposals on parental contributions. Would it not be sensible to have a

1095
separate debate on this issue so that it could be consigned to the political dustbin at the earliest possible opportunity before it causes an immense amount of damage?
Mr. Biffen: Perhaps providentially, this week's business enables my hon. Friend to make a powerful speech and judge his conscience.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House will be aware of today's lobby in relation to the drug Debendox. In view of the sympathy for those women and given that many people believe that their justified claims are being disregarded by the drug companies, will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to make a statement, and will he also consider the possibility of a short debate?
Mr. Biffen: I shall most certainly undertake to put that request.
Mr. Roger King: In view of the national importance of tomorrow's Stoke-on-Trent summit between the Leader of the Opposition and the leader of the NUM, will my right hon. Friend urgently find time next week to discuss the outcome?
Mr. Biffen: Plenty of other agencies seeking the spread of truth and illumination will, I believe, do that task for us in an extra-parliamentary fashion.
Mr. Greville Janner: In the light of the growth of sweatshops associated with the outrageously high level of unemployment together with low income and the Government's apparent intention to repeal the wages councils regulations, and in view of the Government's refusal to provide enough funds for the Health and Safety Executive to do its job, when may we have a debate on this matter? As the unemployment level in some parts of Leicester is more than 50 per cent. and that the number of sweatshops is growing, surely this is a matter which demands the attention of the entire House.
Mr. Biffen: The hon. and learned Gentleman has raised this matter with me in the past, and I must again give him the same somewhat narrow reply. This is a topic in respect of which the hon. and learned Gentleman could well try his luck for an Adjournment debate.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Is the Leader of the House aware that last night's demonstration impeded the progress of hon. Members to the House of Commons, and is not that contrary to the Sessional Orders passed by this House?
Mr. Biffen: That may be so, and it touches on the fairly wide lobbying issue raised by the Hon. Member for Islingto, North (Mr. Corbyn). Feelings run in a variety of directions as to how best we can deal with this matter in the future.
Mr. Peter Shore: The answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) was extraordinary. It is unusual when a court has judged that a particular ruling is not in order to find that the order is still on the Order Paper of the House of Commons. The matter is still be be determined, and surely in that interim period it ought to be withdrawn.
Mr. Biffen: No, it stands there pending clarification of the situation.
Mr. Alan Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a general debate on the structure of taxation? If the Chancellor is contemplating the introduction of significant changes in the structure of taxation, many hon. Members would be glad if, while he is still developing his thinking, he had an opportunity to listen to the views of the House.
Mr. Biffen: I think that that is a very bad idea. We are getting to the stage where there is intense public debate before Budget decisions. That public debate is being conducted in such a highly lobbyist fashion as to inhibit the proper independence of judgment that a Chancellor should exercise in the vital months before his Budget.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: As the inquiry by the five accountants headed by Cooper and others—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lybrand."] No, that is his name. As that inquiry into the affairs of the National Coal Board in the last few months shows that pits have been closed and threatened with closure on the basis of false accounting procedures—for example, Cortonwood was supposed to be losing £6 per tonne when proper accounting procedures show that it is making a profit of £5 per tonne—and as the closure of pits means that there are fewer left to take on all the overheads for subsidence, and so on, is it not high time that the Government arranged for a debate on the mining industry or for a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy? If the Secretary of State is a seeker after truth, he will wish to ensure that we know everything about the NCB accounts and that the report is published in full rather than held back by the NCB in an attempt to hoodwink the taxpayer?
Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we had a three-hour debate on the coal industry last week and I believe that it was a lively and constructive debate. I will, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy to the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot hold out the prospect of an early debate on the industry.
Mr. Richard Tracey: In view of the natural apprehension of many people, especially the old, that the BBC may apply for an increase of almost 50 per cent. in the television licence fee, bringing it to about £70, and in view of the rapidly changing structure of British broadcasting, will my right hon. Friend discuss with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary the possibility of an early debate on the future financing of British broadcasting?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly make that request to my right hon. and learned Friend. Meanwhile, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Surbition (Mr. Tracey) will realise that any change in the licence fee is subject to the negative resolution procedure, so it would almost certainly be debated in the House.
Mr. Eric Deakins: Why has the Foreign Secretary not yet made a statement to the House this week about the outcome of the recent meeting of EEC Foreign Ministers, bearing in mind that it was the last meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers before the summit and that the so-called guidelines on budget discipline were considered in the full knowledge that they had not been and would not be approved by the Council of Agriculture Ministers?
Mr. Biffen: I will most willingly draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs to that point.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Before Monday week's debate on the Second Reading of the Representation of the People Bill, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to the widespread concern about the risk of personation not only in Northern Ireland, which is dealt with in the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill, but throughout the United Kingdom? As personation has also occurred in various cities in Great Britain, could discussions take place with a view to some kind of submission being put forward for the debate on Monday week so that electors in the rest of the United Kingdom can be protected from electoral abuse?
Mr. Biffen: I shall, of course, draw the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary to that point.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of next week's debates, Mr. Speaker, may I be the first to wish you a Merry Christmas? Will the Leader of the House say whether the "appointed day" order is in fact the abolition of GLC and metropolitan county council elections? If that is what it is, how long will Parliament have to debate that fundamental attack on local democracy?
Mr. Biffen: I have responded to the Leader of the Opposition on this and I have said that additional time will be made available. It is hoped that the debate will last three hours.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall call the two hon. Gentlemen who have been rising in their places, but we must then move on.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has issued a consultative document on dog licence reform and that only one dog-eared copy is available in the Library to hon. Members. That document is not available in the Vote Office. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that copies of this document are made available in the Vote Office?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into the matter.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those five accountants have challenged every economic and financial assumption made by the National Coal Board? The document they have produced is important and deserves a statement to be made on the Floor of the House. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that next week we shall receive that statement, because that will help us to challenge statements that have been made by the Government during the past months?
Mr. Biffen: Actually, I gave a very forthcoming reply to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who half nods his head at that remark. I said that I would refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, and I cannot go beyond that.

Supplementary Benefit (Board and Lodging)
4 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on changes I am proposing in the system for making board and lodging payments under the supplementary benefit scheme. I have referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for it to report its views to me after a process of consultation. Copies of the consultative document are available in the Vote Office.
Supplementary benefit expenditure on board and lodging is escalating. During 1983 it rose from £205 million a year to £380 million a year. My latest information suggests that unless action is taken expenditure will grow by a further 50 per cent. each year during 1984 and 1985. No responsible Government can allow expenditure to increase in this way unchecked. As an immediate measure of cost control, I laid before the House on 22 November regulations which will empower me to impose a temporary freeze on the existing local limits governing board and lodging payments. These regulations will be debated soon. They will be replaced by new arrangements which will come into operation in early 1985, following the consultative process.
There is particular concern about the growing number of young people receiving board and lodging payments, especially those spending long periods on benefit in seaside resorts. The number of such people aged 25 and under went up by 60 per cent. during 1983. The increasing evidence of abuse makes it essential to move quickly to bring ordinary board and lodging expenditure under control.
As far as residential homes and nursing homes are concerned, I welcome the contribution which the many good establishments make. However, the present system of paying for such care under the supplementary benefit scheme does not discriminate adequately between homes for different types of resident or patient. Furthermore, it is difficult to see why the charges for residential care homes for the elderly met for supplementary benefit claimants should vary from £51 a week in one part of the country to £215 a week in another. We must move to a system in which there is less variation throughout the country.
My consultative document proposes several changes. The responsibility for setting the maximum amounts of benefit payable will be transferred to Ministers. For ordinary board and lodging accommodation, the existing locally determined limits will be replaced by two new limits—one for the Greater London area and another for the rest of the country. I am also proposing limiting the eligibility of 16 and 17-year-olds to claim board and lodging payments in their own right. We shall also prevent young people from setting up in long-term board and lodging accommodation, but we shall safeguard the position of the genuine job searcher.
I am proposing a new structure of national limits for payments in the residential care and nursing home sector. These new limits will be designed to reflect the varying cost of providing different types of care. There is no question, however, of elderly, handicapped or disabled

1099
people being moved out of their existing accommodation, and their position will be protected. At the same time, I am proposing that attendance allowance should be taken into account in assessing claims for supplementary benefit from people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes.
Subject to the process of consultation I have mentioned, I propose bringing regulations before the House in February next year with a view to implementing new arrangements in April 1985. I shall be monitoring the new arrangements closely after implementation and will not hesitate to produce further changes if these seem necessary. I shall be considering also alternative approaches in the light of the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme.
The supplementary benefit scheme is there to help people in need. The Government are committed to that. We are equally committed to our policy of care in the community. So we shall continue to meet the needs of the elderly, handicapped or disabled people, but we are equally determined to make sure that the supplementary benefit scheme is not abused or exploited. I am determined that we should no longer make unjustified board and lodging payments. I therefore give this warning: if claimants do not need board and lodging accommodation, or if the charges are too high, the supplementary benefit scheme will no longer pick up the bill.
Mr. Michael Meacher: Is the Secretary of State aware that, although we accept that new consultative proposals are clearly needed, we note that the problems with which they are designed to deal result entirely from the Government's reckless folly in pursuing an orgy of privatisation of residential and nursing care at the taxpayers' expense, which got completely out of hand? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a year ago, in November 1983, the Government deliberately opened the floodgates for commercial exploitation by removing the limit then existing on board and lodgings charges and by substituting charges which, according to paragraph 6 of the DHSS supplementary benefit handbook,
"represent the highest reasonable charge for board and lodging suitable for claimants in the particular type of accommodation in the area"?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that as a result of this nod and a wink from his Department private developers cashed in on a building boom which had nothing to do with providing care and attention for those elderly people in greatest need, and everything to do with raking off huge profits, subsidised at the taxpayers' expense through supplementary benefits?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, because of this private development bonanza, total board and lodging charges underwritten by his Department, which were, as he said, £205 million in 1982, have sky-rocketed this year, according to the Government's figures, to about £570 million? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this colossal increase of £365 million has largely been pocketed by private operators, who have used every fiddle in the book to push up charges, and that there has been nothing to stop them, because of the laxity of the criteria and, indeed, the open invitation which the right hon. Gentleman gave them a year ago?
Is it not astonishing, after all this, that there is not one word of apology in the statement by the Secretary of State for this enormous and reckless abuse of taxpayers' money? Is it not clear that the Government have panicked, since
1100
this is the fourth set of proposals in this area within one year? First, the ceilings on charges were substantially relaxed a year ago; secondly, proposals were made in April about who was classifiable as a boarder, which had to be withdrawn as unworkable; thirdly, the board and lodgings ceiling freeze was jammed on in September; and now, fourthly, we have these proposals. Yet still the Government have not got it right.
Why are the Government refusing claimants benefit and at the same time doing nothing to reduce the numbers forced to be hived off into bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hotels because of the squeeze on local authority budgets? Why will the Government not abolish the supplementary benefit restrictions on furniture grants, such as the iniquitous "suitable alternative furnished accommodation" rule which keeps claimants in bed-and-breakfast accommodation even when cheaper accommodation is available to them?
As to the new restrictions placed on young people under 25 moving into board and lodgings, is not the implication that young people up to the age of 25 will be expected to be kept at home, subsidised by their parents? If they cannot or will not live at home, will they be forced into squatting, into sleeping rough or on to the homeless circuit? Why are the Government so obsessionally worried about the relatively minor amount of abuse when the personal expenses of a person in lodgings are only £9·25 a week and when much vaster sums of public money are lost through tax evasion which, under this Government, regularly goes unchecked?
Mr. Fowler: I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman came full circle in his argument. He started by agreeing that it was right to issue a consultative document, but by the end he had come to his usual position of opposing anything and everything that the Government propose on this subject. His response, in total, was superficial in the extreme.
The number of young claimants has increased rapidly. The number in board and lodging aged 25 and under has risen by 60 per cent.—from 23,000 to 37,000—during the last 12 months. This compares with an increase of that age group on supplementary benefit of nothing like that amount. All the evidence shows that this growth is continuing rapidly and disproportionately. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants that kind of growth to continue unchecked.
The Government believe that it is sensible to check that growth, not just on financial grounds—goodness knows, those are grave enough—but because I am completely opposed to it. It brings the whole social security system into disrepute when we read reports such as the one published in The Standard this evening, which show the abuse that is taking place. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the maxima which were introduced in 1983. We removed the completely open-ended commitment which the Government previously had. That was plainly sensible. I remind the hon. Gentleman that under the last Labour Government the provision of private voluntary residential care increased substantially. The hon. Gentleman has only to go back to the figures to see that that is the case. I had hoped that it would be common ground that we want to see a good private sector and standards maintained in the private sector, but that none of us in the House wants to see claimants abusing the system.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is that landlords who cram families into their hotels and receive large payments from the DHSS as a result make extortionate profits? Another problem is that because there is no requirement on the DHSS or local authorities to inspect these hostels or hotels, landlords often crowd husband, wife and three or four children into rooms 12 or 15 feet square and make life a misery for them? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should act in this matter?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I agree. That is why the Government are consulting on this issue. I should have thought that would be common ground between the two sides of the House of Commons in seeking to tackle this kind of abuse. I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the matter. The kind of abuse that has been uncovered makes an unanswerable case for action, and that is what the Government propose. It may be necessary to go even beyond what we are proposing in the consultation document. This takes up my hon. Friend's second point. Under the supplementary benefit review, we shall consider having individual checks, not just on the value of the accommodation and the accommodation provided, but on whether the applicant needs that accommodation.
Mr. Archie Kirkwood: How many people are on the maximum rates on each of the three tiers? The Secretary of State said that there had been an increase in expenditure. Is not some of that increase due to the fact that the system has changed since last November? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not over-react and discriminate unfairly against 16 and 17-year olds. I believe he said that the consultation document proposes to limit their eligibility. I hope that he will not add to the increasing problems which we all experience of youngsters leaving home and finding no place to go. In my opinion and experience, the two-tier rate which he seems to be suggesting—one for London and one for the rest of the country— is a little too restrictive, because even in Scotland there are wide disparities of charges from one region to another.
Mr. Fowler: That is precisely why we are having these consultations. We are putting these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee, and the public and the political parties will have an opportunity to put forward their proposals. If suggestions are made which will improve the position, I guarantee to consider them seriously. I cannot give the exact numbers that the hon. Gentleman wants. The numbers involved in private voluntary homes and ordinary board and lodging have increased dramatically over the past few years, but they also increased long before the 1983 maximum limits were introduced. There are about 140,000 supplementary benefit claimants in ordinary board and lodging, and about 42,500 residents in private voluntary homes.
Dr. Brian Mawhinney: Having reported to my right hon. Friend cases in my constituency which helped to promote this benefits review, may I express my appreciation of his decision to limit the abuse of the system by young people, but, at the same time, to protect those young people who are moving around genuinely seeking employment? What does my right hon. Friend intend to do—he did not say in his statement—
1102
about those who are on supplementary benefit and in board and lodgings, who can currently receive up to £140 a week without any deductions from their supplementary benefit?
Mr. Fowler: We are considering that last point, and we shall consider it in the consultation exercise. The Peterborough case, which my hon. Friend put forcefully to me, is one which would be caught under the new regulations which we propose. I hope that I can satisfy him on that.
Mr. Frank Field: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Department of the Environment puts forward large capital sums for the building of hostels in the voluntary sector, and that those hostels are built only upon the assumption that his Department will cover a large part of the revenue implications? Did he do any research into the number of hostel places that will be cut as a result of his announcement? If he did, will he tell the House the outcome?
Mr. Fowler: There are specific proposals for hostels. We shall be setting national limits within a range which I hope will be satisfactory. Some of the national limits— for example, for residential care homes for the physically handicapped—will be increased rather than decreased. We shall have a much more sophisticated system than we have at present.
Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his proposals will be warmly welcomed in my constituency not least by those who, over the years, have been operating residential homes without seeking to make exaggerated profits. Is he satisfied that the provisions for ensuring that young people genuinely trying to find work will be exempt from these cuts will be easy to operate?
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's first point. On his second point, it is our aim to achieve that. If there is any doubt about it, and if there are any proposals which my hon. Friend or the Social Security Advisory Committee wishes to put forward to make it more certain, we shall consider them. We have no intention of interfering with a youngster trying to seek work. I give that assurance.
Mr. Bill Michie: Bearing in mind that the proposals do nothing for the unemployed or the homeless, but sweep the problem under the carpet, does the Secretary of State agree that it would be more sensible to give more financial help to and to co-operate with local authorities on housing stock and to have a more flexible attitude to single payments?
Mr. Fowler: Arguments can be advanced on both those points, but I do not think that that invalidates our action. At the moment the demand and numbers involved have increased drastically, and there is evidence of widespread abuse. In those circumstances, it must be reasonable for the Government to act.
Sir William Clark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement that he is determined to cut out the abuse or exploitation of supplementary benefit will be warmly welcomed, not just in the House, but throughout the country?
As we are talking about abuse and exploitation, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend has given any thought to the abuse that occurs when, from taxpayers' money,

1103
supplementary benefit is paid to a recipient either for mortgage interest or for rented accommodation, and those two payments are not made in all cases? Why cannot the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the DHSS make such payments direct to those who should receive them? I remind my right hon. Friend that for council accommodation the rent allowance is sent direct to the local council. Why is there this anomaly in the supplementary benefit system? Clearly, it is an abuse.
Mr. Fowler: The matter is under review. We are considering it, and what my hon. Friend has said will be taken into account.
Mr. John Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that if he depresses, by freezing, the level of support for people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, without legislating to control houses in multiple occupation, he will merely drive people into possible death traps, as they will have to lower their standards? Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to introduce legislation to control such premises, and will he recognise the insanity of continuing with a tough furniture grants policy, when a different policy would enable people to go into cheaper accommodation and to enjoy greater stability there?
Mr. Fowler: I apologise to the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) for not replying to his point about furniture grants. The furniture grants policy is being considered, not only by the Social Security Advisory Committee, but in the review of supplementary benefit.
I shall consider the hon. Gentleman's first point, but he will surely agree with me that at the moment there are areas of abuse and of over-charging for board and lodging. He must want to see those problems tackled, just as I do.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State said that there would be a debate on this matter later. I normally allow about half an hour for a statement. I shall allow questions to continue until half past 4, and I hope that in that time I shall be able to call all those hon. Members who wish to ask a question.
Mr. Chris Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman now answer the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) about safety standards in board and lodging accommodation? Do the Government have any proposals to bring before the House to try to prevent tragedies such as that which occurred last week in the middle of London, where the deaths were probably the direct result of the inadequate, unsafe and substandard quality of the accommodation?
Mr. Fowler: I recognise the problem, but the hon. Gentleman must recognise that this is a matter for the Department of the Environment and the local authorities. I shall certainly talk to my right hon. Friend about it.
Mr. Michael Howard: Is it not truly astonishing that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) should ask my right hon. Friend to desist from dealing with what the hon. Gentleman himself acknowledges to be an abuse of the system, on the ground that there is a different and unrelated abuse? Is my right hon. Friend aware that his measures will be warmly
1104
welcomed, not least in the seaside resorts to which young people travel, not in search of work, but in search of leisure at the expense of the taxpayer?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, I think that that is right. I have been impressed by the number of representations and letters that I have received—from my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) among others—about what is happening in seaside resorts. The Government's action will be welcomed. Many people of all parties are concerned about what is now taking place.
Mr. John Butterfill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how especially welcome his statement will be in my constituency, where there has been a positive flood of young people not seeking work into bed-and-breakfast accommodation.
It is estimated that there are now 2,500 young people from the Liverpool area alone in my constituency. Sadly, many of those young people are actively connected with drugs. The situation is most alarming for the resident population.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that some of the payments made in my constituency for bed-and-breakfast accommodation are paid at a rate which is above the general level paid by the ordinary public for such accommodation?
Mr. Fowler: Yes, all my hon. Friend's points are correct. His comments underline the reason why it is important to act here. We have seen an astonishing growth of provision in this area, with young people taking up residence for three, four, five or six months in some resorts. That is not what the supplementary benefits system was designed for. I hope that the inquiries will recognise that.
Mr. Peter Pike: The right hon. Gentleman's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) to the effect that the question of single payments is being reviewed is unsatisfactory. There is a need for greater urgency and for a decision at an early date, because of the problems of board and lodging accommodation. At the present time, because of the Government's policy, people are being forced into such accommodation, when there is spare accommodation available in certain areas. I know of constituents who have recently asked for single payments for cookers and have been told that, for a single person, a cooker is not essential. They have been refused payment. Supplementary benefit is not sufficient to enable them to dine out. How are they supposed to heat a meal? An urgent decision is needed.
Mr. Fowler: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the review of supplementary benefit is being undertaken urgently. We are now only months away from proposals being put before the House and considered by the Government. It is sensible to wait for those proposals.
One of the general problems of social security over past years has been the willingness to look at everything in an ad hoc way. We are attempting to consider social security as a whole, and in the round.
Mr. David Harris: My hon. Friend's announcement that there is to be a clampdown on the undoubted scandal of board and lodging payments, especially in seaside towns, will receive a warm welcome in Cornwall, where the invasion this summer was enormous. It is clear that in many cases the young people

1105
are not seeking work. They come to have a long holiday at the taxpayers' expense. Will my right hon. Friend speed up the review of the possibility of making payments direct to landlords, because there are many cases of money being paid to individuals but not handed over to the landlord, which means that those concerned chalk up enormous arrears.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I recognise the great concern that has been expressed in his constituency and in neighbouring constituencies in the west. We will certainly do all that we can in the proposed regulations to tackle the abuse. We will also keep the whole situation under review so that no new abuses spring up.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Secretary of State spoke of safeguarding the interests of the genuine job seeker. How does he propose to identify the genuine job seeker among the rest of the nation's dispossessed young?
Mr. Fowler: It is a question of fact. If someone arrives in an area and is given, say, two to four weeks to look for a job, that might be a reasonable period in which to find that work. If he is content to stay for month after month, one might reasonably suppose that he has given up looking for a job.
Mr. Roger Gale: Will my right hon. Friend accept my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, for taking action to terminate an abuse which has done serious damage to the holiday trade which we are trying to revitalise? Will he, however, accept that the present frozen limits of benefit are based on high-season summer rates? Will he take action to reduce those rates as soon as possible? Will he also reaffirm that those who leave accommodation in other parts of the country for no good reason will not be entitled to benefit at all?
Mr. Fowler: As my hon. Friend knows, two new limits are being introduced. We are seeking to consult on the level of those limits and will listen to the arguments that are put forward. I recognise what my hon. Friend has done in this area and the way in which he has campaigned for change. I hope he will feel that the Government's proposition is some response.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what he has just said and his statement are a disgraceful attack on the unemployed and are an attempt to blame young people for there not being enough jobs? Does he further agree that the real cause of the problem are voracious private landlords who have made a great deal of money out of the DHSS, the lack of job opportunities in many parts of the country and the way in which the Secretary of State for the Environment has deprived local authorities of sufficient money to build houses or flats for single people in my constituency and others like it? The problem of homelessness among single young people is enormous, is not being dealt with and is not addressed by the statement, which puts the blame where it does not belong. It makes young people scapegoats for the failures of Government policy.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened to the statement, or, if he did, he must have listened in a strange way. We want to achieve a good private sector,
1106
and most of the private sector, especially in regard to residential homes, is excellent. However, there is abuse which we want to root out. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will want to root out abuses by some of the claimants. It is absurd to describe these proposals as an attack on the unemployed and the young. I put it to the hon. Gentleman that if we do not tackle abuses in the social security system, the system and its reputation will decline.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I was about to say that in the spirit of Christmas I would call the three hon. Members who have been rising in their places, but I see that there are rather more than three. I shall allow questions on the statement to continue for another five minutes, but then we really must stop.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If my right hon. Friend recalls my correspondence with him concerning Dawlish, I am sure he will be aware of how welcome this news will be to people in that area. Does he agree that the fact that the system can be abused on isolated occasions means that public money is being wasted, which is bad enough and that people who are genuinely seeking jobs and are travelling around the country to do so are brought into disrepute? My right hon. Friend's proposals are extremely welcome, because that will now stop.
Mr. Fowler: I agree with my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work in bringing abuses in the system to the attention of the public.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What net savings are the Government intending to make? What are the employment implications for the private sector? Is it fair to say that when the former Secretary of State for Employment, now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, said, "Get on your bike," he did not mean that people should bike to the nearest seaside resort?
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his total support for my proposal, which I assume is what he meant by his final statement. We expect there to be savings of about £70 million in the next financial year.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The residents of Hunstanton in my constituency will welcome today's statement. Is it not time that the DHSS took powers to blacklist certain premises and lodgings?
Mr. Fowler: I know that there has been a case of fraud in my hon. Friend's constituency. We shall examine it in the consultation process. The limits that we have put down will deal with much of the abuse, but if there is fresh abuse we shall act.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Will my right hon. Friend accept congratulations on taking such swift steps to end a racket—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— which, even if it is received with laughter on the Opposition Front Bench, is much resented throughout the country, and especially in seaside towns? Will he confirm that no genuine job seeker and no private nursing home owner has anything to fear from the statement?
Mr. Fowler: I know my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. I confirm that genuine job seekers and bona fide owners of nursing homes or residential homes have nothing to fear. We are talking about rooting out abuse in the system, whether by the provider or the user. I find it bewildering that the Opposition should support abuse.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Will the consultation process include special consideration of the viability of the voucher scheme, as well as cash, because many people in Leicester unfortunately get behind with their payments, so landlords do not get the money back?
Mr. Fowler: I shall certainly examine that matter.

Skillcentres
4.35 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about skillcentres.
In the White Paper entitled "Training for Jobs" the Government set out their proposals for doubling the number of adults receiving training under Manpower Services Commission programmes, including a substantial increase in the number of unemployed training for jobs, and for ensuring that resources available for training are used in the most effective way. The Skillcentre Training Agency yesterday put forward to the MSC its proposals for improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the skillcentre network. Copies of the full proposals and background information are available in the Library.
The proposals will be considered by the MSC at its next meeting on 13 December. In the light of its considerations, the commission will advise me how it will propose to proceed. I shall of course keep the House informed of further developments.
Mr. John Prescott: The previous statement by the Secretary of State for Social Services was about saving money at the expense of people who are looking for jobs and this statement is about saving money by making it more difficult for people to get training. The statement in no way shows whether the Government are at all anxious about the MSC's proposal to throw 1,000 people on the dole—many of them are skilled training staff— and to close 29 skill training centres, or one in three of the total, most of which are in areas of extremely high unemployment.
Does the Secretary of State agree that the commission-has made these proposals simply to meet the cash limits imposed on it by the Government? Does he note, yet again, that areas of the United Kingdom north of the Trent are to carry the extra burden of the cuts, once again exposing the Government's two-nation policies? Has the Secretary of State seen the Confederation of British Industry's statement on last week's survey saying that 57 per cent. of its members were experiencing shortages of skilled labour—reflecting yet again the small amount of money being put into training in Britain as compared to our international competitors?
The House will welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to double adult training but, in reality, because of the shortage of funds, it will be achieved by cheaper lower technology training, more in keeping with the part-time unskilled service-based economy which the Government are imposing on Britain and which will not be accepted by the House.
It is about time that the so-called wets in the Government—in that I include the Secretary of State—stopped whining, like the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) on television at lunchtime, about their concern for the unemployed and used their political muscle to reverse the Government's policy of deskilling the nation and driving it to ever-increasing mass unemployment.
Mr. King: The first thing that is clear from the hon. Gentleman's comments is that he has not begun to look at the proposals made by the Skillcentre Training Agency.
Mr. Prescott: I have read them all.
Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman talked about our saving money. The Government have doubled the provision for training since coming into office. We intend to provide more training opportunities in every region in the coming year. The hon. Gentleman talked about deskilling. When I look at the list of courses being operated, although admittedly not in the skillcentre network, I find that they include computing, computer-aided design and computer-aided draughtsmanship. The hon. Gentleman must understand that the nation must face up to rapidly changing circumstances.
Mr. Prescott: Like closing one third of the skillcentres?
Mr. King: The MSC is charged by the House with ensuring that it is training people for the real needs of the future——
Mr. Prescott: So it is closing skillcentres?
Mr. King:—where the real jobs will come. We have to face up to the need for new skills—it is no use training people for yesterday's jobs.
Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that for some time now it has been difficult for those living In rural areas to get to skillcentres to pick up the new skills that they need for tomorrow? Has he any message of hope within the new framework that those living in rural areas will have an equivalent opportunity to develop the full skills for tomorrow?
Mr. King: The proposals of the Skillcentre Training Agency include a massive provision for mobile instructors. [Interruption.] Labour Members on the Front Bench appear to be blithely ignorant. They seem to believe that training in Britain should be confined to the conurbations and that the rural areas should go hang. I am proud that, while the main provision is in the conurbations, far greater attention than in the past has been given to the provision of mobile instructors, so that training can go to the people and is not wholly dependent on the location of bricks and mortar.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that any proposal at such a time as this to close or run down a skillcentre is an outrage? Such proposals have been made before. In my constituency the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor proposed to shut a skillcentre by cutting off its money and we had to fight to keep it. We did so in association with local industrialists who wanted the skillcentre and who used its services. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to increase Britain's total training facilities, he should add to the skillcentres that already exist. Therefore, will he give an undertaking that he will not close any skillcentre before the House has had a chance to vote upon that policy?
Mr. King: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity recently to look at some of the performance figures of skillcentres which show the reality of the present situation. Unfortunately, it is true that many skillcentres giving training in the traditional skills are training many people who will not get jobs and that there is insufficient training in those skills which will give people the best prospect of a job. We must ensure that every pound that goes into training is spent in the best interests of the people whom we want to train. The right hon. Gentleman must look hard at the justification for
1110
paying for the maintenance of buildings that are under-used when there is a crying need to give our people more modern training. We shall be increasing the number of people in Wales, as well as in every other area, who will have the opportunity in the coming years to receive training more appropriate to their needs.
Mr. David Penhaligon: For the Minister's attitude to be credible, he must be able to tell the House those skills that are currently being taught by skillcentres which he believes to be redundant. Will he do so?
Mr. King: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the papers in the Library, he will see a list of such courses. Of course they are not completely redundant, but one must bear in mind the level of demand. All the traditional skills being taught are in some demand. We have substantially increased the amount of money that is going into training and we are determined to spend every pound in the best interests of those being trained. I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman. I should have thought that he would approach the problem in a more objective way. We shall increase the number of people who get the chance of being trained. We shall double the adult training provision. Against that background, the hon. Gentleman should look much more seriously at the needs of his constituents. He should be anxious to see training maximised in that way.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it has always been a weakness of skillcentres that many of the people who become instructors teach obsolescent trades but that many of them will now, demonstrably, have learnt a new skill—that of dealing with young people? Will my right hon. Friend ensure that when the MSC makes staff adjustments it takes that into account and makes it possible for those who have shown a real skill in dealing with young people not to waste that skill but to deploy it elsewhere?
Mr. King: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has had a chance to consider the proposals, copies of which are in the Library. The proposals of the Skillcentre Training Agency include a substantial provision for the retraining of instructors. The massive development of the youth training scheme will also provide a massive opportunity for instructors. I hope that the Opposition will look more seriously at the proposal than, I suspect, they are doing at the moment.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that those who have been following the matter for the best part of a year now have been clear all along that if the Government persisted with the determination that the Skillcentre Training Agency would be self-financing within three years, and put on a commercial basis, there would inevitably be wholesale closures, and that that is now happening? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in my constituency, where male unemployment is more than 30 per cent., the Govan skillcentre is down for closure? That is an utter scandal because it has a perfectly good building which has been there for only 10 years. It is utterly flexible and can meet all the modern demands for modern training. Will at least that proposal be reversed?
Mr. King: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that if funds are used, perhaps to fund a deficit which is likely to be caused by the cost of maintaining buildings that are under-utilised and providing new buildings, that

1111
money will be denied to people for training in more appropriate tasks. That is the reality. [Interruption.] No matter how much hon. Members shout and scream, they cannot walk away from that. The money that goes into the maintenance of under-used facilities is denied to people who could benefit from more appropriate training. That is the reality of the choice that has to be faced and which is contained within the paper on which the commission will have to reach its decision.
Mr. Timothy Wood: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the skillcentres and adult training are sufficiently responsive to the development and use of new technology?
Mr. King: There have been some encouraging developments in many skillcentres. The House will know that the main customer of the Skillcentre Training Agency is the training division of the MSC which has a duty to determine and provide the most effective training that it can for as many people as possible. Some skillcentres are doing excellent work in many fields. Others find it more difficult to provide the sort of training that is most likely to equip people for jobs. That challenge cannot be walked away from. Shouting and screaming is deplorable on an issue of this seriousness. People should be concerned with the real issues of training the British people.
Mr. Ron Leighton: Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the rumours first circulated that, as a result of Treasury pressure for Civil Service cuts across the board, training centres were to be shut down, I caused a telephone call to be made to the MSC on 23 August during the recess to tell it that, were those rumours true, I was certain that the Select Committee on Employment would want an immediate inquiry? Is he aware that the Government appear schizophrenic about training? They only pay lip service to training because we are told on all sides of the skill shortages and how our rivals train more effectively. Yet the Government's response is to send 450 instructors on to the dole queue. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, prima facie, the Government have a crazy and lunatic policy, which it is his duty to resist in the Cabinet?
Mr. King: Expenditure on employment and training measures is £2,000 million. That is a pretty funny form of lip service. This is not an attempt to reduce expenditure on training. The money that we shall save will go on the training of people. We are investing less in bricks and mortar and more in real training.
Mr. David Ashby: Is my right hon. Friend aware that skillcentres at Long Eaton, Birmingham and Leicester are of little assistance to areas such as mine and that his statement that there will be mobile instructors is very welcome as there is a crying need for them in those areas?
Mr. King: I am absolutely persuaded that we must be flexible if we are to tackle the real problem of improving skills, giving people a better chance of employment and making it possible for the economy to expand by being able to man the new technologies sufficiently. There will have to be changes. I am discouraged by the reaction to this first announcement. I had hoped that hon. Members would be willing to look at the matter seriously, as I shall have to do in due course——
Mr. Prescott: It is a disgusting statement.
Mr. King: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying that, because he is implying that he would rather that money was wasted on bricks and mortar than spent on training people.
Mr. Frank Haynes: Is the Secretary of State aware that his statement is totally disgraceful? Since his statement, any confidence that I had in him has completely disappeared. I have a skillcentre in my constituency that is on the list. Like a coward, the Secretary of State is hiding behind the MSC and blaming it for the decision that is to be made a little later. The closure of the skillcentre in my constituency means that people will go on the dole and that those already in the dole queue will be unable to get the training that they are used to. It is a disgusting state of affairs and the right hon. Gentleman should resign.
Mr. King: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has even begun to look at the proposals, or whether he knows, for example, that a substantial increase is proposed in the training for people in his area, as in others— [Interruption.] If he is not interested, and just wants to shout——
Mr. Haynes: Well, do something, then.
Mr. King:——I hope at least that some of his constituents will realise that. The hon. Gentleman accused me of hiding like a coward behind the MSC, but I have come at the first opportunity to make a statement in response to requests, although the matter is not yet before me. The MSC has not even reached a decision yet. The proposals were put forward, and I was anxious that, if the House so wished, it should have information about them. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman can accuse me of hiding behind the MSC.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend agree that his statement is not his last word on the subject? The Middlesbrough skillcentre in my area is due to be closed, but obviously the officials who give advice have no concept whatever of what it is like in the north-east of England or of what the transportation problems will be for my constituents in Langbaurgh who will have to go to Billingham for the next nearest centre. Although I welcome the idea of the mobile training provision, it should be in addition to skillcentres and not at their expense.
Mr. King: My hon. Friend will obviously wish to make his views known at the appropriate time, and will be communicating his thoughts. I think that he understands the procedure involved rather better than one or two other hon. Members. The proposals were sent yesterday to the Commissioners and came from the Skillcentre Training Agency. They go before the commission on 13 December and it will advise me on how it proposes to proceed thereafter.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I realise the importance of the matter, but there is an important debate to follow. I shall call those hon. Members who have been standing in their places, but I am afraid that I cannot call any more than that.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Secretary of State asked us to take the matter seriously and said that the issues had not yet been brought before him. He has mentioned the MSC and the Skillcentre Training

1113
Agency but what part is the House to play? Are we to have a chance to influence the Minister and/or the MSC, or did he say that the MSC would make the decision? Are we wasting our time?
Mr. King: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House happens to have arrived in the Chamber at the right moment and he will have heard the right hon. Gentleman's comments on what further discussions there should be. However, I shall keep the House informed and it is for it to decide how it wishes to proceed, depending first on the outcome of the MSC's deliberations.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Will the mobile instructors relate to existing skillcentres such as the excellent Perivale skillcentre in my constituency? If so, will not that be a considerable gain to the skillcentres as well as to the surrounding areas?
Mr. King: Those who have studied the present situation recognise that there is considerable scope for improving flexibility. The sort of development that my hon. Friend is talking about is one example of that. There have also been developments in the increased use of employers' premises, and that may be more relevant to the needs of Langbaurgh. However, I am sure that flexibility is important and that we should ensure that instructors in the new technologies and skills are available, as that is very important to the development and efficiency of the agency.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Why does not the Secretary of State come clean? Is it not true that industry's long-term interests and needs are being sacrificed in the short-term interest of the Treasury? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that for years a reappearance of growth in the economy has met with a shortage of the very skills in traditional industries— not in the new technologies— that skillcentres are designed to overcome? Will he reconsider his statement and ensure that, instead of cutting skillcentres, he expands them in future?
Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard my comments about the need to expand the number of people receiving appropriate training. One area of expansion is access to the new technologies. We are seeking to develop that. Part of that development is the successful development of information technology centres which are available for the youth training scheme. We are expanding the use of ITeCs to make them available to adults as well, and to ensure that they have access to the area of new information technology. Of course there will continue to be training in the traditional technologies, but it is a question of striking a balance and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will see that there is scope, and that the exact method is a matter for consideration by the MSC. But it is undoubtedly important to keep training provision flexible and appropriate to the country's real needs.
Mr. Forth: Although I understand, and indeed support, the thrust of this policy in seeking increased effectiveness and value for money in the training effort, I regret that the skillcentre in Redditch in my constituency is one of those to be closed—[Interruption.] I shall be seeking further information about the criteria upon which it was selected. Some of my constituents may now have
1114
to travel to the nearest skillcentre, which I believe will be in Birmingham, Handsworth. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that they will not find themselves out of pocket? At present I believe that they may have to pay the first £4 of additional travelling expenses. Is he prepared to look at the matter and to ensure that where possible people do not have to pay more for their training?
Mr. King: As I think is clear, I am prepared to look at any aspects of the matter; it has not yet been brought before me as it awaits further consideration by the MSC. However, I believe that that is one of the points that it has very much in mind.
Mr. Gareth Wardell: It is proposed to close the Llanelli skillcentre, which serves the counties of West Glamorgan and Dyfed. But it has one of the highest occupancy rates of any skillcentre in Wales and one of the best records of placing trainees in jobs and it has, over the past 18 months, developed new courses to keep up to date with the new technologies so that industry can be better served. Why is that skillcentre proposed for closure?
Mr. King: I think that the hon. Gentleman will have heard my remarks. The proposals have been put by the Skillcentre Training Agency, and it has judged the network's best operation and the best use of the funds available. I understand that the proposals include the Llanelli skillcentre, and obviously the MSC will consider that in its examination of the proposals.
Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House in the clearest possible terms that these proposals will not in any way affect the total spending on adult training, and that any savings which may be made will go straight back into training more young people?
Mr. King: I am happy to give that clear assurance. The statement is about the most efficient use of resources. This is not a proposal to save funds on training. We seek to ensure that funds for training are spent on training people and not on maintaining under-utilised premises or on training in areas where there is no clear prospect of jobs when there is a desperate need to train people in areas where there is a real prospect of jobs.
Mr. Robin Corbett: If, as the Secretary of State says, some skillcentres have run courses in obsolete skills or skills for which there is no real prospect of jobs, why has he tolerated it? Why does he not change that, instead of closing skillcentres? He proposes to shut the centre at Castle Bromwich in my constituency, where unemployment has trebled. Is not the sad fact behind the statement an admission that there is no point in keeping many of these skillcentres open because, as he knows better than anyone else, there will never be jobs for the people who pass through them to go to?
Mr. King: As I tried to make clear to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon), the skills are not necessarily obsolete, but they are skills for which there is not sufficient demand. I understood his second point to be a criticism— that, if changes are needed and the Skillcentre Training Agency should put them forward, it should have put them forward earlier. That point needs consideration.
Ms. Clare Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, when we unravel the double-speak in which all Government pronouncements are now couched, training for today's jobs means training

1115
for no jobs and means less training? Is not that the underlying explanation of the statement? Will he confirm that his suggestion that there has been a doubling of training under the Government is an inaccurate assessment? We have seen a collapse of the apprenticeship system, a cut back in TOPS training and a lot of expenditure on low-level YTS entry-to-work type training, which does not produce real skills. Will he explain, if there has been a doubling of skill training under the Government, why, in the depths of the recession in the west midlands where people are desperately short of jobs and 30 per cent. of those in the inner core of Birmingham are unemployed, there are skill shortages in the city? Will he further explain why he proposes to close the Handsworth youth training centre, when in my constituency 80 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are unemployed?
Mr. King: I completely agree with the hon. Lady's first point, that there are fewer jobs than we wish to see. The hon. Lady refered to skill shortages. It is absolutely vital that we ensure that every pound spent on training for jobs will give someone the best possible chance of employment. The hon. Lady is not the youth training scheme's greatest admirer, but I hope that she will concede that it has been much more successful in giving people a chance of full-time employment than she cares to admit.
Mr. John Fraser: Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that one of the skillcentres to be closed serves your constituency and mine. When I wrote to Lord David Young about the closure of the Waddon skillcentre, he said that there would be a new building and increased adult provision at Lambeth young persons' training centre, which would provide a better geographical spread of adult training, with some redistribution towards the inner city. That is now to be negatived and Lambeth young persons' skillcentre is to be closed. The only thing that has changed since Lord David Young wrote to me is that there has been an increase in unemployment so that two out of three black and one out of two white school leavers in Lambeth are unemployed. Will Lord David Young and the Secretary of State support what Lord Young said two years ago, or will they support cuts by the training agency?
Mr. King: I am not aware of the letter from the then chairman of the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that he will support my statement, because he is making an identical statement in the House of Lords at present.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Will the Secretary of State be totally honest with the House and assure us that yesterday's statement from the MSC and his statement today do not present a fait accompli, which will come about without a long and good debate in the House
1116
on the future of skillcentres and training? The reality of the announcement is the end of quality training for unemployed people.
It is no good the Secretary of State telling the House that the Government are doubling the amount of training. We know that this means the end of proper courses in skillcentres and a move towards the substitution of cheap short-term courses in skillcentres where they still exist, and to an unproven, extremely short scheme on the community programme, which will have a training element in future. Will the Secretary of State come clean and tell the House how much quality training there will be for both unemployed and employed people?
Many people will see the news of this great list. What is the statement about? Does it mean that, where there is high unemployment, there is no room for skill training? With a few exceptions, such as the golden triangle in the South, that is the truth. The statement means the end of skill training. Will the Secretary of State promise us that we shall have a full debate on the matter in the near future? The Opposition will not take this lying down, but will fight it every inch of the way. This presents a real cut and genuine deprivation of opportunities for our people. It means no skills, no tech and no jobs in the future. [Interruption.]
Mr. King: My hon. Friends took the words out of my mouth when they said that that was a little over the top. It was well over the top. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) has done his bit of shouting; perhaps he will have the courtesy to allow me to reply. I have already advised the House how the matter may be considered by the House hereafter. It is not a fait accompli. Owing to the slightly difficult structure of the MSC—there is this matter of documents going to the MSC—I thought it right that the House should he aware at this stage of a proposal which will go to the MSC. It has not even been considered by the commission yet.
For the hon. Member to say that this is the end of quality training is so fatuous that it almost beggars belief. The hon. Gentleman supported a Government who spent considerably less than we are spending on training. We are now spending more than double what the Labour Government spent when unemployment was rising substantially. There is undoubtedly a major contribution for skillcentres to make to training provision. But to assume that only skillcentres are capable of training to deride completely the contribution being made, especially in some new technologies, such as computers and computer-aided design and draughtsmanship, by a number of the leading private companies, in which we shall be anxious to see provision for training, and to say that it means no tech and the end of proper training is absolute rubbish. I assure the House that that is quite untrue.

Immigration Service (Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya)
5.8 pm
Mr. Max Madden: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by my constituent, Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya."
The report, published today, is extremely critical of senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office. After they made a mistake in attempting to remove Mrs. Mundiya's husband from the United Kingdom, an attempt was made to cover up the mistake by claiming that her marriage was one of convenience. That is utterly false.
Two immigration officers, each with many years of service, asked for an explanation from the immigration service and the Home Office. Those officers refused to acquiesce or collude in what they saw as a cover-up of a serious mistake by senior officers of the immigration service and senior officials of the Home Office. Both officers have suffered personal and professional victimisation as a result of the stand that they took: one has been dismissed, and the second resigned from the immigration service.
The case demonstrates vividly that senior officers in the immigration service and the Home Office view immigration as a political battlefield where to admit a mistake, even one that has caused deep personal and family distress, is to hand a political victory to a political enemy.
The debate would be important because it would allow the Home Secretary to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that the personal hurt and distress suffered by Mrs. Mundiya and her family is not suffered by others; to enable him to tell the public and Parliament what action he will take to ensure that his Department will never again try to conceal mistakes by deception; and, finally, to tell the public and the House what action he will take to ensure that public servants who are unwilling to acquiesce or collude in deception of the public and of public representatives are not victimised personally or professionally.
Such a debate would be most important because of the great anxiety about the way in which immigration policies are implemented by the immigration service and the Home Office. A debate based on this extremely critical and important report would be a public service and would be welcomed by many hon. Members.
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 believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"a report of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of the results of his investigation into a complaint made by Mrs. Mundiya of Bradford."
I listened with great care to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I regret that I do not consider that the matter
1118
which he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot, therefore, submit his application to the House.
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course, I completely accept your ruling on the application by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). The matter that my hon. Friend raised in seeking a debate under Standing Order No.10 is not, as he will agree, simply one between him and a constituent and the Ombudsman. My hon. Friend deserves the greatest praise for the way in which he pursued this matter with the Ombudsman. This is also a matter for the House of Commons, which has rights in relation to the answerability of Ministers for what happens in their Departments. However much the Ombudsman may have criticised with great severity the actions of civil servants, and whatever apology may have been received from the permanent secretary, what happens in Departments is the responsibility of the Ministers.
The appalling acts that my hon. Friend outlined to the House stem from policies laid down by Ministers— policies which many of us regard as racist. After such a serious report from the Ombudsman, Ministers should tell the House what measures they intend to take to prevent acts such as my hon. Friend described from happening again. We ask for your assistance and advice on how to bring Ministers to the Dispatch Box to make the statement that the House has the right to expect.
Mr. Speaker: I do not deny the importance of the matter, but I am bound by the criteria laid down in Standing Order No.10. I have nothing to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden). There are other ways in which this matter can be brought before the House.

Immigration Service (Mrs. Yasmin Mundiya)

  BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS for MONDAY 17 DECEMBER
  Members successful in the ballot were:

  Mr. Michael Colvin

  Mr. Michael Stern

  Mr. Hughes Dykes

  BILL PRESENTED
    LAW REFORM (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND)
    Mr. Secretary Younger, supported by Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland, Mr. Michael Ancram, Mr. Allan Stewart and Mr. John Moore presented a Bill to amend the law of Scotland in respect of certain leases, other contracts and obligations, certain courts and their powers, evidence and procedure, certain criminal penalties, the care of children, and certain procedures relating to crofting and the valuation of sheep stocks; and to make, as respects Scotland, certain other miscellaneous reforms of the law: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 14.]

The Royal Navy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
5.15 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The past year has been one of significant progress for the Royal Navy. Major new ship orders have been placed, new classes of ships have been started, large-scale exercises have been undertaken, and some important operations have been successfully carried out. In addition to making a review of the service in opening this debate, I shall refer to certain maritime aspects of defence policy, and to the Trident programme in particular.
I start with the maritime threat, which is the basic yardstick against which we must measure the adequacy of our naval investment. Even outside the NATO area, we have seen with persistent regularity since the second world war the immense value to Britain of being able to deploy the right numbers and right types of ships in a timely and effective way. But, of course, the in-area commitment—the NATO commitment—is the primary justification and rationale of the size and shape of the Royal Navy. Maritime power—the ability to project military strength over and from the sea — is fundamental to NATO's strategy of deterrence, both nuclear and conventional.
Conventional deterrence would not be credible if it depended on our in-theatre forces alone, especially given the self-evident capability of the Warsaw pact to reinforce early on a massive scale, and along lines of land communications stretching from the inner German border deep into the Soviet Union. Of course, airborne reinforcement and the pre-positioning of some heavy equipment in continental Europe avoids total dependence on reinforcement by sea. However, there is no question but that for ourselves, for the Canadians and above all for the Americans, the ability to transit forces and equipment by sea will remain a fundamental requirement for the forseeable future.
On the nuclear side, the sea provides the one environment in which a key arm of NATO's strategic deterrent can enjoy invisibility and therefore invulnerability, again for the foreseeable future.
The near monopoly of sea control that the NATO navies had in the 1950s and the 1960s has come under increasing challenge in the 1970s and 1980s. The Soviet Union now has a surface navy of about 320 ships of small frigate size and above, and the warships under construction include the first Soviet carrier capable of taking catapult-launched fixed-wing aircraft, which is likely to be completed in four years' time. The Soviet amphibious landing capability, although modest in the past, continues to expand. It has one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, and the largest fishing fleet, and frequently uses both on naval tasks. It has the largest oceanographic fleet, which is another important naval asset. It has the largest mining capability, and it has by far and away the largest submarine force, with about 400 submarines in service, approximately half of which are nuclear-powered.
Despite this, Soviet submarine production shows no signs of slowing. No fewer than eight different classes of submarine are at present under construction simultaneously, seven of which are nuclear-powered, with a new Soviet submarine being completed once every 35 to 40 days.
1120
As one would expect, Soviet ships and submarines are improving all the time—electronically, acoustically and in the capability of their weapons systems. Of special significance is the new submarine-launched strategic cruise missile, which is assessed to have a range of up to 3,000 km and which is likely to become operational within the next year. A still faster, long-range submarine-launched cruise missile is also under development. No less significant is its growing maritime air capability with aircraft such as the Badger, Bear and Backfire able to attack NATO surface ships using stand-off missiles with ranges of up to 400 km.
All the Soviet maritime forces to which I have referred can deploy very suddenly and very fast, as they vividly demonstrated in an exercise in March this year. There is no doubt, therefore, about the fundamental importance of the maritime dimension to NATO's deterrent strategy, and equally there is no doubt about the significant and growing challenge coming from Soviet maritime power on the sea, under the sea and from the air.
Meeting that challenge is, of course, a matter for the Alliance and not just for ourselves. Exercising with the navies of other NATO countries is therefore a high priority task for our own. Over the last year, the Royal Navy has participated in three NATO exercises in the Mediterranean and in the biggest single NATO amphibious exercise ever conducted, exercise Teamwork in Norway, in which the ships of nine NATO navies took part. I am sure that NATO's determination to safeguard the territorial integrity of northern Norway was well noted.
Ours is, of course, also very much an operational Navy, operational every day of the week and every week of the year—providing our round-the-clock deterrent, watching the naval activity of other countries, maintaining the Falkland Islands protection zone, being ready to safeguard our interests in the Caribbean and in the Gulf, preventing illegal immigration into Hong Kong and helping to combat terrorism in Northern Ireland. The continuing operational responsibilities of the Royal Navy are diverse in character, far-flung geographically and of very high national importance. They are discharged extremely professionally and extremely effectively.
I should like to mention one particular operation carried out since our last debate. Earlier this month, five Ton class mine counter-measures vessels and their support ship returned home having been away since last March. They were the group that was deployed to the Red Sea to locate, clear and if possible obtain for examination the mines that had been laid there. Of the various navies deployed on the same task, the Royal Navy was the only one that succeeded in locating, disabling and retrieving a modern live mine. That mine is now being examined in the United Kingdom. As we have previously announced, it is of Soviet manufacture.
We have no reason to believe, however, that the Soviets either laid it, or were aware that it was being laid by a third party.
The whole process of actually locating that mine was extremely skilful, and the process of disabling it so that it could be safely brought back to the United Kingdom was self-evidently dangerous to those concerned. I know the whole House will want me to express our admiration and appreciation for the way in which that operation was conducted.
Before I leave operations, I shall refer to merchant shipping. As the House is well aware, the merchant

1121
marine, both through the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries and through merchant ships that we would need to take up from trade in a time of crisis, is critical to the operational effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
The House of Commons Select Committee on Defence has rightly expressed its concern about the possible operational implications for the Royal Navy if the decline in the British merchant marine continues. This is a matter to which we shall want to return, but I should like to make two points to the House at this stage.
First, at the present time, with the possible exception of vessels suitable for mine counter-measures, the size of the British flagged merchant marine in the particular categories of ships that we would require in any emergency is such that we can discharge our NATO obligations. However, it is also clear that this might not continue to be the case, at least in certain categories of vessels, if the decline in the British merchant marine continues for several more years.
The Department of Transport, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, is therefore launching an in-depth study into the likely future trends in the size of the British merchant marine. We shall be assessing the defence implications most carefully when that study is completed in the middle of next year.
Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that the study will be extemely useful and will be read with the greatest interest if ever my right hon. Friend feels able to publish it. However, would it not be more constructive even than what he has proposed now if he were to co-operate with our right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry and in the Treasury? They could see what incentives can be given for the generation of more trade for British merchant ships than is happening at the moment, thereby ensuring the situation that we should all like to see, in which the Navy can draw on the merchant fleet in times of trouble.
Mr. Stanley: What the Navy can call on in times of trouble is a specific defence requirement. We have a precise view of what our requirements are for the Royal Navy, for those merchant ships that can support the navy, and for those that would assist on the mine clearance operations, on the cross-Channel and north Atlantic reinforcement. I assure my hon. Friend that in advance of the completion of the study, we shall be looking carefully at the current position and the trends. As I said before, there is no cause for anxiety in meeting our NATO obligation, and we are looking, on a contingent basis, to what the implications might be, and to alternative options that we could follow should the decline in certain categories continue.
Mr. Richard Ottaway: In that case, why, in exercise Lionheart, was it necessary to charter in so many foreign vessels?
Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will know, as a matter of course we seek to secure the availability of vessels that are suitable for our requirement at a particular moment. There is always a basic difference between wartime and peacetime. War is a period of tension, when the relevant legislation has been passed. It is then possible to use all sorts of ferries that would normally be going about their
1122
holiday traffic. When one undertakes an exercise in peacetime, inevitably one does not wish to disrupt the holiday arrangements of the ferry traffic more than one has to. Therefore, one goes to the market, and does not necessarily have to call on our flagged ships because other vessels are available. We have much greater flexibility in a peacetime exercise than we would in war.
I now move on to the size and the shape of the Royal Navy. I am glad to tell the House that expenditure on the conventional Navy is now substantially higher in real terms than it was when the Labour party left office. This year we expect to spend about £500 million more on the conventional Navy in real terms than was spent in 1978–79— and that excludes Falklands war replacement expenditure, which is additional.
By the end of this year, we expect to have spent some £2,300 million more in real terms on the conventional Navy, again excluding Falklands expenditure, than would have been the case if expenditure had been maintained at its 1978–79 value. We are now seeing the fruits of that higher expenditure in the shipbuilding programme.
Some 41 ships have been ordered since May 1979, and 32 are currently being built with a total value of about £2,800 million. Moreover, many of the ships ordered over the past five years are vastly superior in capability to the vessels they will be replacing, which is why the hull numbers tell only part of the story.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Gentleman has just said that the hull numbers tell only part of the story. The House will be interested to learn how many of the surface units to which the Minister is referring joined the fleet last year, and how many joined the fleet this year.
Mr. Stanley: I cannot give those figures immediately. I suggest that one has to look at the whole pattern of ship ordering. As I said, 41 ships have been ordered since May 1979, and the expenditure on the conventional Navy is vastly higher than it was when the Labour party was in office.
The type 22 and 23 frigates represent a quantum jump over frigates such as the type 12s and the Leanders that they are replacing. The Hunt class mine counter-measures ships are in a wholly different league from the old Ton class ships. The Trafalgar class SSNs have capabilities well in excess of our earlier SSNs, and the new 2400 Upholder conventional submarines are a generation-plus ahead of the Oberons and Porpoise class boats that they will replace. Over the last year, we have in fact set in motion the procurement of no fewer than five completely new classes of RN and RFA vessels. The order for the first of class Upholder conventional submarine was placed in November 1983.
The order for the first of class type 23 frigate, HMS Norfolk, was placed in October this year. Also in October we went out to tender for a design and build contract for the first of a new class of RFAs— the "one stop" auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel. Earlier this month we invited a tender for the first of class of the new single-role minehunter. Last, but by no means least, we are currently out to tender for the first of the Trident SSBNs.
I should like to take this opportunity to announce that we have now settled where the refitting of the Trident submarines will be carried out; it will be at Rosyth.
I now want to turn to the different components of the Fleet — starting with the carriers. The third Invincible

1123
class carrier, the Ark Royal, is currently undergoing trials prior to joining the Fleet in the middle of next year. As the House knows, we are committed to having two carriers operational at any one time whilst the third will usually be in refit. HMS Hermes represents an additional carrier, over and above that commitment, and we are currently evaluating whether she should be sold or retained in mothball for the time being.
As for the destroyer and frigate force, the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to maintain eight additional ships in the running Fleet rather than place them in the standby squadron has been warmly welcomed in the House and by NATO. This decision will enable the destroyer and frigate force to remain at around the 50 mark.
Mr. Dick Douglas: May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the Trident refit decision? It may be that later in the debate my hon. Friends and I will be able to expand on it. However, to facilitate our understanding, we are talking about a refit programme beginning at some time in the 1990s. When is the order for the Trident likely to be placed, and how many jobs and what capital expenditure can be expected in Rosyth between now and the refit period?
Mr. Stanley: I said just now that we were currently out to tender on the first Trident SSBN. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a precise date for when the order will be placed, but it is out to tender.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to deal specifically with the employment implications for Rosyth.
Our amphibious forces and their specialist shipping represent a unique asset— a unique asset that was fundamental to the success of the Falklands landings. As well as being a unique asset, the Royal Marines also have a remarkable versatility. There are not many formations in the world— if any— that can perform the Arctic warfare role, the infantry role—and in Northern Ireland conditions— the air defence missile role, the artillery role, the special forces role, the close protection role, a variety of support roles, and, not least, the ceremonial bands role— all performed with exemplary discipline, toughness and skill. The Royal Marines and the Royal Marine Reserves do us much credit and perform invaluable services.
In terms of our amphibious shipping, we are restoring the pre-Falklands numbers of logistic landing ships. Contracts were placed with Tyne Shiprepairers in July for the repair of the Sir Tristram, and with Swan Hunter in September for the replacement of the Sir Galahad. Both HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid will remain in service until the mid-1990s.
Studies are currently in progress in the Ministry of Defence on the cost and capability options, which have a considerable range, for replacing our specialist amphibious shipping in time, if agreed, to allow preliminary design work involving industry to commence in the second half of 1985. Our decision on the replacement of our amphibious shipping must await the completion of these studies.
I referred earlier to the massive Soviet mining capability. The approaches to Britain's naval bases and reinforcement ports are bound to be a prime mining target, so we have in hand an extensive programme for modernising our mine warfare ships.
1124
The multi-role Hunt class which can both hunt and sweep mines is proving highly effective. Eight are now with the Fleet; three are building; and tenders were invited for two more earlier this month, with the option of a further two being added, making a potential order for four Hunts due to be placed early next year. As I mentioned earlier, a tender has also just been invited for the first of class of the new single-role mine hunter, the order for which is also planned for next year.
A key role in countering the Soviet mining threat is played by the Royal Naval Reserve. I am glad to tell the House that since our debate last year the first three of the River class minesweepers, being built specifically for operation by the RNR, have now been accepted into the Fleet, and that the remaining nine ships in the class are all building. For the first time, the RNR will have an entire class of new ships that is almost exclusively its own.
In addition, as my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces announced on 7 November in another place, we are aiming to increase the planned strength of the RNR by well over 40 per cent. over the next few years from its present level of around 5,400 to 7,800.
We greatly value the time, commitment and professional skills of the members of the RNR.
The contribution of the Fleet Air Arm has never been more important. In the era of long-range, precision-guided missiles which can be launched from submarines, surface ships and aircraft, it is vital to be able to project the Fleet's eyes, ears and hitting power well beyond the range of the weapons and sensors on our surface ships themselves.
This year we have ordered nine additional Sea Harriers, which will take the numbers available for combat air patrol to well above those available at the time of the Falklands conflict. Looking ahead, we are proceeding with plans to give the Sea Harriers a mid-life update particularly to enable them to counter the increasing missile threat.
Today, the capability of the ship's helicopter is as important as the weapons and sensors that are fitted in the ship itself. Two thirds or the Fleet's anti-submarine warfare Sea Kings have now been converted to the:mark 5 standard, and the balance of the front line Sea Kings will be converted by the middle of next year.
Improvements to the Fleet's Lynx helicopters are in train, which will give increased capability from 1988.
The first Sea King air-borne early warning squadron was commissioned earlier this month, plugging a gap that was exposed during the Falklands conflict.
The memorandum of understanding for the helicopter to replace the Sea King, the EH101, was signed with the Italian Government in January this year.
Finally, in March 1984, Harland and Wolff was awarded a contract to convert a merchant ship, the Contender Bezant, into an aviation training ship to be known as RFA Argus which will principally serve the helicopter training needs of the Fleet Air Arm.
For the Fleet Air Arm, it has, I think, been a year of good progress.
Lastly I come to the underwater navy. The newest of our present conventional submarines was launched in the mid 1960s; the oldest in the late 1950s. We have now started on their replacement. The Upholder class of conventional submarine, the first of which is now being built, will provide a much improved capability against both surface ships and other submarines— both nuclear

1125
and conventional. We believe it will also be exceptionally hard to detect. The first of class is now building, and follow-on orders are planned to begin next year.
The nuclear-powered attack submarine programme continues to go steadily forward. There are now 13 SSNs in the Fleet, with four more building, and a further SSN order is planned for next year. In the battle for sea control, the role of the SSNs will be critical, and even though their cost is greater per boat than any RN surface ship currently building, their capability and their survivability makes them very potent and cost-effective naval assets.
Sir John Farr: The House was glad to hear what my right hon. Friend said about the submarine underwater fleet. Is he absolutely sure that it will be the equal of what are reported to be built and produced in Soviet Russia as underwater vessels of exceptional speed and capacity?
Mr. Stanley: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, we do not begin to be equal in numerical terms. The technical quality of our latest conventional submarines, our SSNs and new class SSBNs will be a match for, and in many ways superior to, what is available within the Soviet navy. Having said that, the Soviet navy has a substantial numerical preponderance in that area.
I come finally to our nuclear ballistic missile submarines. I wish to make it clear beyond any doubt that the Government are firmly committed to the Trident programme, and that they are proceeding with it vigorously. Our commitment to Trident does not stem from dogma, history, fixation or any of the other irrelevancies that have been suggested in certain quarters. It stems from a cool, rational, dispassionate assessment of Britain's defence needs and Britain's defence priorities in the world of the 1990s and beyond.
That world looks like being no safer from nuclear blackmail— perhaps less so— than the world of the 1960s and 1970s in which previous British Governments of all complexions concluded that it was right not only to maintain Britain's strategic deterrent but to modernise it at very considerable cost. In safeguarding ourselves against nuclear blackmail in the world of the 1990s and beyond, Britain has available to her a unique defence option.
No other European member of NATO, apart from France, builds ballistic missile-firing submarines. No other European member of NATO has the access to the relevant American hardware and technology that we do.
The question for us, therefore, is do we keep or do we discard that wholly unique defence option? The Government's answer is that it is very definitely in our overall long-term national interest to keep it.
We have every reason to think that in Soviet eyes NATO's deterrence is materially strengthened by not being wholly dependent on the strategic nuclear forces of just a single country. The Americans want Britain to continue her strategic deterrent, and so do the European members of NATO.
For Britain herself, there is no additional expenditure on conventional weapons systems, even of the sort of sums required for Trident, that could purchase more than a fraction of the deterrence represented by Trident. Put
1126
another way, there is no scale of conventional retaliation that offers any real deterrent to nuclear blackmail with the massive nuclear armoury that the Soviet Union now has.
Can it seriously be argued that the threat of retaliation by British or even NATO conventional forces alone, would act as a deterrent to a nuclear strike, or threat of a nuclear strike, against even a single British city?
The argument that Britain should unilaterally give up her unique option of a strategic deterrent because she would be better off strengthening her conventional forces simply does not hold water in defence terms.
If it really does make better sense to exchange all one's own strategic nuclear weapons for conventional ones, I am afraid that the soundness of that argument has clearly entirely escaped the Soviet Union.
The fact is that the attempt of the official Opposition and the Liberal Party to justify their policy of abandoning Britain's deterrent on the grounds of strengthening our conventional forces is simply and frankly a fig leaf to try to conceal their adoption of one-sided disarmament policies.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: The Minister says that we should not take unilateral action. Does it not strike him as curious that while he opposes unilateral action in arms reduction, he is in favour of unilateral action in arms increase by increasing the number of warheads from 64 to 512? How does he justify that?
Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. Neither this Government nor any previous Government would disclose the number of warheads involved. It is not an escalation but a continuation of a capability that the hon. Gentleman's party is unilaterally seeking to abandon.
If Britain's strategic deterrent is to be retained, what is the most cost-effective way of replacing Polaris-Chevaline and what is the timetable for doing so? It has been suggested first, that we do not need to take a decision now and, secondly, that sea-launched cruise missiles would be a better bet than Trident. I want to deal with both points.
On timing, of course I acknowledge that there is no precise moment in time when our present deterrent ceases to be effective. The process is gradual rather than sudden. But I must tell the House that on the basis of all the advice available to us— advice that is necessarily highly-sensitive— the Polaris-Chevaline system will require replacing in about the mid-1990s. That means that in order to produce a dedicated replacement system with mid-1990s in-service date, the key procurement decisions have had to be taken by now.
Of the alternative systems to Trident, the only one that has been canvassed with any seriousness is a submarine-launched cruise missile system, rather than a ballistic one. That comparison has, of course, already been studied with great care and in depth by the present Government. It was studied in the period before the initial Trident decision was made in 1980, and it was re-examined again before the decision was made to go for the Trident D5 missile rather than the C4. Nothing has happened since then to alter the view the Government came to that a cruise missile system would be less cost-effective.
The arguments are well set out in open government document 80/23 "The Future United Kingdom Strategic Nuclear Deterrent Force" published in July 1980—and I draw particular attention to paragraphs 35 to 43—and in open government document 82/1 "The United Kingdom Trident programme" paragraphs 14 to 16.

1127
I shall explain the basic reasons why in the United Kingdom context the arguments come down in favour of a ballistic rather than a cruise system. First, we must have submarines that are dedicated to the deterrent role. The idea that we can combine both the hunter-killer conventional attack role and the nuclear deterrent role in the same submarine is an operational illusion. The two roles are, in fact in direct conflict. The essence of the hunter-killer role is to get into a position to attack an enemy vessel and then to make that attack. The act of attacking inevitably reveals the presence of a submarine.
In contrast, the absolute essence of the task of the submarine in the nuclear deterrent role is to remain undetected, and therefore invulnerable in all circumstances and at all times, to provide the guaranteed deterrent of an assured second strike capability. The two roles cannot be combined if one's strategic deterrent is to have the credibility that is conferred only by remaining undetected at all times. Britain's strategic deterrent has, therefore, to be placed in submarines that are exclusively and permanently dedicated to that role.
We then have to compare the relative cost-effectiveness of a dedicated ballistic missile submarine force with that of a dedicated cruise missile submarine force of the size necessary to achieve the minimum level of assured destruction assessed to be unacceptable to the Soviet Union. The House will, I am sure, understand that it is only possible to reproduce a general outline of that comparison in non-classified form.
I can outline the essential points, however. Though cruise missiles are cheaper, missile for missile, we need very many more of them to secure the same degree of deterrence achieved by a ballistic missile force. We need more cruise missiles because they carry only one warhead whereas the Trident ballistic missiles will have several. We need more cruise missiles also because cruise missiles will, for the foreseeable future, be much more vulnerable to Soviet defences than ballistic missiles.
Because we need more cruise missiles than ballistic ones— in fact many more— we need more dedicated submarines on which to carry them than the four boats planned for Trident with the resulting additional costs.
The cruise missile solution not only makes for a more vulnerable missile, but for a more vulnerable submarine launch platform. The submarine is made more vulnerable because the maximum range of American sea-launched cruise missiles under development, which we of course would have to use, is around 1,500 nautical miles, giving vastly less sea room in which the submarine can hide than the Trident D5 missile with about three times the range.
The House can be assured that the Government have as much interest as anyone in ensuring that our replacement deterrent is the most cost-effective available. If the cruise missile alternative had been more cost-effective, the Government would have adopted it, but for the reasons that I have spelt out our studies have consistently showed that a submarine-launched ballistic missile deterrent is more cost-effective than a cruise missile one. The cruise missile alternative to Trident would not confer the same assurance of deterrence. It would not be a cheaper means of securing equivalent deterrence. In short, it would be a bad buy.
For any disinclined to believe this, I would point out that five countries either already have or are developing a submarine-launched strategic missile capability— the United States, the USSR, China, France and ourselves. All
1128
have the same preoccupation, albeit from different standpoints, with their own security. All are bound to have done the same intensive analysis as we have done of the relative cost-effectiveness of ballistic and cruise missile systems.
Though both the United States and the USSR are supplementing their ballistic systems with strategic cruise systems, it is significant that all five countries have chosen to place their primary sea-launched strategic nuclear capabilities on ballistic missile, rather than cruise missile, submarines.
For the United Kingdom the only real policy options are between having a credible strategic deterrent which to be cost-effective needs to be ballistic, or having no strategic deterrent at all. For Britain to waste valuable resources on a halfway house deterrent, which in Soviet eyes— and those are the eyes that matter—would represent no real deterrent, would be the worst course of all. It is for these reasons that the Government remain committed to the Trident programme that we put to the electorate last year.
Mr. John Browne: I accept my right hon. Friend's arguments on Trident versus cruise, but what about the independence argument— the control mechanisms and so on?
Mr. Stanley: The degree of independence is exactly the same for Trident as it would be assuming that a cruise agreement with the Americans could be completed on the same terms. It will make no difference. We would have an independent system, as with Polaris.
Mr. James Callaghan: In the Estimates, the cost of Trident is based on an exchange rate of $1·53 to the pound. Now that the rate is $1·20, the cost will be increased substantially. In view of the Government's firm adherence to Trident, is the right hon. Gentleman giving an assurance that that additional cost will be borne in any circumstances, no matter what the rate of exchange and, further, that that will be without cost to the conventional Navy? If so, how will the cost be borne?
Mr. Stanley: Our view of the importance of maintaining the Trident programme is taken against the background that about half the cost is in dollars and that there is some vulnerability because of the exchange rate. Despite that element, our view is still that the overall economic and defence advantage is with continuing that programme.
Procurement is extended over about 18 years and the exchange rate over that lengthy period is a matter for speculation. If there is a deterioration in the exchange rate the overall sterling cost of the Trident programme will increase and fewer funds will be available for conventional forces. That goes without saying. However, we must consider the relative balance of advantage to the country as a whole between the Trident programme and what is at the margin of our conventional expenditure. As a result of Government action we have already increased our defence expenditure to about one fifth more than it was when the right hon. Gentleman's Administration left office.
In conclusion, those of us on both sides of the House who have had the good fortune to serve in the Ministry of Defence know what a privilege and a pleasure it is to work with the armed forces. In the last year I have seen a great deal of the men and women of the Royal Navy and the

1129
Royal Marines—in surface ships and in submarines, in the cold of Arctic Norway, in the heat of the middle and far east, and in the gales of the south Atlantic.
Those at sea with the Royal Navy today have to contend with electronic and engineering complexities that even in the last world war would never have been dreamt of. They also have to contend with the natural elements whose ferocity at times is changeless. The Royal Navy contends with both with skill, with style and with abundant good humour. I know that the whole House wishes the senior service well with both admiration and affection.
5.55 pm
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: More than in any year that I can recall, given the widespread speculation and publicity about the defence budget, Parliament's assessment of the naval Estimates must turn on certain basic but well-tried judgments. How far are they credible, given Britain's need for maritime power? How far do they take us towards the right size and shape of the Fleet in the late 1980s? How far are they affordable, given the soaring costs of defence technology, in particular Trident? How far do they provide for the right priorities, balance and sustainability, and how far are they in line with NATO's needs? How far do they pursue less nuclear reliant strategies, given the present state of public opinion across the Alliance, and are therefore in line with current thinking about arms control? Finally, how far are they acceptable to public opinion in Britain?
The defence Estimates involve a study of individual trees, not a wood. They make no attempt to draw a panorama of a landscape in which separate forests can be seen in relation to each other.
Let us consider the Navy. We hear of this weapons system or that ship. We know that the Navy has special responsibilities in the eastern Atlantic and the Channel, but nowhere can we find a fundamental up-to-date statement on why we need a navy. The case for a strong Royal Navy is only implied. The case for a strong Merchant Navy is not even mentioned. I suspect that references to the plight of the merchant service by the Minister were afterthoughts.
The sea is the vital link in Britain's growing industrial, commercial and agricultural dependence on imports. All the United Kingdom's international trade must cross the sea. Over 98 per cent. of it is carried in ships. A total of 232 million tonnes was carried by ship in 1980. No other means of transport could cope with such vast quantities of raw materials, food produce and manufactured goods.
That is why the law of the sea treaty is so important to Britain. Why do we not sign it? For a decade or more the United Kingdom has invested time and effort in drawing it up and has taken the lead in its drafting. Reservations about some of its provisions, notably sea-bed mining, are understood. Do the Government have a serious reservation or hesitation about it? It is important to be an original signatory.
Once we sign the treaty, we can work towards acceptable forms. Refusal to sign would mean that we would be the odd one out within the Commonwealth and, Germany apart, the odd one out within the European Community. It is vital for the Royal Navy and Britain to have freedom of passage for ships and aircraft. Should there not have been at least some reference to this in the
1130
defence Estimates? If this matter was dealt with in the Cabinet this morning and it was decided not to make a statement to the House this afternoon before our annual debate on the Navy, that will be seen as a grave contempt of the House.
There is another reason why I feel that the shape of our strategy as set out in the defence Estimates—in so far as it is possible to find a cohesive strategy between the rows of trees set out in it—is wrong. Of course we have commitments to continental Europe which we must respect, but our defence policy does not reflect the priorities which should be held by an island nation. It does not point the way to the effective exercise of sea power. To exercise seapower, as well as having an effective Navy in defence of our interests and in furtherance of them, we must have an effective mercantile marine to sustain it. We must also have an understanding among the electorate and here in Parliament of how seapower affects us all as individuals.
Britain's primary need as one of the most outward-looking and sea-dependent of nations, and as Europe's anchor man within the Alliance, is for maritime power. Almost every sector of Britain's maritime industry is beset by increasingly severe pressure on its operations, thereby posing a variety of threats to the country's trade, performance and security. That is why Jim Slater, general secretary of the National Union of Seamen, and Ken Gill, general secretary of AUEW-TASS, have joined forces to help Britain's crisis-torn shipping and shipbuilding industries. They have produced a plan under which it is intended to reserve Britain's coastal trade and offshore supply sector for United Kingdom flagships alone and to require the extra tonnage needed as a result to be built in British shipyards. The plan would add about 110 ships to the United Kingdom fleet, guaranteeing jobs for 20,000 shipbuilding workers and creating work for 2,500 seafarers. My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will have more to say about the plan when he replies for the Opposition.
I know that Jim Slater and Ken Gill will welcome the setting up of the study announced by the Minister; but that study will have to produce some results, because of the present decline in merchant shipping. It is now down to around 400 vessels with a projection of 300 by the end of this decade and with 5,000 men a year leaving the Fleet. At present there is no provision for training, and more and more of our trade will be carried under foreign flags. Such a crisis can await only a very brief study before it is tackled.
At the latest of the biannual Sealink conferences held in Annapolis this summer, which I, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and Conservative Members attended, Admiral Wesley McDonald, the Supreme Allied Commander Atlantic, warned his audience of parliamentarians, military officers, civil servants and strategists that his primary job was the protection of military resupply and economic shipping, but that this was becoming more difficult to do. This is the other side of the coin. He pointed out that 90 per cent. of military cargoes would have to come by sea, and studies showed that this would need up to 800 sailings a month, but the decline of the Western shipping industry meant that fewer ships would be available to transport the men and materials needed.
SACLANT also estimated that he had access to only half the warships that he needed for the convoy and escort

1131
role and that force goals were simply not being met. He was increasingly concerned about the deficiencies in NATO's ability to sustain a long conflict in the Atlantic. When challenged, the Government insist again and again that they are meeting force goals, but we should recall that we are responsible for providing 70 per cent. of ready forces in the eastern Atlantic. Given the decline in our own surface warship numbers—the Minister did not deny my implication—we are bound to wonder how serious the Government can be when they say that they are meeting force goals. If they are, whom did Admiral McDonald have in mind when he said that force goals were not being met?
It is true that in the spring, after a similar public warning by the Admiral earlier in the year, the Government announced that eight ships which should have gone into the standby squadron would be retained for the active fleet, and that two Rothesay class frigates which were to be stood down would be kept on for perhaps another year or so. In addition, I do not think the Minister will deny that he has come under at least as much, if not more, pressure from the Opposition Front Bench and some of my hon. Friends. Despite the retention of those ships, whom did Admiral McDonald have in mind when he said that force goals were not being met if he was not thinking of us?
In Navy International in March—he uttered the same warnings in June—Admiral McDonald wrote:
"Today I have less than half the carriers and escorts I need…I have only two thirds of the SSNs, between 80 per cent. and 90 per cent. of the MPA"—
maritime patrol aircraft—
"and far fewer MCMVs than I need".
This warning from SACLANT, together with the longstanding reminders from the Opposition Benches, no doubt explains the Secretary of State's reversal of policy, because it was nothing less.
For the third time, I ask whether we are meeting our force goals. In its early days NATO had a maritime superiority over the Warsaw pact of greater than 3:1. Based on historic examples such as world war 1 and world war 2, that ratio is just about what is needed for a maritime alliance to prevail against a land power with internal lines of communication.
Sir Anthony Buck: I have great sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that he has never met an admiral with enough ships? Does he not also agree that the admiral to whom he has referred is greatly alarmed at the possibility of our nation departing from the nuclear commitment?
Mr. Duffy: What the hon. and learned Gentleman says about admirals is the usual disclaimer which all Ministers and former Ministers make when cornered about their responsibilities. On this occasion, I am not with the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not share his criticism of admirals. Indeed, I shall quote another admiral later whom he knows and admires, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will find it difficult to reject his advice.
In the last decade or so, because of economic crises, austerity campaigns and cost cutting, along with each nation's attempt to maintain balanced forces, the ratio between NATO and the Warsaw pact has changed completely and is now only 1:1 or less, yet, even though our maritime forces are stretched globally as well as in the NATO area the trend in the number of surface units continues downward.
1132
The president of the United States-based ultra high-tech Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation took the Annapolis conference into the future of naval conflict. Telecommunications were in the midst of an unending revolution, he said, and the problems of managing them would soon be even more complicated by Third world countries crowding into the area. Microelectronics would soon provide embedded computers for weapons systems which would allow them to perform missions now requiring half this Chamber full of equipment.
It was also prophesied that future commanders would be able to detect and target thousands of objects in seconds, but there was caution about the prospects of a radical breakthrough in anti-submarine warfare technology. It was doubted whether there were signs of a broad area sea surveillance system able to see a submarine unless it was fairly near the surface. In other words, technology will not come to the rescue of this Government or the Secretary of State. There are no great new discoveries or strategies just around the corner, and no panaceas in the wings, for the Government's maritime shortfalls or deficiencies. There are just the cold, hard facts of force levels, ships and numbers, which are becoming more disturbing as time goes on and the facts become clearer. This was highlighted in the closing portion of the Minister's speech. His comments about Trident represented more than anything else an apology to those Members on both sides who believe in the importance of a surface fleet. We would give priority to that concept, but the Minister was effectively arguing the opportunity cost of Trident in terms of surface units.
The financial squeeze imposed by the 1981 White Paper extended right across the surface Navy. In addition to the demise of Invincible, Fearless and Intrepid, now rescinded, the sustainable level of the frigate and destroyer force would, other things being equal, have been halved and has been only partially reprieved. The Minister talked about new classes. Let us see them come on stream. Apart from short-term reprieves and including the eight ships that were to have gone into the standby squadron, the planned frigate and destroyer strength is now 50 or 52. No matter how one does the sums, and whatever soundings one takes, we still cannot agree on the number. Conservative Members, including former Navy Ministers, are not given the clear picture that they seek when they table questions about this. Conservative Members may care to consider the written answer at column 88 of the Official Report for 27 February, which shows how difficult it is to get a clear picture of the surface strength.
The question now is whether finance will be provided to maintain a new construction programme large enough to sustain that reduced force. It is disturbing enough to note that the strength is now only 50 or 52—a decline of at least 15 per cent., perhaps nearer 20 per cent., since the Minister took office. The Minister knows that one must have ships coming on stream to sustain that strength, because ships are going out all the time. Five frigates and a destroyer are going out this year, and six frigates next year. The Minister himself gave that information to the House. Ships are going out in larger numbers than they are coming in.
Delays in completing the latest of the Navy's Sea Dart missile destroyers will mean that only one major surface warship and one submarine will be completed for the Navy this year. That is the smallest number of ships to join the

1133
Fleet in any year this century. Only one destroyer, one frigate and one submarine were completed last year. At this rate, there will be no warship building at all by the end of the century. The same applies to merchantmen. Yet numbers are vital, numbers have a quality of their own—or is the Navy now firmly in the grip of structural disarmament?
The Minister mentioned the type 23. Perhaps the most compelling argument for its introduction was that it would be cheaper. When it was announced, a figure as low as C60 million was mentioned. What is the present cost? Has it become gold-plated like some other classes? We have been hearing throughout the year that the first order was being placed this year, but what about the next order and the one after that? What numbers do the Government have in mind? Conservative Members should be trying to wring that information out of the Government. We also need to know how long the type 23 is to run.
Perhaps the Government have realised that we have been investing too much in costly' and sophisticated new equipment. In The Naval Review, a magazine circulated only to serving naval officers, one officer writes:
"Reliability…means that any weapons system will work the moment I want it."
Recalling his experience in the Falklands, he added:
"There were times when mine did not."
His report highlights the fact that sophisticated new equipment might be motivating structural disarmament. It might also be too much for crews to handle. The new equipment also gave rise to a large number of health problems.
Support for that officer's view that simple, easy-to-use and, one hopes, cheaper weapons might hold the key to efficient ship defence in the future came from Admiral Sir James Eberle, a very distinguished former Cincfleet and latterly Cincnavhome, whom I know the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) admires. Admiral Eberle, who supervised the assembly of the task force, is on record as saying:
"Many of us had very deep worries about how well our ships and weapons would do in the South Atlantic. Frankly, people's expectations weren't very high. Reliability wasn't nearly good enough; some systems obviously didn't work."
He continued:
"The navy has allowed itself to be taken in by sophistication. We sacrificed reliability and simplicity for highly complex weapons that were highly unreliable."
The Select Committee heard as much this year.
In that context, Admiral Eberle comments that, when he was briefed by civilian colleagues at the Ministry of Defence before appearing at a Select Committee,
"I was told to say no more than I possibly had to. If we put as much effort into preventing problems as we do in stopping skeletons coming out of the cupboard, things would be a bloody sight better."
Is not the Navy in danger of being smothered by procurement? Cannot lead times, and thus costs, be reduced? When will we do something about Bath? When will someone take those people by the scruff and preferably get rid of most of them? Must we commit ourselves to pure, ever more sophisticated and costly Rolls-Royce warships? It is doubtful whether there will be a commensurate increase in naval Votes, given what we have heard from the Minister today about the Trident programme. How will this affect the proposed new offshore patrol vessel codenamed OPV Mk 3, which is
1134
currently under discussion? What about the review that the Navy is carrying out of the shipping that it will need to maintain its ability to mount amphibious operations from the mid-1990s?
The most radical developments of the next few years may well occur not in the shipyards but in the infrastructure, manning and training of the Navy, and that is where our priorities should now be. The Government never tire of telling us that Trident will absorb only 3 per cent. of the total defence budget over the period of its procurement and only 6 per cent. of the equipment budget, but the absorption of 6 per cent. of the equipment budget by Trident is almost double the 3·2 per cent. being spent this year on "war and contingency stocks". At the annual conference of NATO's parliament in Brussels earlier this month my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I heard more vigorous claims for those two items and sustainability generally from all quarters than for anything else. We heard no calls for the type of system that the Minister was defending today.
As the Falklands war showed, modern warfare consumes a far greater amount of ammunition and all kinds of stores than had been estimated. Linked closely with inadequate force levels, therefore, is the question whether we can properly support the forces that we have. For example, do we have enough missiles, gun ammunition, sonobuoys and spare parts? In other words, what about the bread and butter? And can we get those vital sustainability items to our platforms whenever and wherever required, given the experience of the Falklands?
What is being done to redress the critical inadequacy of Alliance mine warfare capabilities? My hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan will have more to say about that later. That is where the greatest need and perhaps the greatest gap exists. Is the Minister satisfied with survivability as well as sustainability in vital areas such as ASW and air defence equipment, electronic warfare and communications systems? In the light of the Falklands experience, is the Minister satisfied that enough is being done to improve damage control? Despite all that sorrowful experience, one still hears that there are gaps.
The use of civilian assets is on the other side of the defence spectrum. Why is there no reference to the recommendations of the joint committee comprising the Ministry of Defence, the Department of Transport and the General Council of British Shipping to stockpile such items as light guns, "chaff' radar and torpedo decoys for the self-defence of merchant ships? Is it not now perfectly clear that, wherever possible, we must back up high-priced warships with low-cost force multipliers such as portable soft kill defences, helicopter decks and a replenishment capability for earmarked reinforcement ships?
The defence statement said that the total of 66,400 officers and men in the services before the 1981 defence review would be reduced by 11,000 in the early 1990s. With three shore establishments closing by the end of 1985 and others later, the intention is to reduce the number of men ashore by 25 per cent. between 1981 and 1988, and thereafter a further reduction of 15 per cent. is expected. Inevitably, that will mean that more sailors' part two professional training will have to be done at sea. Will there be sufficient ships to meet current tasks and give younger officers and ratings practical experience at sea? Will not more sea time, with a substantial reduction in shore training, affect signing on for further service, particularly among the more experienced?

1135
Is it not the case that, over and above those problems, the Navy is still trying to make larger manpower cuts than previously planned, while operating more ships than the number for which allowance has been made? The House will welcome the Minister's announcement of an increase in the Royal Naval Reserves complement.
We come to affordability. Is there any truth in the article on 25 November in The Sunday Times, which stated that the current examination of long-term costings reveals that, on current commitments, the Navy is £1·5 billion over budget? The Secretary of State has assured the House that a review of the cost of buying Trident is to be speeded up in response to fears of a serious increase in cost. Since he made that statement, the financial pressure has increased as the pound continues to wilt in the shadow of the United States dollar and the problems of public spending become less tractable.
This year's defence Estimates used a sterling-dollar rate, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) reminded the House, of $1·53 to the pound, but this week the rate has dropped below $1·20 to the pound. A drop of 20 per cent. in the exchange rate boosts Trident's cost, at 1983–84 prices, by about 10 per cent. It is instructive to compare current with previous estimates of the Trident programme. Because of the limitation of time I shall not cite the figures, but it is instructive for Conservative Members to look at the past four years and see how, year after year, Government figures have steadily increased. Initially, about 30 per cent. of the work was done in the United States, with 70 per cent. scheduled for Britain. By June of this year the split had become 45:55, and it is now estimated that the fall in the sterling-dollar rate has raised the dollar component above 50 per cent.
There is a curious arrangement by which Britain pays for the American components in advance and loses interest which would otherwise accrue. There are Conservative Members as well as the senior figures in the Navy, Army, and Air Force who see the Trident programme as gravely damaging to a coherent defence policy for Britain. In June, in the debate on the defence Estimates, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces defended Trident, as he did this afternoon. My reply to him is that NATO is a political as well as a military organisation.
The deployment of cruise underlined the importance of public understanding and support. I am therefore bound to ask him, whatever his defence of Trident, whether he will be able to carry it through. We must carry a more sensitive public opinion with us than we had to do at one time. The reassurance of public opinion is an important job for the Government as well as for NATO. Reassurance is a complement of the policy of deterrence.
At one time the basic Allied approach of adequate strength, political solidarity, the pursuit of a more stable relationship between East and West and the repeated commitment to significant arms control measures provided a sound basis for public support, but not so today. We now have to go beyond that. The emphasis now must be on reduced tension, lower levels of armaments and the pursuit of less-reliant nuclear strategies, through improved conventional forces.
If, earlier this month in Brussels, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and I heard one bid more than any other—apart from those which I have mentioned, which are bound up with sustainability—it was for conventional forces right across the Alliance. That
1136
call came from American senators and congressmen as well as from Dutch and German Socialist MPs. At that recent conference we were reminded by some speakers that General Rogers, SACEUR, had told them. either individually or in speeches, which they had heard during the year, that he was looking for a better infrastructure and improved sustainability—not more missiles or improved strategic weapons systems such as Trident. In so far as this country insists on going ahead in this way, it will only be duplicating the United States' contribution, and in doing so it will cut across NATO's and Britain's priorities.
We have the means and the capacity, thanks to ET, to place more reliability on conventional arms and thereby fulfil all the more effectively our maritime obligations to NATO. We lack the will on the part of the Government. We lack a credible, affordable naval policy likely to yield the right size and shape of the Fleet. The Government prefer other priorities, arising from a different conceptual framework. If the Government continue to bear the "£10 billion headache", as Max Hastings put it in The Standard tonight, we shall not get the right size and shape of the Fleet. Whatever economies the Secretary of State secures, if the Government proceed much further down this road they will be brought up sharply—the Daily Telegraph warned of this on 16 May last—against a further defence review as well as an erosion of our conventional fighting capability. That is the prospect which the Government have shown no sign of confronting.
6.27 pm
Mr. Edward du Cann: I am not sure that I altogether followed the argument of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) at the end of his speech. I simply content myself with saying that the House always recognises the warm sincerity in anything that the hon. Gentleman says on this subject.
At the end of the last Session, on an initiative of the right hon. Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and myself—the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth was a driving force—the all-party maritime affairs group was established with the excellent Commander Rankin as secretary. The group has begun its work. It has almost 100 members and is organised along the lines of the former parliamentary and scientific committee. Put shortly, the group's purpose is to inform Members of Parliament better about maritime matters and to draw the attention of Government and Parliament to matters of significance and national importance in maritime affairs. I have no mandate of any sort to speak for that group, but I am sure that I speak for all its members and many others both inside and outside the House when I express deep anxiety about the maritime scene. Seafaring is in crisis, and it is necessary for us to extricate ourselves from this position.
I should like to bring four matters to the attention of Ministers, especially my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, whom I greatly admire for his practical experience and competence.
My first point follows the comments by the hon. Member for Attercliffe. The deadline for signature of the convention on the law of the sea is 9 December. More than 140 countries out of the 159 members of the United Nations have signed the convention. Those signatories include the whole of the European Community—with the exceptions of Germany, where there are special

1137
problems and Britain—and many members of the Commonwealth. We should be given a plain answer. Why has the United Kingdom not signed the convention? It is said in the corridors of the House that the matter was discussed this morning in Cabinet. If that is so, the House is entitled to know the decision. The convention is an attempt to replace anarchy with order, and in my opinion it is right that the United Kingdom should sign.
Secondly, I should like to come to the state of the merchant marine. My hon. Friend referred to it in his speech which was wholly admirable, especially at the end when he discussed trident and cruise. The hon. Member for Attercliffe also referred to the merchant marine. There is no doubt that a big, effective and prosperous merchant shipping fleet is the fourth arm of Britain's defence. That has been stated often. It is true. More than 90 per cent. of our trade is carried in ships. Without ships to carry goods, raw materials and food to and from our country, we should neither work nor eat as we are accustomed to. Our whole standard of living depends upon shipping.
The state of our merchant marine gives rise to the gravest possible anxiety. In 1975, we had 1,600 ships—50 million tonnes deadweight. We are now reduced to just over 700 ships, a deadweight tonnage of 18·5 million. That is a decline of nearly two thirds within eight years. I understand that the General Council of British Shipping estimates a fleet of no more than 400 to 500 ships by the end of 1986.
There is worse to come. United Kingdom shipowners have ordered less than 100,000 tonnes deadweight during the past 12 months. During the past three months no orders have been placed for ships, yet, merely to maintain the present level of our merchant fleet, orders need to be given for about 1 million tonnes deadweight each year.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend said that there will be an in-depth study. There is no need for that because we are aware of the position now. If his Department does not know, it should and could find out the facts quickly. What is needed, is urgent action.
The position, which was already serious, will be exacerbated by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's 1984 Budget measures. They removed the 100 per cent. first year allowances, as the House will remember, and also the free depreciation which the shipping industry had previously and specially received. At the same time, the Chancellor altered the overseas earnings tax relief provisions. That hit seafarers hard. It has probably also increased staff costs in British ships this year by no less than 3 per cent. Those measures have adversely affected costs and investment in the industry.
The implications of a declining merchant navy for defence, as the hon. Gentleman said, for maritime employment, for our balance of payments, the carriage of our trade and reserves for the Fleet are well known.
I understand that the General Council of British Shipping has proposed a number of measures to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reverse the current disastrous trends. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will say immediately to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor that he should consider those proposals with the utmost attention, with a view to implementing at least some of them.
1138
I hope that in his 1985 Budget the Chancellor will heed those representations, because at the moment there is no other leading maritime country which treats its shipping industry as badly as we do.
I am all for competition, but the competition which the British merchant fleet is experiencing at present in comparison with other nations is unfair, and something must be done about it.
I come to my third point. I thought that the hon. Member for Attercliffe used excellent language when he spoke about naval shipbuilding. His question about the cost of the type 23 frigate was pertinent. When he said that numbers have a quality of their own—I think that that was something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State once said—I wholly agree with him. I also agree with the hon. Member for Attercliffe when he said that we do not want gold-plated ships. We want more, simpler and cheaper ships. We could have them if we tried. We used to have them in the war, as many of us in the House remember well. There is no reason why we should not have them now.
I listened to my hon. Friend when he described the size of the Soviet submarine fleet. I am bound to say yet again—I knew the figures before, of course—that I was horrified by what I heard. We have nothing like enough ships to begin to cope with that menace. The sooner we alter our procurement policy to ensure that we receive better value for money, the better.
I wish to share with the House my deep anxieties about another matter—the present position of the hydrographic department and the naval surveying service. The House is aware that I have raised this matter before. I do not apologise for doing so again. I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I pay a warm tribute to the splendid men and women in the Navy, and their civilian counterparts. Their competence, skills and dedication are a credit to the service and to our nation.
It is invidious to mention individuals, but I hope that the House will not mind if I refer directly to two of them. One of them is Rear-Admiral Ritchie, an outstanding Hydrographer of the Navy, who is now retiring after 10 years of work at the International Hydrographic Bureau. The second is Rear-Admiral Sir David Haslam, who retires in February after 10 years as Hydrographer. They are excellent men. They have been outstanding leaders in this subject.
My interest in hydrography derives not just from the fact that the hydrographic department is in Taunton but because, like countless other mariners, sailing professionally or for recreation, I am a wholehearted admirer of the high quality of the publications that it produces. As the House will confirm, the term "Admiralty chart", the only world series of charts, is synonymous all over the world with the highest quality. We are proud of the hydrographic department in Taunton. There are many good reasons for being proud. Unlike almost all other defence efforts, it is no mere consumer of resources. It earns huge amounts for the taxpayer from sales. It is a pity that the "blue paper", if I may call it that, does not set out how much is earned, not least in foreign currency.
The department is also indispensable to Great Britain's general trading effort. Remembering, as I said earlier, how much of Britain's trade is carried in ships, the point is obvious.

1139
With the resources of the sea bed awaiting commercial exploitation, the need for competent and thorough survey work, particularly around our own waters, is re-emphasised.
Last but by no means least, as my right hon. and hon. Friends who are Ministers will know well, the development of Trident and the towed RAY frigate and the need to be effective in anti-submarine warfare make it plain that hydrography is crucial to the defence of the realm. On every count, therefore, hydrography is crucial, yet this arm of the service is dangerously neglected. It lacks proper attention and adequate resources. The history of its management by the bureaucracy in recent years is a tale of muddle, failure to make decisions and incompetence on a staggering scale.
It will be within the knowledge of many hon. Members that the recommendations of the hydrographic study group of 1974 have never been implemented, although they are still valid. The House may well ask why not. What is the point of having a study group—we are now to have this other study group—if its recommendations are not followed?
I shall give the House five examples of what I described. First, a glance at one of the charts included in the 1983 report of the Hydrographer shows that well below one third of Great Britain's coastline is surveyed to modern standards. Surely that is a scandal. Secondly, there are three large ships in the surveying fleet—the Hecla and Hecate, commissioned in 1975, and the Hydra, commissioned in 1966. Those ships are 16 or 17 years old.
The House will remember the brilliant service that those ships gave as hospital ships during the Falklands conflict, where their work earned universal praise and admiration for the men who sailed in them, yet nothing is scheduled to replace them. What is the position? Are they to sail on until they fall to bits, rusted rotten? It is right, I am sure, to demand that a programme for their replacement should be announced in the near future.
Thirdly, I turn to the smaller ships in the surveying fleet. It is good that the Gleaner has been commissioned, and there is a new coastal survey vessel. However, the three inshore survey craft in the fleet are now 25 years old and are due, I believe, to be paid off at the end of the year. It seems extraordinary to me that, with only a month to go, we do not know what is to replace them.
The 1982 report by the Hydrographer told us that hovermarine surface effect ship trials were under way. They were, I believe, successful. I hope that my right hon. Friend will tell us whether that is so. I hope that he will tell us, either today or very soon, what will replace the inshore craft, and how soon.
Fourthly, I turn to the civilian side. In 1978 the civilian complement, almost all based at Taunton, numbered 1,066. By 1983, it had fallen to 987. In the business of management, the bureaucrats seem to proceed by a series of salami cuts. That is not the way to get the best effort out of some dedicated people, many of whom are my good friends in my home town. The nation owes much to their devotion, as was demonstrated at the time of the Falklands conflict.
I do not know what the present numbers are. Last year's report by the Hydrographer has still not been published, although we have nearly reached the end of 1984.
Who in the Ministry of Defence is responsible for this inexcusable dilatoriness? By the time the report appears it will be almost a year out of date and much less useful
1140
than if it had been published earlier. I consider late reporting to be an insult to the House and to the taxpayer. I hope that my right hon. Friend can give us an undertaking that the Hydrographer's reports will be published more promptly in future.
I believe that I am right to say that, when the figures for last year are published, we shall learn that the civilian numbers have been reduced below 900 and that further cuts are intended.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will allow me to state plainly that the process of cuts should stop. It is no longer the fat that is being cut, if there ever was any; it is the bone that is being cut into. If, there are any more cuts in numbers, functions will have to be reduced, and that will be very much to the disadvantage of the hydrographic fleet.
As the hydrography department is a productive department, it should surely be possible to exempt it from the rule of cuts by numbers, irrespective of function, applied by the Ministry of Defence. There should be some formula under which allowance is made for the productive nature of the work that Taunton is engaged in.
I have a sneaking feeling that the reduction in the scope of the official hydrographic effort is to some extent a deliberate policy. I hope that I am wrong—no doubt my right hon. Friend will tell me if I am—in thinking that some inexperienced bureaucrat believes that we can safely turn the whole fleet—or a major part of it-over to the private sector.
No one is more passionate for the private sector than I am. I earn my living in industry, and always have done during the years that I have been in the House. I do so partly because I value my independence and partly because I believe that, if it is possible for an hon. Member to be active in business, he may prove to be a better judge of many practical matters which are discussed in the House, such as taxes, trade and many aspects of commerce and administration. [Interruption.] Right hon. and hon. Members may agree with me or not, but that is my view, and I am happy to see a reinforcement of the national surveying effort by commercial firms. There is much that they can usefully do. However, it would be folly further to reduce our naval hydrographic effort. Any reduction in the naval supervision would be a most dangerous course from the point of view of defence, and would break an undertaking which my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) was good enough to give me a couple of years ago in an answer to a question.
I do not believe, either, that such a course of action would necessarily provide the best value for the taxpayer's money. We must maintain a strong staff of naval specialists and they must remain in overall command of the effort, whichever Government Department is, for the time being, responsible for the bulk of the funding.
I am sure that it is a matter of infinite regret to many hon. Members besides myself that although a number of these points have been made before in interviews with Ministers and in public debate both in the House and elsewhere, the Defence Ministry has treated hydrography with a carelessness that verges on the discreditable. I hope that Ministers will be prepared to give the House credible assurances that that will cease to be the case in future.
I repeat what I said when I began my speech. In my view our maritime affairs are in a state of deep crisis, but

1141
what is wrong can be put right. I have confidence in my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department. I look to them to see that what is wrong is put right.
6.46 pm
Dr. David Owen: The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) has made a trenchant speech, and I agree with every word of it. I agree with his commitment to the necessity to sign the law of the sea convention. I hope that the Government will carefully assess their position on the issue. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman about the decline and serious state of our merchant marine. I agree with him about the need to consider the high cost of some of the surface ships that we are producing at the moment, and whether there might not be alternative methods. I agree with his every word about the hydrographic service, both as someone who formerly had responsibility for the Royal Navy and as someone who sails around our shores.
I have an apology to make to the Minister. I have a long-standing engagement this evening which would have been very difficult to cancel, so I may not be in my place throughout the debate, although I will try to return. I hope that neither the Minister nor the hon. Member who winds up for the Labour party will take my absence as a disservice.
The Minister has made a speech on the central question that faces the Navy—the Trident expenditure—and has produced detailed arguments for the Government's case to an extent that we have not heard before. I thank him for that. I shall try to deal with the matter as he suggested we should deal with it—in a cool, rational and dispassionate way.
The facts facing the overall defence budget are stark, and are only just becoming clear to the country. For well over a year, I have warned of the dangers to the defence budget in 1986–87. In the February White Paper, for the first time, we saw that there was to be a dramatic drop from a funding of 3 per cent. for 1985–86—an increase in real terms—to zero growth.
My own fear is that we will see an absolute reduction in the defence budget for 1986–87. That will put intolerable pressures on all the armed services—not just the Royal Navy.
It would be absurd to pretend that the Trident programme alone is responsible for the pressure on the defence budget. However, that programme now represents a massive cost to the defence budget, and the way in which it has been arranged has put the heaviest pressure on the naval budget. When we first committed ourselves to the Trident programme, the cost was an addition to the defence budget. It is only in recent years that it has been placed on the naval budget.
As many aspects of the Navy are now under review, it is very sad that the Minister failed to say anything about the sword of Damocles that hangs over the royal dockyards, which have now existed for months under the prospect of a report recommending an agency provision of shattering proportions. Some hon. Members may not realise the enormity of what is proposed. Men who have for decades given service to our country would be placed on a five-year contract and employed by private
1142
contractors who could, after five years, withdraw those contracts. The men would lose all their certainty of employment.
Privatisation in many other fields has never dreamed of treating the work force in such a way. At least there has been continuity of employment. I must urge the Minister not to pursue the Levine agency proposal. It is damaging to the dockyards, to confidence in the Government's word, to employment and deeply damaging to the servicing of the Royal Navy.
We do not know what will happen. We have accepted that a frigate and a submarine should go out to private contract——
Mr. Douglas: We?
Dr. Owen: Well, I have accepted it.
Mr. Douglas: Oh.
Dr. Owen: The reality is that they are going out to private contract. That has been proposed repeatedly by Select Committees and, whatever we might feel about it, that is what is happening. Having accepted that reality, however, prejudging the assessment of the cost-effectiveness of private repair as opposed to dockyard repair is unfair in the extreme to the work force.
The Trident programme is the central issue which faces the Government in formulating defence policy and the Royal Navy. The official cost of Trident in March 1984 was given to the House as £8·729 billion, with 45 per cent. of the money being spent in the United States. The estimate was calculated on the then exchange rate of $1·53 to the pound. It is now $1·20 to the pound. Each drop of 1 cent costs an additional £26 million, so the cost of the Trident programme has risen by £780 million since March. That gives a new estimate of £9·480 billion at 1983–84 prices. When that figure is converted to approximate 1984–85 prices by adding a modest 4 per cent. for United States inflation and 5 per cent. for United Kingdom inflation, we get an estimate of£9·9 billion. It is effectively£10 billion, the inflation factor contributing between £420 million and £450 million to the total. That is a pretty conservative estimate of the present running costs of the Trident programme. Others are putting it higher, at £11 billion or even £12 billion. Let us assume, then, that the programme costs £10 billion. Each £100 million of extra cost of Trident means a cut of 0·1 per cent. in real terms in the defence budget. If we take an assumption of zero growth in the 1986–87 budget and an addition of £1·2 billion in extra costs, there will be an absolute reduction of 1·2 per cent. in the defence budget in 1986–87. Nobody believes that that will not be devastating to the defence budget.
The problem in all this is that the dollar might fall against the pound but at that time the British economy would be in reasonably good condition and could absorb the difference. If however, we were to have a one-dollar pound, which is not wholly out of the question, we should be at maximum weakness and our defence budget would be under incredible pressure. Expenditure on Trident so far has been only about £200 million, but £600 million has been committed. By 1988, one third of the total, or more than £3 billion, will have been committed. To revise the cost of Trident at about £10 billion at 1984–85 prices would mean that it would account for 13 per cent. to 14 per cent., instead of the previous estimate of 11 per cent., of the total

1143
defence equipment budget and 36 per cent. to 38 per cent., instead of the original 33 per cent., of the Royal Navy's budget.
The peak of Trident expenditure will coincide with the Royal Navy's heavy building programme for new ships. Between 1985 and 1995 there are to be built eight new type 23 frigates at a cost of £200 million each and at a gross cost of £1·6 billion, and a hunter-killer submarine programme costing £1 billion, type 2400 submarines are going out at £100 million and the EH101 helicopter programme is to cost £1·2 billion. Above all, what will happen in regard to replacements for HMS Fearless and HMS Intrepid, the specialist amphibious vessels which are vital to the Royal Marines and the southern flank?
Mr. Stanley: There is one misapprehension under which the right hon. Gentleman is labouring. I should like to draw attention to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a letter to the Leader of the Liberal party. He was quite clear about the impact of the Trident programme on the Royal Navy's expenditure. He wrote:
"As for the effect on Royal Navy expenditure I would emphasise that individual Service programmes are not considered in isolation from the remainder of the Defence programme."
It is therefore not correct to envisage the burden of Trident falling exclusively on a limited area, which is now perceived to be the naval budget. We take a tri-service view of priorities in the defence budget.
Dr. Owen: That has always been the case, but the fact remains that if it were to fall only on the naval budget, it would represent 36 per cent. to 38 per cent. of that budget. I am reassured that it will not fall exclusively, but it will still fall on the three services and I look on the defence effort as being across the services.
We must face the fact that if Trident continues, it will gouge critical items of equipment out of our crucial defences and gravely weaken our conventional defence. If the Government were pursuing a steady 3 per cent. per year real terms increase in the defence budget beyond 1986–87, the cost could be absorbed, but they are not. The fact is that we shall not make our conventional commitment to NATO which the new Secretary-General, Lord Carrington, wants us to make and which we all know we shall have to make in Europe if we are to avoid the consequences of Senator Nunn's amendment. That was just a warning shot across the bows, but there is no doubt that the United States Senate will not put up with the net European contribution to its conventional defence effort during the next decade being zero growth. There has to be some growth in that contribution. Against that background, I shall now consider the alternative to Trident of which the Minister spoke.
I urge the Minister not to go on talking about the independent nuclear deterrent. We do not talk about independent aircraft, independent Lance or an independent brigade of military. We are making our defence effort within the context of NATO. Any naval or nuclear effort that we make is a contribution to NATO and it is in that sense that we must examine what we contribute in terms of nuclear defence. I believe—I have made it quite clear in the past and stick by my words—that if Britain can afford to make a contribution to the nuclear defence of NATO, it will strengthen the overall nuclear deterrence in NATO. However, I believe that that is a mimimum deterrence.
1144
I take issue with the Minister on his talk of the five nuclear weapons states. It is not possible to compare Britain with any of the other four. Two are by any standards super-powers, so nobody believes that we should match the weapon system that Britain might contribute to NATO with the Soviet Union or the United States. The Minister then mentioned China. China is wholly independent and potentially a super-power. The comparison is not realistic.
The most realistic comparison is France, but the difference between Britain and France is that we are wholeheartedly committed to the integrated command structure of NATO. We are also in a quite different position. Moreover, France is not making a replacement decision. It is not as yet facing the fact that its submarine force will be out of date, as the Minister said, in the mid-1990s. When France decides in the early part of the next century to replace its nuclear submarine fleet, what it will be able to afford is an open question.
I shall now examine the alternatives and the criteria which the Minister gave. He said that if we have a submarine-launched deterrent system it must be dedicated to the deterrent role. I disagree. I know that the Minister examined the issue closely in 1980 and he tells us that he looked at it again in 1983. I looked at it extremely hard between 1977 and 1979. If we take the Minister's view of a minimum deterrent having to have a super-sophisticated ballistic missile system capable of penetrating the Galosh defences around Moscow, I have no doubt that we come out with Trident. However, I do not believe that those are any longer realistic criteria against which we should judge a minimum deterrent contribution to NATO. We must consider the alternatives. They are not perfect. Anyone who pretends that submarine-launched cruise, were that thought advisable, is a better system than Trident, judged by any military or naval criteria, is deluding himself.
The question that is now being asked by the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph, The Standard, and increasingly by serious commentators looking at Britain's force levels for the next 10 or 20 years, is can we afford the price of purchasing such a super-sophisticated system? Trident is not just a natural follow-on from Polaris. It is a substantial increase in megatonnage and warhead numbers. It means that we are contributing to the arms race. Therefore, we are not levelling out at a Polaris level.
Then comes the question of the deterrent role having to be dedicated. The nuclear-carrying cruise missiles that are now being deployed in ever-increasing numbers in the United States navy, will not be wholly dedicated to the nuclear deterrent role. They will have a mixed role. It may be said that on top they have a super-sophisticated deterrent system.
It is interesting that the Sturgeon, Permit and Los Angeles classes are first going for eight cruise missiles using existing torpedo tubes and then increasing it by 12, adding a vertical launch and adapting and modifying existing submarines, making 20 in all. All the arguments have been gone through.
One may come to a different conclusion. The submarine launch is not the only one. Many serious people have said that the Polaris system should be replaced with a similar system and have argued the case for that. I prefer to stick with existing technology.
I then ask what the Soviet navy is doing. I do not need to ask very hard, because the Government describe in their White Paper how

1145
"the USSR is actively engaged in a test programme to develop long-range cruise missiles for launch from ground, sea and air platforms. These will be primarily for nuclear strike and have ranges estimated up to 3,000 km. The air- and sea-launched versions have the potential for intercontinental strategic strike, depending on the platforms".
The cruise missile, as presently designed by the United States, has a range of 2,500 km. Its warhead is between 200 and 250 kilotonnes. Britain is after a different type of deterrent from the one it has had before. It is a contribution to NATO. It is a minimum deterrent. To say that it is necessary to have that vast number of cruise missiles to produce saturation defence is to take a criterion which is unrealistic. The criterion taken is to match Trident.
If one is in the business of spending money on a submarine-launched cruise missile to get exactly the same effect as Trident, I have no doubt that the Minister's figures are correct. One needs a large number of cruise missiles and dedicated extra SSNs and that will be costly.
Mr. Stanley: First, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that neither the Soviet Union nor the United States is making as its assured second strike capability a cruise missile system? They are certainly not. They are resting on a ballistic system. Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge from his previous background that the criterion is not a minimum deterrent? The only justification for being in the deterrent business, with all that is involved, is not a minimum deterrent but what is a credible deterrent to the Soviet Union. The right hon. Gentleman is not addressing that issue.
Dr. Owen: Minimum and credible are exactly the same thing.
Mr. Michael Mates: No.
Dr. Owen: Yes they are. There is no point having a minimum deterrent unless it is credible. Therefore, the question is: what is the minimal level that is credible? The assumption throughout the Minister's speech is that only Trident is credible. He might even tone that down to say that only Polaris is credible. He may say that the decision was taken to go for Chevaline and, therefore, the Moscow criterion is still the most vital element of credibility.
In retrospect, to be blunt, I think that once the antiballistic missile treaty was signed in the early 1970s, it was probably unwise to go for the hardened programme. But I took my share of responsibility for continuing with the hardening of Chevaline from 1977 onwards, largely because so much had been spent on it and there was a great political danger of a public cancellation affecting the credibility of the deterrent. It was perfectly reasonable not to disclose a decision on the updating of a weapons system which was going through at the time. I do not think that we would have lost anything by making it known. But the decision was taken by the Heath, Wilson and Callaghan Governments, and I am prepared to support that. The only difference in the Government's announcement was the name of the Chevaline programme.
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider another criterion which arises as a result of SLCMs — verification? Surely that is important if, as we are led to believe, the Minister would wish to use that as some sort of negotiating counter. It is a highly provocative weapon, not one which is likely to result in any enthusiasm for planned disarmament.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on one of the problems of submarine, air and land-launched cruise missiles. Their verification is a serious problem in arms control. But we must face the fact that they are already being deployed in massive numbers — over 4,000 SLCMs will be deployed by the United States and substantial numbers are being deployed by the Soviet Union. We are into the problem of verification. Many of us talked of that issue in the context of the SALT 2 agreement. There was a strong case for limiting cruise missile deployment on verification grounds. That is one factor that must be borne in mind, but it is only one factor. It is one reason why I would put any of the deterrent systems on the table for negotiation.
In the context of deep cuts in nuclear weapons, I would consider whether the price that we pay is worth it. But I am not prepared to disown the logical, rational case that the contribution to the NATO deterrent is not solely and exclusively the United States'. If we can do that by maintaining a strong conventional commitment to NATO, many of our NATO allies would like Britain to make that contribution. That has been the view of successive German Governments and I think that it is the view of French Governments.
The question is: what is credible for a country that is in economic decline, that is having to cut is defence budget, that is unable to make all the contribution that it wants to conventional defence, and is having to make difficult decisions across the whole range of defence? I cannot put it more bluntly than that.
The Minister is making a false comparison. He is making a comparison between Trident and a ballistic missile system. He is arguing that we either have everything or nothing. He may well end up with nothing, and that is the most serious point to be made. The point was made well by someone who said that the deterrent had to carry credibility with public opinion in Britian. It has to carry credibility with opinion in the services. There are growing signs that people in the services are questioning that.
After all, we are talking about whether we shall have the Royal Marines again. The Government nearly got rid of the Royal Marines in 1981. They made cuts in the defence budget in 1981 that put our forces in severe jeopardy. Fortunately, we learned enough from the tragic experience of the south Atlantic war to remind us that those cuts would do great damage.
Britain is now facing a climate of opinion on defence which is not dissimilar to the climate of opinion in the 1930s. We are not living up to our defence contribution. The record that the Minister points to over the past few years is a good one. The Government have reason to be given credit. Frankly, the Prime Minister of the previous Labour Government also merits a tribute. It was he who in 1977 had the courage to take through the NATO decision for a 3 per cent. increase in a difficult expenditure climate.
Many of the figures that the Minister now prays in aid had their foundation laid in the 1977–78 decision of the Labour Government. The tragedy of modern times is the way that the Labour party has moved away from its solid commitment to NATO and the knowledge that NATO is a nuclear and a conventional deterrence collective, decision-making body. One does not go to Moscow and negotiate with the Kremlin on the consequences of taking American nuclear bases out of Britain. If one wants to

1147
make that choice, one does it first and foremost in the context of NATO. One does not fall for the oldest ploy in the game, and for the 1978 statement that the Soviets used to try to fragment NATO by saying that they would save NATO countries from the threat of nuclear attack if NATO disowned nuclear deterrence. Not even the Dutch, Belgian Norwegian or Danish Socialists have fallen for that naked ploy by the Soviet Union, and it is a tragedy—although we do not expect anything else from the Leader of the Opposition that the Opposition's foreign affairs spokesman, the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who was one of the most distinguished Secretaries of State that this country has ever had, should lend his name to that.
The issue will not go away. The Government have made the wrong decision over Trident. It is the hardest decision ever to have to reassess, but when the Minister said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to make the Government's commitment clear beyond any doubt, those of us who had heard such words before knew very well that that was the start of making things far from clear. The fact is that there is deep doubt within the Ministry of Defence, and among some of the most serious people to be advising the Minister, about the rightness of that decision on Trident. The Minister will best serve the interests of this country during the next 20 to 30 years by reassessing that decision—and the sooner the better.
7.10 pm
Sir Antony Buck: It is always interesting, although difficult, to follow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). I agreed with him in his castigation of the Socialist party and its defence policy, but I found myself in some difficulty as to his own attitude. I believe that the previous Labour Administration continued to update Polaris by going for Chevaline for precisely the same reasons as the Government think it appropriate today to update our nuclear deterrent. I hope that Opposition Members will not suggest that Conservative Members do not go in for open government, because the Labour Government updated Polaris with the Chevaline programme without saying one iota to the House.
Dr. Owen: The idea that it was just the Labour Government is complete and absolute nonsense. The decision was initially made by the Heath Government but, rightly, it was never announced to the House then.
Sir Antony Buck: I think that I implied that the original decision was made by the Socialist Administration without giving any indication of what was going on. It was probably a mistake not to make the original decision clear to the House. I concede that, and I can see no reason why it should not have been. As an Under-Secretary of State, I was not privy to that decision. But Opposition Members cannot castigate us about open government when all the major secret spending was undertaken by the Heath Government and was then implemented by the Socialist Administration. I accept that it might have been appropriate for the Heath Administration to have said that they intended to update Polaris, but our intention to maintain an independent deterrent has always been part of Conservative policy. We have never been deflected from that policy, although that has not always been true of Opposition Members.
1148
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with the speeches that have already been made and we look forward to that. I think that he is speaking from the Front Bench for the first time in a defence debate and we welcome him. I think that he has answered questions before, but that this is the first time that he is to conclude a defence debate. We look forward with interest to his speech. Of course, from his experience as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office he will have had considerable contact with the armed forces, and his experience can only be reinforced as he has more and more contact with them. I know that my admiration for the armed forces is shared by him and by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I welcome this debate, because hon. Members on both sides of the House had doubts about the reorganisation of the Ministry of Defence with respect to ministerial responsibilities, Some of us were worried that an individual Minister would not be responsible for a particular part of the armed forces and that we would not have an opportunity to debate the affairs of each service. In some ways, our worries were dispelled by the assurances that we received that the single service debates would continue. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), like me, thought the matter important. Such debates at least allow us to go into greater detail on the affairs of the individual services, thus minimising the necessity for parliamentary moles, with people fighting a service's cause outside Parliament, or in an irregular manner. Thus, I welcome the debate.
I am in some difficulty, because I have just returned from a services visit to Cyprus which was superbly and efficiently conducted by all the armed forces, including the Royal Marines who are out there. That is another role that they play as part of our general peace-keeping mission there. But the efficiency ended the moment that I became civilianised, because all my baggage was lost in the early hours of this morning. The hours that I had hoped to devote to preparing a succinct speech were devoted instead to retrieving my baggage. I had complete faith when earlier I was in the hands of the Royal Air Force, but I am afraid that civilians failed me at London airport.
Some of us treasure the fact that we civilians can be brought into close contact with the Royal Navy through politics. I toyed with the idea of going into the Royal Navy, but my mathematics was so appalling that I did not attempt to go to Dartmouth to train even in some minor operational capacity for a warship. It is vital to have an understanding of mathematics for that. Thus I was very pleased—just as the hon. Member for Attercliffe was when it happened to him—to end up as a Minister with responsibility for the Royal Navy. Mathematics is important if one is a navigation or gunnery officer on a frigate, but it is less important at ministerial level, because there are excellent advisers who keep the mathematics relatively straightforward.
The fact that I have been brought into close contact with the Royal Navy has given me great satisfaction. I know that the hon. Member for Attercliffe, like me, regards his time as Minister as his finest time in politics. We should pay tribute to the Royal Navy. Without being jingoistic about it, I think that all hon. Members will agree that we have the best sailors in the world, the best training and much of the best equipment. That is not just jingoism, because in 1982 the efficiency and expertise of the Royal Navy, along with the efficiency of the other armed forces, proved it in the Falklands war. It was my privilege to lead

1149
the first British parliamentary delegation to that part of the world after hostilities had ended. Going down there, one pounds hour after hour in a Hercules across the south Atlantic. One then realises the vast distances involved and the magnitude of our effort achievement.
Of course the war was a tri-service effort but it was largely a Royal Navy effort, and its magnitude was outstanding. It has had a tremendous effect on the credibility of the western alliance. If a tough man in the Politburo had wondered whether the democracies of the Alliance would ever take action, he would have seen the United Kingdom using its maritime strength to ensure that a Fascist junta did not get away with a blatant invasion of the Falkland islands, and ensuring that the people there could continue to live in freedom.
I turn to the future of the Falkland Islands and the Navy. The Navy plays a significant role in maintaining their independence. It is sometimes suggested that the difficulties and expense of retaining the islands are more than we can bear. I do not agree. No more is needed than a battalion of strength armed with Rapier, a reinforcement capability with jets able to land on the extended runway, and the additional airport. Regarding the Navy, we need a nuclear hunter-killer submarine on patrol nearly all the time. We are to have about 17 such submarines, and one on patrol there most of the time would be a significant and singular deterrent to any foolish successor to Galtieri who contemplated a similar invasion.
The Royal Navy will have an extensive role to play in defending those islands. That leads me to the question of Trident and the replacement of our nuclear capability. Hon. Members may wonder how the Falklands conflict leads to a consideration of our nuclear deterrent. I shall explain. We must consider the scenario in the south Atlantic if it had been a little different. The Argentinian junta could have acquired a nuclear weapon. It probably would not have been highly sophisticated, but a nuclear weapon would not have been beyond the capability of a second-rank power such as Argentina. Under those circumstances had we not had our own nuclear weaponry, we would easily have been subject to nuclear blackmail. The junta could have told us that, if the task force did not turn back, a nuclear bomb would be targeted on it. That is not an unreal scenario.
The fact that we have, as a last resort, our nuclear capability, should enable us to sleep more easily in our beds at night. The arguments for retaining it are precisely the same as those which led the Labour Government to update the Polaris missile by continuing the Chevaline programme. The Minister will deal with the costing of it when he replies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State dealt with the matter in some detail at the Conservative party conference and at many other venues.
The important point to remember about the cost of Trident is that it will be spread over many years. In October the cost was estimated at £9 billion, and now it is just more than that. That cost would be spread over about 20 years. As a proportion of the defence programme it is significant, but it is not of such a transcendent character as to be unaffordable. We must consider the effect on our allies, especially the Americans, if we gave it up.
A serious result could be the decoupling—to use jargon—of the United States of America from our own
1150
defences. It may react with a resurgence of isolationism. Not surprisingly, such a force is always present in America and ready to point it out if Europeans do not do enough in their own defence. If one lives in the mid-west, New York is far away and Europe is an enormous distance away. If we Europeans were seen not to be properly deploying our defences or maintaining our capability, such a resurgence might occur in the United States. That would bring the position of the United Kingdom and the Alliance into jeopardy.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about ordering new ships. Further decisions must be made. It is important that we maintain our amphibious capability in the Royal Marines and Royal Navy. In the long term it is important to maintain our maritime role and ensure that our contribution to NATO is, in particular, a maritime one. It is also important that we maintain our capability to act outside NATO geographical guidelines. In that context, I believe that our German allies should be prepared to bear a greater burden of the defence of Europe, to enable us to contribute even more to, for example, the rapid deployment force.
The Government have proved that they are devoted to the Royal Navy and I know that many Opposition Members are similarly devoted to it. I fear what would happen if Opposition Members were returned with a commitment to lowering our defence capability to the lowest common denominator in NATO. For them to say that they will cut Trident and our independent nuclear capacity, does not let them off the hook. First, the costs do not fit; secondly, if they pursued that non-nuclear course, it would be a severe threat to NATO, possibly even causing its breakdown and certainly risking a decoupling of our connections with the United States. I hope that we shall maintain our Royal Navy capability. If my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench do not ensure that we maintain it, many Conservative Members will cause them severe difficulties.
7.27 pm
Mr. Dick Douglas: We have had interesting speeches from the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) and others who have shared responsibility in government for naval affairs. I include in them the quite extraordinarily able speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), virtually every word of which I agree with. That is not surprising, because I am also associated with the parliamentary maritime group. Our proceedings have been dominated by the discussion of Trident, to which I shall refer shortly.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) mentioned the Falkland Islands. The Minister has not told the House the nature of our present commitment to those islands. I understand—the Minister may not wish to speak about this for strategic reasons or on grounds of secrecy—that we have committed there between four and five frigates with backup support services, which are extremely costly. Although, theoretically, those figures can be devoted to NATO, the 8,000-mile journey is a long and difficult one. The commitment strains our resources considerably.
The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said something about Labour defence policy. I was a member of the defence study group that drew up the policy, and one of its cornerstones is a firm commitment

1151
to NATO. There should be no question about that. We can discuss how far and how fast we should proceed to a non-nuclear role, and we can discuss American bases in Britain, but it is clear from the defence document that the Labour party is firmly committed to NATO. It also states clearly— this is a reversal of previous Labour party policy—that we recognise that former commitments to reduce defence expenditure will not be valid if we switch from nuclear to non-nuclear defences. It is obvious that that will be an extremely costly commitment.
There has been some discussion this evening about Trident, and the Minister owes us an answer on that. I have pursued the matter with the Secretary of State several times, and in effect he has replied that we must update the costs every year. With the value of sterling at present only ․1·20, the increase in cost will be considerable. We can debate the percentage of the capital spending programme for all services that would be taken up by Trident, but it is obvious that much money will be devoted to that weapon. This may or may not be the time to discuss our commitment to NATO and NATO strategy, but it is ridiculous for Government supporters to give the impression that Britain will use this so-called independent deterrent on its own. I cannot imagine a time when the United Kingdom would use Trident, presumably as a second-strike weapon, on its own.
The real guarantee of NATO and the real coupling with the United States is not necessarily Trident but the presence of more than 350,000 American ground forces in Europe. That is the essential ingredient of the coupling.
Some time ago the Select Committee on Defence visited Holy Loch. I stood on a tender and looked at the support ship for the American Poseidon submarines, and at that time—my friends in Scotland will not necessarily thank me for it— there were four Poseidon-type submarines. They were the equivalent of our entire sea borne strategic nuclear deterrent, and I understand that they are targeted through SACEUR. If Britain tries to play in that league perpetually, we must consider the repercussions of cost not only on the Navy budget but on the entire defence budget.
The right hon. Member for Devonport was right to say that some service men, a growing number of the public and some Conservative Back-Bench Members are questioning our expenditure on one weapon system. It will have the effect of crowding out other, especially naval, equipment. There is no question in my mind about that, because if we cancel the 1985–86 commitment to 3 per cent. growth, the implications will be great. The Select Committee on Defence will examine the matter, and I do not wish to anticipate the results of its searching examination, but it would appear that there will be considerable implications in terms of surface vessels and other naval equipment. Questions are beginning to be asked not only in the Labour, Liberal and Social Democratic parties, but in the Conservative party.
There was an announcement about Rosyth, and if my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will wish to expand on that. It was a typical Government trick. If they have little to say in a debate, they throw in some extremely futuristic suggestions. They said that Rosyth will refit some vessels in the 1990s, but the vessels have not yet been ordered. When can we expect those vessels to appear at Rosyth dockyard? I caution my constituents to remember that if pressure mounts on
1152
expenditure, the programme will be cancelled or severely modified. Doubts have already been voiced. Even if the programme is introduced, it will "safeguard" only about 2,500 jobs at Rosyth. The 5,000 jobs that are related to the conventional Navy will be in severe jeopardy in the 1990s, because Britain will have no conventional Navy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East and I have collaborated on this debate, and he will take up the point made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport about the Levine proposals. It is extremely unfair for the Government to dangle those proposals month after month before a dedicated work force and not to come to a conclusion. If they were wise—I hope that they will be—they would throw out the proposals; I fear that they will not throw them out completely, but will introduce modified proposals. It would be stupid to lease part of Rosyth dockyard to a private concern to carry out nuclear fitting. That would cause great uncertainty, and its unfairness would not be tolerated by the labour force.
The Government are competition-mad. I note from the White Paper on Defence that
"Competition will also be rigorously pursued in the areas of support, supply and maintenance services. Warship refitting provides an example of this developing policy."
The right hon. Member for Devonport was annoyed when I questioned his statement that the Labour party had approved the fitting of a submarine and a frigate going out to private tender. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber now to hear me explain why I do not accept that. There is no guarantee that the Government would compare like with like. The Minister who will reply to the debate has some interest in shipbuilding, and I challenge him to tell the House tonight whether the capability of Humber dockyards to refit the Otter is on all fours with that of a yard run by British Shipbuilders.
I am quite willing to repeat what I am about to say outside the House because I would not want to malign the Humber dock, which I have visited, and I would not wish to say something in the House that I could not repeat outside. The Government got a dumped price for that vessel. Anything between £5 million and £10 million was on the table. Perhaps the Minister will give us some idea about the figures, between the price at which the Humber dock booked in the vessel and what Trafalgar House or Cammell Laird offered. The final result was a dumped price. There is no way that that yard can perform like a dockyard and give the standard of finish.
Another thing that was not considered, but which is vital, is the capability of keeping within a yard such as Trafalgar House—which is now at the Scott section of the Scott Lithgow yard— a design team capable of coping with the successor for the type 2400. That was not considered. All that was considered was the price; this is why I dispute what the right hon. Member for Devonport was saying. The result of the tender was the contract going to the lowest price, which was taken without looking at the capabilities of the yard or of the consequences of keeping design teams in the national interest.
A particular subject has arisen in the Scottish press and is mentioned in the Select Committee report on the Defence White Paper. In paragraph 55 we say:
"In supplementary evidence the Minister modified this statement. We now understand that HMS Challenger, the seabed operational vessel, two SSNs … and an MCMV will be Late joining the Fleet."
In the Scottish press there has been some speculation about the Challenger. I am not one to malign our yards.

1153
Any deficiency in the Challenger is specifically related to the saturated diving system, which was designed by the Navy, although not supplied by it. However, the Navy bears the responsibility for the design, not the yard. That is important, because the yard has had a lot of criticism. On this occasion, when the contract was modified or renegotiated, the yard received a modest bonus payment for delivering slightly ahead of time. I hope that the Minister will reply to these remarks, and clarify the issue, and I hope that other hon. Members will pursue the matter. I declare my interest in diving and divers. We must clarify the points about the saturated diving system, such as whose fault it was, what the cost of modification will be, and how it will be modified to make it safe.
Referring to the contemporary Challenger leads me to the Challenger of 1870, which was responsible for the first time for acknowledging that we had mineral nodules on the sea bed. This leads me to the law of the sea, referred to by the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann). Nobody will be surprised that I wish to refer to this. It is ridiculous that the Government are trailing behind the Americans. The only person I can find who is giving the advice not to sign the law of the sea convention is Mr. Ian MacGregor.
The Government have to supply cogent reasons for their refusal to sign. So far, we have concentrated on mineral provisions, but there are other provisions in the convention that are of vital importance to us as a maritime nation. For example, there are provisions on passage through straits, safety of passage, and so on. We should have some statement, if not tonight, before 9 December, as to the Government's attitude and intentions.
As a former Merchant Navy officer, I agree with virtually all that has been said about the importance of the merchant fleet, and I note that we shall have another study. However, as the right hon. Member for Taunton said, do we need another study, when the General Council of British Shipping has given its views? Again, this was referred to in the Select Committee's report on the Defence White Paper in paragraph 52, where it said:
"For example, numbers in the UK owned and registered fleet (vessels of 500 gross registered tons and over) fell from 1,194 in 1979 to 769 in 1983, and the General Council of British Shipping has forecast a further reduction of 400 ships by the end of 1986."
Do the Government reject that view? Are they at odds with it? What will the further analysis do? If the Government reject the view of the General Council of British Shipping, on what grounds do they do so? Here is an organisation that is responsible for assessing the position. It is saying what is likely to happen. The Government have some responsibility to give us their view on that proposal. We are not talking just about ships. As a maritime nation, we are talking about manpower and seafarers. If we do not have ships, we do not have proper training for our seafarers, and that can be extremely costly in wartime.
The Trident is a virility symbol which is very costly to the country. I am not a unilateralist. I concede that here I part company with some of my colleagues, if not the majority of them. However, I am firmly opposed to us possessing a Trident system. It will mean that, at the end of the day, we are endangering our capability of fulfilling a unique and specific role for NATO within our treaty obligations. It will crowd out our conventional Navy, and
1154
will be extremely damaging to the work in the dockyards. The Government, in their wisdom, should reconsider the Trident decision and abandon it.
7.47 pm
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) will excuse me if I do not directly follow his points. I shall not be dealing with Trident, which has been dealt with well by my right hon. Friend the Minister.
I wish to raise a number of points today, and in deference to the wishes of Mr. Speaker and to the fact that many other hon. Members wish to speak, I shall try to keep my remarks short. Although I shall not have time to develop them fully, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement will be able to answer some of the points that I make. However, I apologise in advance, because I shall not be here to hear his answers as I have a long-standing engagement. I look forward to reading what he says in the Official Report.
Even though this speech will be something of a pot pourri of points, the common strand running through my remarks will be the wish for more costing less. Therefore, it is right and proper to start with the ships that we build. When I joined the Navy 19 years ago, the Leander class frigate, fully equipped, cost £4 million. Today, a frigate costs 34 times that. I accept that it is better armed, has more sophisticated equipment and a far superior set of capabilities, but 34 times the cost means that we must be getting someting wrong. Four times the Leander's initial cost is the annual amount that it costs to keep one of the type 22s at sea. This mass escalation in price, well beyond the figure for defence expenditure inflation, has meant that we do not have enough ships.
We need to examine the ships we build and the methods we use. I am convinced that we are not getting it right. I suggest that after the right hull shape is agreed, bearing in mind its sea-keeping qualities and the job that it is meant to do, we start modulising our building so that most of the internal structure can be built away from the dockyard. The weapons systems developed for various ships could also be made on a modulised basis so that, when a ship was re-armed or fitted, a new weapons system could be slotted into it. The defence specification for that weapons system should deal not just with what it has to do but with the size, the shape, the centre of gravity and so on of the weapons module.
I also believe that our ships are too sophisticated. Because we do not get a long enough run of ships, the individual parts are too expensive. I consider the cost of £40 million for the communications room of Invincible to be money unnecessarily spent. We need good communications, but £40 million for one ship's communications, even if it is a battle leader, is far too high.
I also believe that we need to look at the propulsion system of our ships. It is not necessary these days to have such fast ships. Therefore, it should be possible to have single-screw ships, with single engines, especially if the vessels are fitted with bow thrusters which will give low and medium-speed manoeuvrability.
Frigates should be able to operate not just their own helicopters which are kept on board but also, though not housed on board, VTOL aircraft. These could be kept on board RFAs and be able to operate and be refuelled from frigates. In that way, a squadron of frigates would be able to be detached and take its own air cover with it.

1155
Having been around a variety of modern ships over the past year, I have been surprised at the standards of habitability. because they are unnecessarily high. I do not suggest that we return to the hammock. I am not suggesting that we go back to the broadside mess, where a seaman slept, as I did when I first went to sea, on the deck. with the next layer being on a bench, the third layer being on a table and the fourth layer being in a hammock. However, for the same size ship, the Russians have 50 per cent. more weapons systems. The main reason is that the standards of habitability on our ships are far too superior. I do not want what the Russians do, but I want a far more sensible standard of habitability, recognising that men do not spend so long at sea for continuous periods and do not spend so long away from home.
This reduction in accommodation is also possible if we do what we should have done a long time ago, which is to cut down the numbers of crew per ship. I suggest that a frigate should not have more than 80 men and a destroyer more than 120. We also have to accept the concept of expendability of our ships. The idea that we should so arm a ship that 60 per cent. of its weapons system is defensive and only 40 per cent. has an aggressive ability is the wrong way round. We have to accept the expendability of ships even though the idea runs contrary to much of Navy thinking and it means that we have to automate far more.
Large manning levels used to be considered necessary as it was possible to replace a man but impossible to replace a piece of equipment at sea if it was damaged. As a result, we used to have lots of men aboard ship and not too many pieces of sophisticated equipment. With modern weapons, if a ship is hit once with the right weapon, as we saw with HMS Sheffield, it is out of action. We have to automate, but we have to accept expendability and produce cheaper ships with smaller crews. If we do that, we have a good chance of building ships which are more exportable.
We shall never have enough ships, of course, because we do not have enough money. That is why we must continue to rely on the merchant fleet. That policy has at last become possible because our 30-day war stock replacement policy is being implemented, and not before time, but I suggest that we must not consider ships which have been flagged out but which are under British beneficial ownership as being part of the British fleet. It will not work. It will not happen. Even if there is a minority interest overseas and that interest can obtain a lien on a ship at the time, it will not be available to us. Nor must we consider that the red duster Hong Kong fleet will necessarily be available to us in times of conflict.
I realise that the Royal Navy has at last accepted that the merchant marine can not only provide a support role but can defend itself in time of conflict. It has accepted the Arapaho system, but again it has gold-plated it. It has made it far too expensive. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should look at the British Aerospace SCADS, which is a ship conversion system, to produce seven ships with different capabilities—helicopter carriers, Harrier carriers, helicopter support ships, amphibious support ships, logistic ships and so on—all with their own point defence systems based on a Seawolf vertically-launched missile system and providing a full set of equipment. For the cost of £168 million it is possible to provide seven ships for the same cost as one type 22's capital cost and running cost for two years.
1156
We shall need to use armed merchantmen capable of protecting themselves in convoys, and we need to look now—not in a few years—at how we arm merchantmen effectively. We shall not have the frigates, destroyers and aircraft carriers to do the job.
While referring to ship types, I should like to add a quick word about assault ships. I believe that they were far too small in capacity and that they cost too much. I think that they will fall to bits fairly soon, and I wonder with what we intend to replace them. We may want them, but can we afford purpose-built assault ships? If we cannot, we have to look at what roll-on/roll-off ships are available. We have to do better than the the mexefloats which are now proposed for use with Ro/Ro vessels. We must give the Royal Marines the capability of getting ashore fast and doing the job which they are superbly trained to do.
If we are to keep down costs, we must analyse the procurement system. I understand that it takes about 14 years from the inception of an idea to having a piece of equipment fitted. I am sure that MINIS will have some effect, but, because the procurement system works in autonomous committees staffed by experts who have a belt, braces and string round the waist mentality, they over-gild every piece of equipment and every single system for which they ask. There is no one senior enough on each committee to say, "Stop. We have to cut the cost of this piece of equipment."
I echo the comments about mine warfare. As far as I know, we do not have any really sophisticated ground mine systems, and it is about time we did. We know that the Russians have them. Our coasts are vulnerable not only to mines but to ships and submarines operating on the continental shelf and between various temperature layers in the sea. We will need to lay down effective minefields during times of conflict and we do not have the modern mines necessary.
What are we doing about airborne early warning radar? Following the Falklands, it was realised that that was absolutely necessary. A Heath Robinson airborne dustbin was put on the Sea King, which worked quite well. What proper, designated system will we eventually have for airborne early warning?
What will happen about torpedo manufacture? The Conqueror fired three torpedoes—two of them hit and worked, one hit and did not work. What happened? How effective are the Mark 8s? How is torpedo development progressing?
Why do we need a Sea Harrier as well as the RAF Harrier? I grant that the radar is different, but the Navy has shown that it is possible to operate RAF Harriers. It understands about corrosion, so it is not necessary to work with much more expensive and heavy titanium materials that are non-corrosive. The materials that corrode easily must be continually washed. The Navy dealt with that problem during the Falklands conflict and could do the same with RAF Harriers. It would be a cheaper system, although the Harriers would need a different type of radar.
The most important factor is the man. Is there any intention to make it obligatory that, after leaving the Royal Navy, a man must spend some time in the Royal Naval Reserve? It is important for the reserve to have the recent experience of people who have just left the full-time service.
One reason, apart from the obvious one, why we need more ships, is that that will engender much greater job satisfaction. It is regrettable that a senior officer should,

1157
at the most, obtain only two commands in his lifetime. Many junior officers of lieutenant commander and commander rank will never get a ship to command, even though they are perfectly capable of doing so. If there were more ships, greater expertise would be built up. Because men do not spend so long at sea and are not so long away from this country, perhaps we do not need all the expensive housing and welfare capabilities of the Royal Navy. There is some scope for saving in that area.
I want briefly to follow the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) about the law of the sea. My understanding is that the Government do not intend to sign the convention, on the basis that they do not sign that which they do not intend to ratify. There have been at least three occasions since 1970 when Britain has signed conventions but not ratified them. I refer to the Geneva convention on the laws of war, the International Maritime Organisation convention on the carriage of nuclear material at sea and another IMO convention whose title I cannot remember.
We should definitely sign the convention by 10 December, because not doing so will increase maritime anarchy. However, we should reserve our position on part II. I recognise that, potentially, part II could be damaging to Britain. We should do what we did with the MARPOL convention of the IMO. We signed it, but did not ratify until there was an acceptance that we would not have to adhere to certain annexes.
When I was in the Navy we used to write what were known as Nelson essays. My first said why Lord Collingwood was a rather better and attainable example than Lord Nelson. My second suggested that we must get away from the idea that ships should be preserved regardless of cost and that we should move towards the idea of expendable ships, which meant low manning levels and cheap ships in large numbers. I admit that those views did not meet with universal acclaim. The old but not so bold told me that my ideas would never happen. I believe that they must.
We must move towards a cheaper Navy, with more ships and a far greater capability. The Royal Navy is known as "The Service", and its officers and men wish to give that service to their nation. It is our job to serve them well by providing them with the equipment and ships to enable them to serve us.
8.5 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I shall do my best to follow the wide-ranging contribution of the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed). I heard him ask for less space for the crew in modern naval vessels. I heard him suggest that their conditions of service should be altered so that there would be compulsory service as reservists after they left the service. When he said that he was going to speak about the man, I thought that he might call for a maximum height for the crew so that they would fit more economically into the spaces available in the ships.
I do not think that such issues should dominate a debate about the Royal Navy. The crucial issue is that of Trident versus the money that will be spent on the remainder of the service. I strongly support the Labour party's defence policy, which includes membership of NATO. Labour party members constantly have to reiterate that, because
1158
the Conservative party tries to take that away from us in public forums. We wish to retain membership of NATO. Our policy includes the development of a non-nuclear defence policy for Britain. It is important to reduce the risks of a nuclear war in Europe, not least because our nation is peculiarly vulnerable to such an attack.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Sir A. Buck) raised the important question of nuclear blackmail. It is an important argument, but it is not the preserve of our nation alone. It is the duty of the Government of this country and the Governments of every civilised nation to discourage nuclear proliferation. If our nation can say, "We must possess a nuclear arsenal so that other nations with such arsenals cannot threaten us", that same argument is logically, even morally, open to every other nation whose economy can sustain such an arsenal. Indeed, there are a few nations with stronger economies than ours which, by the Government's argument, could claim to be entitled to the same approach.
It is important to develop a defence policy for Britain that relies upon conventional armaments and that pays due regard to our foreign policy and our neighbours' foreign policies and which takes into account our international interests and commitments. There is a crucial role in that for the Royal Navy, but not a Navy with a Trident programme flung like a financial albatross around its neck.
I agreed with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Merchant)— I do not often agree with him— when he questioned whether our nation could afford Trident. It was a courageous question for a Conservative Member, but he found some support among his colleagues. I urge the Government to consider what he said and to think again before going along the road towards a Trident programme. More than 90 per cent. of our nation's trade is carried by sea. We must protect our North sea oilfields and fishing interests— but we will not protect them with a nuclear deterrent.
The Minister tonight envisaged our nation threatening the Soviet Union with Trident. He suggested that Great Britain would threaten the Soviet Union separately from the United States. That is folly. Whatever the outcome of such an exchange, everybody in Great Britain would be killed. Our country would be devastated. To say that any outcome could be a victory goes well beyond anything that I can comprehend. My constituents feel the same, as I am sure do all hon. Members.
The Government should commit themselves to western European disarmament and seek a reduction in Soviet conventional forces. Within a conventional defence strategy, our nation's contribution should emphasise the Navy's role and ensure that we can respond to pressures other than a suicidal European nuclear exchange.
Our maritime role is vital to our country. If we cancelled Trident and left the nuclear role to the United States rather than attempting to duplicate it ourselves, we could meet our conventional commitments.
We should not allow our merchant fleet to decline. Other hon. Members have spoken about the importance of the merchant fleet and I endorse everything that they have said. We must preserve a British-owned merchant fleet, not only for trading but for defence reasons. We should not under-value the role of merchant shipping in defence matters, but the Government are presiding over the death of British merchant shipbuilding.
Admiral Wesley McDonald was mentioned by the Opposition spokesman at the beginning of the debate. Last

1159
August he called for an increase in the United States carrier force. We could contribute to that with the resources freed by abandoning the Trident programme. We would not need to mothball Hermes; or, if she were sold, we could contemplate building another aircraft carrier. At least we could make a bigger contribution to the provision of destroyers and mine sweepers.
I am disappointed that no statement has been made tonight to announce which yard will get the order for the two type 22s. That statement has been delayed many times. That delay fuels the suspicions of people in shipbuilding areas such as mine that the Government intend to clear the labour force out of the yards prior to privatisation, paying no heed to the effect that that will have on the communities and no heed to our nation's defence interests. The overriding issue for the Government is expediency rather than the interests of the nation.
It will be impossible to meet the future needs of the Royal Navy if the Government allows the domestic shipbuilding industry to collapse. That is the direction in which their current policy is heading. In post-1945 conflicts, mines have played an important and significant part. However, does our island nation have the necessary resources to meet our commitments in that regard? I suspect that it does not. The number of vessels available, as well as their quality, is important.
The needs of NATO and of our nation are being neglected by the foolish and false security which the Government think they have from the Trident programme. Our economy cannot sustain both needs, and the Government have chosen the wrong option.
8.13 pm
Miss Janet Fookes: In deference to colleagues who want to speak later, I propose to condense my planned speech. I am one of those in the House who support the Trident programme. It is important that we retain a credible nuclear deterrent of our own. I take issue with the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). One can make a logical case for dispensing with the nuclear deterrent—although I regard that as most unwise—but to seek to have a nuclear deterrent on the cheap, a third-rate cut-price version, has no merit. One might just as well do without it.
The chilling catalogue of the Soviet Union's conventional forces makes it imperative for us to have a nuclear deterrent. I urge my hon. Friends in the Government to continue their policy. In the past, much has gone wrong and we have wasted much money through chopping and changing our policies. I hope that we shall not do that in the future.
Let us consider the number of ships on order since May 1979. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State announced the orders with a flourish. He seemed somewhat coy in explaining how many were corning into service. I should like to have that information. I have a nasty feeling that there may be some unpleasant gaps in the way that they are coming into service. One cannot fight a war, or even undertake an exercise, without the real thing. Paper orders are not much use if the ships are not there on the high seas.
At the risk of being considered tedious, I inquire again about fire hazards and the progress made in overcoming them. That was an important feature of the Falklands campaign and made a deep impression upon me. I hope that we do all in our power to make all the ships in service
1160
as fireproof as possible and that every step will be taken to ensure that new ships coming into service are made fireproof. Some progress has been made, but I feel that I must act as a little hornet and ensure that the Government do not go back.
Like many hon. Members on both sides of the House I am worried about our merchant navy capability. I am less than enthusiastic about the in-depth inquiry. I fear that some months later it might announce with a flourish all sorts of interesting facts which tell us only what we know already. We are looking for an explanation of what action the Government propose to take to remedy that important defect. I hope that we shall hear from the Minister tonight.
Plymouth has a major dockyard. It is one of the biggest in western Europe and the biggest in the United Kingdom. I do not object to inquiries to ensure that each dockyard functions as efficiently as possibly, but I share the concern about the length of time that it is taking to come to a decision. That causes a loss of morale and enables rumours, some extraordinarily wild and unrealistic, to abound. Without definite information, it is difficult to stem them. When people feel that their jobs might be at stake they are particularly vulnerable to rumours and, on occasions, to mischief making.
I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends to make a decision and to announce it. I hope that such an announcement will be made by a Minister in one of the dockyards—for preference in Plymouth—so that he can deal with any queries. I hope that the statement will not be made from a crow's nest in the Ministry of Defence.
I have received glowing tributes of late from naval officers whose ships have been refitted in Devonport dockyard. An excellent service was provided there in support of the Falklands campaign. I hope that it will be possible to make an announcement which will allay the fears of the work force and enable the dockyard to continue more efficiently. I go along with that, but we must have a decision soon.
8.20 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), whose knowledge of naval matters and support for the Navy is well known and respected throughout the House. I hope that she will forgive me if I strongly disagree with her about the Trident missile.
When I asked the Minister whether Trident was a unilateral weapon, he said, "No." I noticed that he was supported by a number of his hon. Friends. Must we go back into the dictionary to decide this matter? Trident is an independent weapon which is capable of being used unilaterally. That makes it a unilateral weapon. What other definition of unilateralism can there be?
It is curious to find that this Government condemn outright in the strongest language even the smallest independent step by Britain towards arms reductions, yet are now contemplating an independent unilateral weapon in favour of an arms increase. I stress arms increase, not just arms maintenance, because the Minister knows as well as I that the current level upon which the credible deterrent is operated is 64 warheads in Polaris. Hide it though he will, he knows perfectly well that the Government intend to increase that massively. The figure bandied about is 512 warheads, but the maximum figure is 896. That is more than a tenfold increase. It is odd that a Government who claim unilateralism to be such a bad thing should be taking

1161
such a unilateral step to increase weapons when they refuse to take the smallest of unilateral steps to decrease the number of weapons held.
More important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, Trident is the cuckoo in the nest of defence expenditure. It will turf out all other sensible expenditures. NATO has a 40 times capacity to destroy our enemy. It may be arguable that a deterrent should be able to destroy an enemy once, twice or three times but, to put it mildly, 40 times is somewhat self-indulgent.
If we were to launch the nuclear weapons that we hold at the rate of one Hiroshima weapon every second, it would take 11·6 days to do so. Against that background, the Government are prepared to increase the number of nuclear weapons which they are prepared to deliver independently and unilaterally. That consequently decreases the amount of money—this vital and limited resource—that we are prepared to spend on NATO at the point where NATO is weakest. As good Alliance partners committed to NATO, we should make our defence contribution to that area where NATO is weakest, not add to weapons of which we have too many already.
Dr. Alan Glyn: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that our possession of Trident is part of NATO strategy and that if we were to give it up we would lose credibility in the eyes of our American allies? We could not possibly match the conventional forces of the Soviet Union, and the hon. Gentleman knows that perfectly well.
Mr. Ashdown: I merely direct the hon. Gentleman to the statement of the British Atlantic Committee, which supports NATO and which says that there is no prospect that the Soviet Union could mount a conventional attack on us which would have any prospect of success. When Lord Carrington took over as Secretary-General of NATO he said that we do not suffer militarily in the balance with the Soviet Union at the moment. He was referring to conventional military balance. The folly of the Trident decision is that at a time when we should be strengthening NATO where it is weakest, we are spending more money on an area in which it already has too many weapons.
There is another folly. As we approach September next year and the non-proliferation treaty review conference, many people believe that that is the last occasion on which that treaty will have any chance of continuing as an effective means of cutting back on proliferation. A serious problem lies ahead if the NPT ceases to become effective. There is no doubt in my mind that the purchase of Trident contravenes our signature of the NPT as it stands at present.
Article 1 states:
"Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly".
The Minister will no doubt argue that the weapon is supplied by us, and that that is what goes on top of the warhead. That is laughable. It is like saying that the bullet is only the thing that comes out of the end of a gun. This is a direct transfer of nuclear weapons technology and delivery systems.
Article 6 of the treaty states:
1162
"Each of the Parties of the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith … to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date".
The Government have signed that commitment to the cessation of the nuclear arms race, but they honour it by increasing almost to a factor of 10 the number of warheads that we shall possess, and they shall do so as early as possible. That puts at risk our capacity and moral right to be able to persuade others to observe and adhere to that vital treaty, which is our only bulwark against the increasing proliferation of nuclear weapons.
It does so at a terrible cost. On the Government's argument, we shall obtain a spurious kind of independence. Let us assume that Britain has the political independence to be able to use the Trident missile. I ask hon. Members to think of the massive political pressures placed on the Government by the Americans if we seek to use the Trident missile at a moment when they are not prepared that we should do so—in other words, wholly independently.
Let us assume that those pressures are overcome. We all know that the Trident missile is obtained from the Americans. Fair enough; we purchase enough for our needs. But, because of the D5 decision they will now be maintained by the Americans. Fair enough; so while one third are maintained we shall still possess two thirds. So we stick the ones that we are left with on to boats and push them out to sea. When will they be fired? Presumably that will be done when incoming Russian missiles are spotted, but the only way in which we shall see those Russian missiles is via the ballistic missile early warning system which is in the hands of the Americans.
Alternatively, we can sit tight and wait for Birmingham to go bang before launching our Trident missiles. Then we come to the last problem in the the chain. For the Trident submarine to fix its position accurately to fire the missile it will need to use the Navstar satellite. Indeed, the missile will need to use that satellite for mid-term correction. But that satellite is in American hands and, we understand, can be turned off or used only by those whom the Americans wish to use it.
Mr. O'Neill: For the benefit of the House, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify a doubt in my mind. Is he in favour of Polaris and Chevaline, against Trident and in favour of submarine-launched cruise missiles?
Mr. Ashdown: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that from the time Polaris was considered the Liberal party has been opposed to the independent nuclear deterrent. So it remains. In my opinion, we do not need an independent nuclear deterrent for Britain, and that is the opinion of my party. It always has been.
The price we have paid for all this is a spurious non-existent independence. The Trident decision undermines NATO in the sense that it undermines NATO's political will and its capacity to have the conventional forces which it needs. If the Minister believes that Britain can defend herself independently, he is entitled to believe in the folly of an independent deterrent. Anything less means the removal of a resource that is vital to NATO. In addition, it undermines the non-proliferation treaty and our support of that treaty. Furthermore, it is a unilateral act and, after all that, it is not even independent. The question of cost was eloquently dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport. It may be £10 billion or £12 billion. No one knows precisely.

1163
When I say that the threshold will be lowered, I mean that there will be a reduction in the conventional forces that we need. The Minister made glowing comments about the Royal Marines and the need for a decision on the replacement of Intrepid and Fearless. But for the Falklands crisis, those ships would have gone to the knacker's yard. We are now told that they are to be spun on until the mid-1990s. I am very worried about their effectiveness at that stage. I hope that the Minister will take a decision very soon.
Without Fearless and Intrepid, we shall not have the capacity to do what I, as a Marine officer, had to do. We shall not be able to carry out the vital job of deterrence in northern Norway. The Minister said that we were determined to be able to do that. But the contingency plan to carry Royal Marine commandos to northern Norway in the absence of Fearless and Intrepid is to take them there in a Sealink ferry. That may satisfy the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), but anyone who believes that one can land in hostile territory and hostile conditions on the northern coast of Norway in a Sealink ferry is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. Unless Fearless and Intrepid are replaced, we shall be unable to carry out that task effectively. The Minister's decision is therefore vital. We are worried that expenditure on Trident will interfere with our ability to perform that vital NATO task.
I am particularly concerned about escort vessels because that is the centre of the problem. For all the Minister's good words, the supreme commanders of the Atlantic fleet and C-in-C fleet have recently said that our commitment to the north Atlantic fleet in escort vessels is now 40 per cent. lower than is required. It is a disgrace that the Government of a maritime nation cannot fulfil even its current maritime commitments to NATO, and that is just the present position. What will happen in the near future?
The type 23 vessels now coming on are the key. The first was due to be produced in 1984 with the frigates coming on series in the 1990s. We now understand that the first—the Norfolk—will come off in 1989 and the rest following the sea trials of the first of class. Those trials may well take six or 12 months, so it is likely that we shall not be into series production of type 23 frigates until the mid-1990s. Will the Minister confirm that estimate when he winds up the debate?
I ask the Minister now to follow me in a little mathematics. When asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) how many ships were launched last year, the Minister with responsibility for the Navy made the astonishing admission that he did not know. He may not know this, either. According to my calculations, assuming an in-service life of 25 years—I should be interested to know the length of life on which the Ministry is now working—we shall have only 52 escort vessels. Of those—one Bristol, two County class, 12 Sheffields, 13 Broadsides, 6 Amazons and 18 Leanders—only 30 are likely to be immediately available in the front line, the rest being in for maintenance, repair and refit. Taking the much more likely case of a 20-year in-service life, the figure reduces to a total of 38 with an operational fleet of 20. Is that what the Minister wants? Is that how he proposes to honour his NATO commitments? And even that would mean keeping our 13 Leanders until their last gasp.
Our Navy is already weaker in relative terms than that which faced Hitler in Operation Sealion in the early 1940s,
1164
and the cost of Trident wilt merely make things worse. For any conceivable scenario, the Trident missile decision will make us not stronger but weaker both in fulfilling our vital responsibilities to our NATO allies and in our ability to conduct our own defence. The cost of a type 23 was originally announced as £67 million. It is now believed to be £110 million. There is a desperate need for the Minister to take urgent steps to increase the escort fleet as quickly as possible. If the decision on and production of the type 23 cannot be speeded up I hope that he will very quickly go for the Mk 3 offshore patrol vessel equipped with a helicopter. That vessel could be built in a year at a cost of about £35 million. I hope that he will take that decision very early indeed.
Finally, I wish to develop some technical points on torpedoes relating to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, East. I believe that a major scandal is now occuring in our procurement of the new series of torpedoes. Our current heavyweight torpedo is the type 24, the so-called Tigerfish. This followed a naval staff requirement laid down in 1959. It was supposed to be in operation in 1965 but actually came into operation in 1972. As has been pointed out, that torpedo showed significant inadequacies and failures in the Falklands campaign, during which several were fired. As a direct result, a modernisation programme is now under way.
The update programme was initially announced at £12 million but I am told that it will run out at £70 million. Even then, its design is nearly 30 years old, its maximum speed is 35 knots and its maximum range about 15 km. It is already completely unable to cope with the modern class of Russian submarines in terms of its ability to catch them or to dive deep enough. The updating will require not just a new propulsion unit but better propulsion mechanisms, a replacement sonar, replacement electronics and the solution of certain auxiliary supply problems. It is liable to be at best inadequate.
The long-term replacement for the Tigerfish is the Spearfish. The cost of 100 pre-production models is £500 million and the defence Estimates recently published made provision for a further £775 million for the development of the new Spearfish. That is a total of £1,250 million for the development of a torpedo which is not even running adequately. I am told that it uses a very unsafe fuel called HAP/OTTO— for the technically minded, that is hydroxalymine perchlorate and a mixture of the OTTO fuels—and that even now that mixture has never been put together adequately so as to make the torpedo run effectively without a severe risk of detonation. Indeed, I understand that there have been two explosions at Ministry of Defence establishments testing that fuel.
We need a replacement torpedo capable of carrying out the tasks required in a modern naval environment, and we need it now. We cannot expect the new Spearfish programme adequately to achieve that. Having spent more than £1,000 million producing a torpedo that is not even running properly, I suggest that the Minister might do better to fill in the gap by buying some United States Mk 48 torpedoes which I gather would cost about £150 million for a fit of 200.
Regrettably, that is not the end of the torpedo problem. We are also developing a lightweight anti-submarine torpedo to replace the US Mk. 46. I understand that that torpedo has been developed and is coming into service. It was announced that it would cost about £200 million, but the actual cost is about £1 billion. It has already been

1165
admitted that that new lightweight torpedo is incapable of catching the Russian submarines that are currently at sea. I understand that it was admitted last year to the Select Committee. A total of more than £2 billion will therefore have been spent on producing torpedoes which appear not to work or to be incapable of catching the current class of Russian submarines they are supposed to catch. I hope that the Minister will address those points.
The development of an effective conventional Navy, capable of honouring our commitments to NATO, is placed severely at risk and in jeopardy, because the Government wish to have an independent, unilateral weapon when that independence is spurious and does not exist. That expenditure will so corrupt the Naval budget that we shall have a Navy which is in all senses not stronger but weaker. That is the reason why the Government should cancel the Trident decision.
I predict that the time will arrive—it is not far away—when the Minister will have to face up to reality and, no doubt, announce the cancellation of the Trident missile programme. The alliance looks forward to that day with some pleasure.
8.41 pm
Mr. Robert Hicks: The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) made a strong technical contribution. His speech confirmed the reason why some of us are always reticent about contributing to defence debates.
I shall consider the Royal Navy's future role with specific reference to its manpower requirements, before concentrating on the Government's proposals for the future management structure of Her Majesty's dockyards. It is a fundamental responsibility of any Government to safeguard their citizens from any potential internal or external aggressor. That implies the possession of a meaningful and effective defence capability.
There is no alterntive but to have nuclear and conventional weaponry at our disposal. It worries me when I read and hear, as we have done this evening, that, because of financial constraints, one of these two essential ingredients may have to suffer at the expense of retaining and developing the other. Those aspects are complementary, and until we can obtain meaningful disarmament both are necessary.
As one who is known to take a relaxed view about public expenditure, the public sector borrowing requirement and the rest of the somewhat questionable economics of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I hope that the Defence Ministers will not be pushed, for reasons of economic dogma, into a corner in which they are obliged to take decisions which prejudice our defence capability.
The last occasion on which I spoke in a defence debate was in 1981 when the House was discussing John Nott's defence review. Had the proposals then outlined been enacted, the Royal Navy would have been the principal casualty. We all know what that would have meant, given the subsequent events in the south Atlantic. This is an appropriate moment to mention HMS Raleigh, the shore establishment in my constituency which takes all the non-officer intake into the Royal Navy. As a result of the defence review, training is undertaken at that establishment, involving an annual throughput of 24,000 naval
1166
personnel a year. That training is at all levels and a great variety of skills is imparted. It is a highly successful, streamlined process, and I am sure that the House would wish to pay tribute to those personnel—both service and civilian— who are employed there and provide that excellent facility for the training requirements of Royal Navy personnel.
Many previous Governments have looked at Her Majesty's dockyards and have sought to make them more efficient and accountable to financial controls. That is a right and proper approach, but the problem is that refitting ships will never be as controllable as constructing them. There is the inherent difficulty of the customer-supply relationship, as was pointed out in the most recent inquiry by Mr. Levine. It is difficult to fault the Levine analysis, but I have little enthusiasm for his prescribed remedies. His agency proposal— whereby the assets of the dockyard would be retained by the Ministry of Defence but the actual work, including the labour force, would be the responsibility of a private contractor on a five or perhaps seven-year leasehold basis—is a recipe for confusion at best and inefficiency at worst.
Given the weaknesses of the existing system, it would seem to be sensible to return to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) who made a similar investigation when he was Under-Secretary of State for Defence. He proposed the establishment of a dockyard trading fund. The Speed report specifically rejected the agency concept advocated by Levine. That happened just four years ago. As the House knows, the Speed report suggested a trading fund for Her Majesty's dockyards, with a separate dockyard Vote, thus taking it out of the overall defence budget. That would have had the effect of improving the existing unsatisfactory customer-supply relationship by placing it on a more businesslike basis, and, at the same time, allowing greater freedom of management within the overall financial budget. Ultimately, the dockyards would be accountable to the House for their funding in a more precise manner than at present.
The Levine proposals prompted an adverse response, in varying degrees of hostility, from the work force at Her Majesty's dockyards in Devonport. I gather from my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that, when he made his report known, he was able to obtain support for his proposals from management and from trade unions representing the work force.
I make one urgent request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence— please, end this uncertainty. There are 13,300 employees at Devonport, 800 of whom have only just moved into our area following the closure of Chatham and the reduction at Portsmouth. In addition, by March 1985, there is a target of 13,065 employees, so a reduction at Devonport of almost 240 has been requested. That adds to the anxiety and uncertainty. The Government have made Devonport the premier United Kingdom dockyard. The loyalty and competence of the work force, management, industrial civil servants and non-industrial civil servants are not in doubt, as their response at the time of the Falklands conflict clearly demonstrated.
Those essential attributes for the servicing of our Royal Navy are currently being sorely tested by the present indecision and the resulting uncertainty. We are talking

1167
about people, their livelihoods and their pattern of family life. I believe that we owe it to them to relieve those anxieties as quickly as possible.
8.50 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: Although this debate has ranged widely, the major contributions have concentrated widely on the escalating costs of Trident, which, set against the falling pound, put at risk our conventional defences.
I wish to concentrate upon the future of the royal dockyards. The subject was mentioned by the hon. Members for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) and for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). The Minister announced this afternoon that the refit of the Trident submarine will take place at Rosyth dockyard. The work force at Rosyth will undoubtedly welcome one part of that—the belated recognition of their skill and dedication, evidently forgotten by the Government since the appreciation of their work in July 1982 after the Falklands campaign. That has been forgotten for the narrowest of ideological reasons as Ministers, in pursuit of privatisation policies, have sought to belittle the public sector and loyal civil servants.
The work force at Rosyth, like the Opposition, will find little to reassure them about their jobs and immediate prospects. The announcement means that once Trident is built, if ever it is, and once it is commissioned, if ever it is, it will be refitted at Rosyth dockyard perhaps in the last years of this century or the first years of the next.
Even if I were an enthusiast for the Trident programme, which I am not, I shall find it difficult to return to my constituency this weekend and tell those in work and out of work to forget about the millions of pounds that they have lost in regional development grants as a result of an announcement yesterday, to ignore the fact that 4,500 people are now unemployed, with unemployment rising faster than almost anywhere in Europe, and to ignore the fact that Rosyth faces the threat of compulsory redundancies. I am supposed to say that in 15 years' time work may be available from the Trident programme if the dream of the Secretary of State for Defence becomes a reality.
The sudden and abrupt loss of development status, the threat of compulsory redundancies and the disruption that privatisation is causing, and will continue to cause, is of more immediate interest and of more direct relevance to my constituents and to the employees now and for the foreseeable future than any benefits which might accrue from a refit programme which, if it ever happened, could begin at the earliest in the late 1990s.
As even the Minister will concede, many uncertainties surround the Trident programme: not just the cost or the falling pound, but the increasing hostility being shown to the programme by the Labour party and the doubts being raised on the Conservative Benches and by the Minister's allies.
When I was in America during the summer, I found that the NATO chiefs whom I met believe that the Trident programme seriously weakens this country's conventional defences. I met Brigadier-General Anthony Smith, who is the principal director at the pentagon for European and NATO policy. He referred me to a report which had been prepared showing the gap that will arise in our conventional defences at sea and on land if the Trident programme continues.
1168
The report is entitled, "Improving NATO's Conventional Capabilities". In a letter to me Brigadier Smith says that although there is no unclassified version of the report in America, he has sent it to the Secretary of State for Defence. He suggests that I approach the Secretary of State who, he believes, will be pleased to show me a copy of the report. I shall, of course, approach the Secretary of State, but it is interesting to note that the report confirms everything that the Labour party has been saying about the economic absurdity and military folly of the Trident missile.
Many people believe that the Minister has come to anounce what will happen after the arrival of Trident in order to convince himself that Trident will arrive. His statement today about refitting at Rosyth rings hollow. If he were announcing real jobs from a real project of real importance to the real defence of this country, I for one would welcome the announcement. Unfortunately, Trident represents none of those things.
My constituents will find it strange that the Minister can be so certain about the fate of the dockyards in the late 1990s when he has made a virtue of uncertainty about their fate in the late 1980s. They will find it strange that he can tell us what might happen in the last half of the next decade, but cannot tell us what will happen in the last half of this decade.
The Minister has confirmed that he is considering proposals to privatise the dockyards, but today he tells us that the most powerful, lethal and destructive weapon ever built is to be refitted at Rosyth. Apparently he cannot tell us who will be running the dockyard in the 1990s and servicing the weapons.
Among the measures which the Minister is still considering is a proposal which would privatise the management of the dockyard, perhaps placing it in the hands of a foreign or multinational operator on a four-year franchise— something which is more familiar to the world of fast food.
Is the Minister saying that he proposes to buy the most expensive weapons system known to this country arid run it on a franchise? Today, Rosyth faces the threat of redundancies, ever-increasing privatisation and increasing contractorisation within the dockyard. If the Minister could allay the fears of dockyard workers about those things, his announcement about Rosyth might be taken more seriously.
The Minister was saying that Trident, of unknown and unknowable cost, with at best an uncertain future, is to be sent to a dockyard which would be run by an unknown and untried operator, with a work force of unknown size, over which Ministers would have unknown and unspecified control. In those circumstances, the Minister's statement comes more from the world of public relations than from that of defence.
It is now eight months since Mr. Peter Levine's proposals were discussed, and four months since he left the employment of the Secretary of State for Defence. That is four months during which uncertainty over the future of the dockyard has been damaging morale within the dockyard. They have been months during which, without public announcement or the approval of the House, creeping privatisation appears to have become the way of life in the royal dockyards. When the dockyards exist to serve the Navy, when nothing should be done to affect the effectiveness of their relationship with the Navy, and when the onus should be upon the Government to demonstrate

1169
the need for any change or any privatisation, the measures that have been taken in the dockyards have not been tested for security, for viability, for capability or for capacity to respond in an emergency. At no point, either, have we considered the financial implications for this country. The opposite is the case. For the Government, as a matter of dogma, privatisation is the panacea, and, as a matter of policy, cutting public sector manpower is the prescription.
Now that it has been denied its promised increases in manpower, Rosyth's resources are being stretched to the limit. The dockyard is depending to an increasing extent on private contractors and casual labour. The Transport and General Workers Union representatives at Rosyth have told me that in July, as a result of the manpower recruitment ban, casual workers were brought into the dockyards. Five casual workers were used to clean the radiation departments of Resolution and Warspite. The union claims that the workers were given inadequate training and were not fully informed of the risks. Within a few days one worker had been subjected to two thirds of the maximum yearly radiation dosage and all five had been subjected to more than half of it.
That is an example of the dangers that can arise from increasing dependence on casual workers and outside commercial contractors. Under wholesale privatisation, with casualisation of the work force and contractorisation—which may be the fate of the dockyard—the Minister cannot guarantee either safety or security. He certainly cannot guarantee savings.
The test which the Secretary of State applies before putting projects out to privatisation is quite different from the tests applied by other Departments. The Secretary of State says that he will keep projects within the public sector only if the public sector can prove that it is significantly cheaper than the private sector. Even in American dockyards, privatisation of in-house services can be justified only if the private sector is at least 10 per cent. cheaper than the public sector. To the right hon. Gentleman, it is the public sector that must be cheaper. That policy is wrong and unfair.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement visited America this summer before I did. He visited some of the dockyards that I visited later on. He must have seen that the model which Mr. Levine chose for the dockyards, and which he said was based on American experience—the model of agency management— can be found nowhere in the management of the shipyards which deal with naval refits in America. It is taken entirely from armaments manufacture— a model with which Mr. Levine is familiar because of the other hats that he wears. That model has no relevance to the future of the royal dockyards.
The Minister must also have heard the views of the chief of the naval sea systems command, Vice-Admiral Fowler, who has said repeatedly—in America, the land of free enterprise—that in the refitting of naval ships the public sector is far more efficient than the private sector. Vice-Admiral Fowler has recommended that public sector shipyards should be building ships as well as refitting them.
I wonder whether the Minister also knows that the American navy is resisting Government proposals to contract out more and more vessels and submarines for refitting. Does he know that study after study has led the
1170
American shipyards and naval sea systems command to reject the privatisation of naval in-house services—the very thing being proposed for our dockyards?
American and most European experience leads us to reject the Levine proposal for agency management, any further movement towards privatisation of in-house services in the dockyards, and any further contracting-out of refitting work.
The Minister has not reassured us about the future of Rosyth dockyard. He has simply added to the uncertainty, anxiety and sense of frustration at the dockyard. Neither management nor work force wants the disruption of privatisation, the Navy does not want it, and the nation certainly does not need it.
9.4 pm
Mr. Robert Banks: I hope that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow on his debate about the dockyards.
I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. What he has said today suggests to me that he and I share an understanding about the importance of sea power. I am convinced that the control of the oceans is fundamental to the deterrent that we in NATO have to maintain. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence policy. Our commitment to it is always taken into account, and never more so than by the United States. It is easy to settle down under the umbrella of the United States' military forces, but unless we make our contribution we cannot expect NATO to hold the peace as it has for the past 35 years.
I praise the Americans for their contribution in Europe. It is up to us to make ours. That is one of the reasons why it is important that we hold fast to the decision to go for Trident. It is the best. It is expensive, but one has to pay a lot for the best. A system that is deep in the oceans of the world and capable of launching one of the most deadly weapons is the deadliest deterrent. That is the way to counter the ever-growing threat of Russian forces and nuclear armaments, which my hon. Friend the Minister described.
My hon. Friend the Minister also spoke about the style of the Navy. It was a privilege for me to serve in it for a short time many years ago. What my hon. Friend said about the Navy's esprit de corps and reputation throughout the world is true today. Much of that goes back to tradition, and the person who founded that tradition was Lord Nelson. He is our most revered naval figure, and formed the modern Navy. He inspired by his unique leadership and injected a new strand of humanity into the running of the Navy, to say nothing of his skill as a naval commander.
Those qualities are epitomised by HMS Victory, which is in commission in the Royal Navy. It is an important part of the Royal Navy's central tradition. The Navy maintains it and it would be a fundamental mistake if HMS Victory were taken out of the Navy's hands and handed over to private enterprise to be exploited as a tourist attraction. The presence of HMS Victory and its connection with Lord Nelson and all that that means to the tradition of the Royal Navy is important in training and is an inspiration to the Navy. HMS Victory is not to be just a tourist attraction. It means something special to the Navy and must be kept under its control and care.
I should like to conclude by considering the old and rather hairy story about the sinking of the Belgrano. I am

1171
convinced that the decision had to be made in a short time. It was impossible to allow a naval commander to have the ship in his sights and not give him the order to sink it. The sinking was in the interests of all who were at sea in the Falklands area and elsewhere. I do not believe that the order was given on any ground other than that of securing the safety of those at sea. It bottled up the Argentine navy and was one of the most significant events of the war, which changed the pattern of it. I praise that courageous and almost monumental decision, which enabled the campaign to be concluded successfully. I hope that, when the story dies, people will realise the importance of what was done.
9.9 pm
Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: We have had a wide-ranging debate tonight, characterised by interest and affection for the Navy. Understandably, hon. Members with many constituents who are dependent on the Royal Navy for employment have shown an interest—as also, it is fair to say, have those hon. Members who, over the years, like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy), have developed an affection which began during their service days and which they have carried with them during their time in the House. The debate has been characterised by an interest, affection and desire on both sides to see what hon. Members regard as the best possible deal being made available for the Navy.
However, virtually every hon. Member has put the decisions to be made before us in terms of one side or other of the Trident debate. The Labour party considers Trident to be too expensive, quite apart from any other considerations of nuclear weapons. It is likely to jeopardise other aspects of our budget. Virtually every hon. Member has made some kind of guesstimate on the cost of the project. Figures between £10 billion and £12 billion have been bandied around. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be a little more frank and forthcoming than the Minister of State was when he opened the debate. The House is entitled to a clear and concise update. I realise that in the past annual assessments were intended, but, given the press interest, the amount of speculation and the rapid depreciation in the value of the pound over the past few months, it is only fair that we should be given some idea of the cost of the project.
We are also entitled to that estimate because it is possible that the British share of likely contracts for Trident might be worth less than the 60 per cent. which was suggested some time ago. It may have gone down to as low a figure as 40 to 45 per cent. We shall be interested in whatever information the Minister can give us on that aspect.
Furthermore, it is only fair that we be given some information about the time scale. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) effectively questioned the certainty of the proposals for the refitting of Trident at Rosyth. I live by the river Forth and I have watched the ships going by. My two sons, who at the moment are aged three and five, are not likely to be staying in my home when the Trident submarine goes up the river Forth for a refit.
Assuming that the project were to go ahead, I understand that the department of audit of the United States Government and the Congress procurement
1172
sub-committee have been informed that Lockheed is behind time and also beyond contract. It has been estimated that the first flight by Lockheed will not, at the very earliest, be before 1992. That suggests that it will be well into 1996–97 before we take delivery of Trident, assuming that we carry on with it.
If we do carry on with Trident, another anxiety is the possibility that, if we continue with the Polaris/Chevaline project, Chevaline will be well into obsolescence by the time Trident arrives. Indeed, at that stage there could be a gap in our defences. At that time we would not have the independent nuclear deterrent about which the Government are so proud and enthusiastic. When the Minister has finished consulting his parliamentary private secretary, perhaps he will tell us whether the other option that the Reagan Administration has been toying with, the star wars project—which probably involves even more of a guess than anything that we have heard of so far tonight—would render the whole Trident project unnecessary and irrelevant. That was one of the horses that the cowboy rode once again into the White House on, and we are interested in the Minister's views.
The Government normally look to the press for succour and support, but virtually no one in the press has any hope that the Trident project will be completed. Even in tonight's edition of The Standard, Max Hastings—a man who is not unsympathetic to the Government or the Ministry of Defence—wrote in the final paragraph of his article on Trident:
"As long as the Defence Secretary must remake policy with the vastly expensive lumber of Trident and Fortress Falkland immovably shackled to his own neck, it seems unlikely that our defence posture for the rest of the century will be any more than another in the long sad series of half-hearted compromises grudgingly achieved by his predecessors."
That shows the level of support that the Government can now expect in virtually all sections of the British press. As a result, other hon. Members have put forward alternatives to Trident. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) gave us a lengthy exposition in which he almost came to the conclusion that sea-launched cruise missiles might be a worthwhile alternative. But he was not really very sure, which is the characteristic position of the alliance, or at least of one part of it. We are still not very sure whether the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) was completely anti-Trident, anti all——
Mr. Ashdown: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman can possibly be in any doubt, but in case he is, I shall remind him of the position. The Liberal party has opposed an independent deterrent for Britain from the time that Polaris was first considered. There is no equivocation about the matter. We are opposed to an independent deterrent. The situation could not be clearer.
Mr. O'Neill: As a member of the Labour party, I know that there is a fashion in the party for it to say one thing and for the leader, on occasion, to say another. The only thing is that the leader of the Labour party quite often has the opportunity to test his policies in office rather than being in permanent opposition.
Mr. Ashdown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. O'Neill: I shall not give way. I have made the point sufficiently, and I shall not give up any more time to the hon. Gentleman. He has had his opportunity to make his position and, indeed, that of the alliance clear. After

1173
all, he kept referring to the right hon. Member for Devonport as his right hon. Friend, so I imagine that they both agree.
But we do not see sea—launched missiles as an alternative. The reasons advanced by the Minister were quite correct, and we must add to them the question of verification. That is an important point, because, although we are talking now in the context of defence Estimates, we must appreciate our responsibilities with regard to disarmament. If our weapons were ever used as counters in disarmament talks, verification would be of considerable importance. As a result of the Government's commitment to Trident, our commitment to Polaris is probably masked. Some 7 per cent. of the total defence budget is still accounted for by Polaris, with the hidden support costs of training, repair, refit and research and development.
The other major drain on our resources is our massive commitment to the south Atlantic. Such out-of-area activity has an impact, especially when we are short of warships with which to mount a south Atlantic patrol. We now realise that the proper defence systems which are required for our ships are not coming through at the rate that they should.
The Government must recognise that the Government of President Alfonsin in Argentina are different from the one against whom we were at war two years ago. We should consider the prevailing circumstances in Argentina and recognise that if we do not move quickly, the opportunity of dealing with the democratic leader there may be denied us for years to come. We must recognise that our commitment in the south Atlantic must be considered against the defence budget and the stretching of resources.
Our responsibilities are primarily in the north Atlantic. A major and increasingly important role for our Navy is its continuing commitment to the north Atlantic. Our superiority there must be maintained. We must defend our convoy routes and offset any Warsaw pact superiority on land. Nevertheless, we must ensure that we have the vessels in which to do the work. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe spelled that out adequately. We must ensure that existing equipment is adequately supported and provided.
The report in The Daily Telegraph of 6 November gives us cause for anxiety. It is headed:
"Shortage of spares hits Navy helicopters."
I hope that the Minister will comment on this when he replies. It states:
"The operational effectiveness of some of the navy's frontline ships and aircraft is being seriously hit by lack of spares. The Sea King anti-submarine helicopters of 814 Naval Air Squadron in the carrier Illustrious have only two sets of a particularly vital piece of equipment to be shared among seven aircraft."
That is in contradistinction to the points raised by the Public Accounts Committee. It said that the Minister of Defence holds too large stocks of stores and spares. From the article in The Daily Telegraph it does not appear that that is the experience of the ship supplies officers of the fleet.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe was Minister in 1977 he gave the go-ahead for the installation of computers on ships. There is a considerable way to go before they are all installed. I hope that the Minister will make a statement on those matters, of which I am sure he
1174
is well aware because they have featured in The Daily Telegraph. I can imagine that, when such matters are buried in, for example, the New Statesman under the names of journalists like Duncan Campbell, Ministers will choose to avert their gaze. But as they are jumping out from the pages of The Daily Telegraph, he will probably have read about them over his cornflakes in the morning.
The problems include more than merely supplying the individual ships. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) referred to the problems of the dive systems on HMS Challenger on the Clyde. I wrote to the Minister about that because there has been considerable anxiety on the Clyde. As a Scottish Member, I am aware of the nervousness caused by anything which affects the yards there. Quite correctly, there was much public interest. My hon. Friend pointed out that we were not trying to over-egg the pudding. We recognise that it is not intended to reflect on the Scott Lithgow yards or work which has been done there.
Will the Challenger's dive system have to be refitted? If so, where will it take place? How much has the present dive system cost so far? Will there be a review of the procurement arrangements? We were led to believe at an earlier stage that there were alternatives, but they were rejected in favour of an MOD design which has now been shown to be less than satisfactory. Will the Minister estimate the cost of the replacement and how long it will take for the system to be corrected?
With the hon. Member for Yeovil, I was interested in and was going to mention torpedoes, but in view of the time remaining to me, I shall not do so. The hon. Gentleman and I used much the same sources for our arguments.
Several hon. Members with constituency interests mentioned privatisation. Everyone who takes an interest in such matters must be aware of the anxiety of naval dockyard workers. There are problems with morale, and worry about the availability of future capacity and the flexibility that has traditionally been available to the Navy, when dockyards have accepted at short notice increases in demand or changes in approach. Those anxieties have been expressed to Opposition Members by the trade unions, and not only by the unions which one would associate with ideological opposition to privatisation. The Civil Service unions, which represent the entire political spectrum, spelt out in a thoughtful and important document their views on agency management. Their opposition to it was mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
The unions have also expressed fears about the diversion of warship repair work to the ship repair industry generally, and they are worried about the possibility of fleet maintenance bases taking on unprogrammed work. The workers are not simply worried about their jobs; they have committed their lives to the service of the Navy and of our security. It is only fair and reasonable that their anxieties should be allayed as quickly as possible. It goes without saying that the Opposition believe that their fears could be allayed by the complete rejection of the Levine report and the maintenance of the status quo. However, we recognise that the Government might try to do their worst, for whatever perverse ideological reasons they choose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West outlined the American experience, which was contrary to many of the attitudes that are normally adopted by the Americans. It is rare for the Opposition to pray in aid the

1175
American experience. One could expect the Soviet navy to be opposed to privatisation, but when that happens in the home of free enterprise, it puts the matter into perspective. We are not talking about the franchising of hamburgers or the changing of cleaning and catering arrangements in hospitals. Many of us believe that the security of the nation should not be jeopardised on the altar of private profit, as the Minister seems to have chosen to do.
Hon. Members have been almost unanimous tonight about the need to protect and to enhance our merchant marine force. The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), who made a thoughtful and effective speech, may or may not be enjoying his new-found freedom or enhanced independence. This evening, he set the tone for the rest of the debate on the subject.
We are all anxious about the future of the merchant marine. Mr. Anthony Watts of the Maritime League has said:
"Unless the Government makes a definite move soon, we will no longer have a merchant navy to develop—and what will happen then to all those plans to charter merchant shipping for the transport of reinforcement supplies across the North Atlantic?"
The Government's response to the widespread anxiety, which I could spend a great deal of time discussing, is that there will be an in-depth study. We all know that an in-depth study is about the next worst thing to a Royal Commission. We know that the Minister who initiates it may have made such a success or failure of his responsibilities that he will have moved on by the time the report comes out, and will have forgotten about it. Whoever comes along will not want to do anything about it. There may be a delay in the Minister actually seeing it, as the officials may decide that it is something to be put at the bottom of the tray.
If this is the Government's attitude at a time of crisis in our Merchant Navy, it is not good enough. This evening, we shall not divide the House. We did so two nights ago when we debated shipbuilding, and the two subjects are not unrelated. Some of the speeches made then by my hon. Friends, and certainly the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) when he wound up the debate, made clear the close relationship between the Merchant Navy and the needs of the shipbuilding communities.
It is not surprising that in this campaign we find some strange allies. My hon. Friend the Member for Attercliffe referred to the statements made by Mr. Ken Gill of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and by Mr. Jim Slater of the National Union of Seamen. The close similarity between the statements made by these two men, advocating the policies of the two trade unions, and the policy advocated by Admiral Sir Anthony Griffin in his Blackadder lecture "A Maritime Strategy for Britain" is interesting.
These three men from different backgrounds came to certain conclusions. They were: promotion of the recognition of Britain's dependence on the sea; the recreation of an orderly international market based on enlightened self-interest and possibly the adoption of voluntary quota systems; the encouragement of joint shipping ventures with the developing world; the fostering of industrial relations through more effective involvement; the encouragement of a closer dialogue between shipowners and shipbuilders; the encouragement of
1176
shipowners through improved fiscal policies and reduced regulations; the encouragement of fishing, surveying, marine business, offshore and all other related elements of Britain's maritime interests; the reappraisal of Britain's contribution to the NATO strategy; and making sure that military threats to maritime interests are deterred.
In the interests of brevity, I have had to paraphrase one or two of the objectives, but the point is clear. All parts of the maritime community are committed to the need for a clear policy that will serve to foster the Merchant Navy and provide employment for those who construct ships, for those who sail them and for the communities and the activities that support them. That is of the highest priority.
It is not good enough for the Government to say that an in-depth survey will take place. The Minister having invested his authority in it, one imagines that it will take place as quickly as possible. I assure him that over the next few months, every month at Defence Questions there will be a question asking for a statement on the in-depth report. It should not take the study long to gather the information together.
The General Council of British Shipping and a variety of other organisations have put their views on record already. We hope that, at the very earliest, the report will be ready by Easter. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether that will be so. That is a reasonable time to give him. Certainly it is not unreasonable, given the plight of the industry. We want action, and we want it quickly. Our communities need this reassurance at a time when in virtually every area of maritime policy and defence policy there is terrible uncertainty.
Virtually every right hon. and hon. Member has expressed anxiety about the cost of Trident—from Government supporters who do not know how much it costs to Opposition Members who have a fair idea of how much it costs, do not like it and do not want it.
We also want to know the impact of the increasing cost on the budget. In response to a question from the right hon. Member for Devonport, the Minister admitted that the other parts of the defence budget would have to carry the load for any increase in the cost of the Trident project. In our view, if that happened and our contribution in a conventional sense and especially in a naval sense to the NATO Alliance suffered, it would only serve to weaken the Alliance, to alienate our friends and partners in the Alliance and to make our country a far less safe and healthy place in which to live.
9.36 pm
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Adam Butler): I have the feeling that naval debates have a touch of freemasonry about them. I thank all those right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this one, and I thank especially my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) for his welcome to me. I cannot but be impressed by the quality of the speeches to which I have listened, but I shall be commenting on their content. The Chamber seemed to be scattered with former Navy Ministers, junior Defence Ministers, a former Foreign Secretary and—it was very nice to see—a former Prime Minister, who was here for at least half of the debate. I think that I am right in saying that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill), like me, has just made his first appearance at the Dispatch Box as a spokesman on naval matters, and I congratulate him on his speech.

1177
Before dealing with the main matters which have occupied the attention of right hon. and hon. Members, let me try to pick up a few of the specific topics upon which they touched. A handful of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House urged the Government to sign the law of the sea convention. I am afraid that I have to disappoint those who expected me to comment on it—although they may know better and not expect me to do SO.
For the benefit of those who do not know, I ought to explain that the convention is open for signature until 9 December. The Government are finalising their attitude to signing it. But it is long and complex. It covers a wide range of interests embracing navigation. But when the decision time comes, one finds that these matters are even more complex that they were 10 years ago.
In the area of mineral exploration, scientific research, navigation and pollution some provisions are acceptable, and some are not. So all that I can say is that we shall arrive at our decision, I hope, in the near future—I might even say before too long or, I hope, shortly.
Mr. du Cann: I understand my right hon. Friend's problems and difficulties, and no one expects him necessarily to give a specific answer now, but this is a serious subject. The matter has been on the table for 10 years. It is a matter in which British officials and British Governments have taken a leading part in international negotiations. To suggest that it is possible that at some unqualified time in the future we shall come to a conclusion is, with the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, simply not good enough. Will he not say in all seriousness that the conclusion will be announced to the House within the next few days, in time for signature?
Mr. Butler: My right hon. Friend quite rightly takes me to task. I was not treating the subject flippantly. I was involved in some of the discussions within Government on this matter some four years ago, so I know something about it. Perhaps the fact that we are taking so long to decide shows the deep importance and complexity of the matter. My right hon. Friend knows perfectly well that if it was a simple matter we could have decided one way or the other. The fact is that it is not a simple matter. I should have liked to be able to say that we would announce the decision before 9 December. It may be possible, but I cannot commit the Government to making a statement before then. However, I very much hope that that will be the case.
My right hon. Friend gave me notice that he would raise the question of hydrographic services. It is a fact that only about one third of the waters around the United Kingdom have been surveyed to modern standards. There is a steady flow of new work and priorities must be selected. That work will continue. My right hon. Friend knows many of the people involved, and he paid tribute to the staff in Taunton. I echo his praise for their work. He also said that, while he welcomed the use of private contractors and chartered vessels to supplement the resources of the survey flotilla, he thought that the reduction in numbers had gone too far. I entirely agree that there is work that should be carried out by Royal Navy vessels and, therefore, by naval staff.
My right hon. Friend made a strong, if narrow, criticism of the time taken to produce annual reports. I
1178
agree that the report should come out on time. I will check on the past position and try to ensure that they come out on time in future. The report now due has been completed, is being printed and should be available shortly.
Mr. Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are concerned that this is one of the most effective ways in which the Royal Navy's future can be assured?
Will my right hon. Friend address himself to communication in the wider sense? I am sure that he is aware that one of the lessons from the Falklands was the lack of satellite communication. Will he say something about Skynet, the satellite communication system that will be of the greatest importance, but is still awaited?
Mr. Butler: My hon. Friend gave me notice that he would raise that point. In view of the time and the number of other matters with which I must deal, I shall say nothing other than that he is right. There have been problems of delay with Skynet, but there is no doubt about the importance of satellites for communication in the defence and maritime areas. I hope that we can reinforce what is currently available.
Merchant shipping occupied a number of the speeches. There should be no doubt that the figures quoted about the undoubted reduction in the merchant shipping fleet give cause for concern. At present, the overall size of the merchant fleet is adequate to meet current and foreseeable defence needs. It is because of the history of the past few years, when the run down occurred, that the Government have commissioned the joint study to which my right hon. Friend the Minister referred in his opening speech. It will not be ready as early as Easter, as was requested, but it should be available by the middle of the next year. The study is important and should not be left on the shelf unread. We shall see what it says and decide how to proceed.
Mr. Douglas: Will the report be published, in view of the restrictions imposed by its confidentiality?
Mr. Butler: Initially, the report is for Ministers. Much of the information in it might be classified and it would be impossible to publish it. My right hon. Friend and the Department of Transport will consider whether an expurgated version should be made available. Normally such reports are advisory and one would not expect them to be made public.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: We will read about it in The Observer.
Mr. Butler: The hon. Members for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) and for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) mentioned Challenger. It is common knowledge that difficulties have arisen in the saturation diving system. Since it was impossible to rectify the failures in situ it was decided to redesign and simplify the system. The value of the pipework removed was under £l million. A replacement programme has been put to competitive tender and I cannot tell what the replacement costs will be. The failure was not the consequence of MOD procurement arrangements. At the time of the original order no commercial equipment wholly met the MOD requirement. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) asked if any blame attached to Scott Lithgow. There is no

1179
disagreement between the MOD and Scott Lithgow and no complaints have been made against Scott Lithgow about the saturation diving system.
I apologise to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) for not having been here to listen to his strong criticisms of the torpedo programme. I cannot comment in detail. Tigerfish has caused problems but I am glad to say that Sting Ray's development has been successfully completed in time and within costs. It entered service with Sea Kings and Nimrods last year.
Mr. Ashdown: Is it true that even now, as Sting Ray enters service, there is a requirement for a propulsion enhancement programme to increase its speed so that it can do the job for which it was originally designed?
Mr. Butler: I shall have to check that.
The main subject of today's debate was defence expenditure, within that, naval expenditure, and the impact which the cost of Trident might have on that expenditure. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the considerable increase in real terms in expenditure over the past five years under Conservative Administrations. I resent the Opposition castigating us for what we might or might not be doing in relation to the defence programme or the naval programme. In real terms defence expenditure has increased by about one fifth in the last five years and naval expenditure has benefited in the same way from increased resources.
There is no reasonable basis for suggesting that the Navy has fared other than well under this Government. In meeting our commitment to NATO, we are fully achieving the targets in Cmnd. 8758. We at any rate have met the NATO force goals. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) asked that question three times, and I began to wonder whether it would be the only subject in his speech. I suggest that when he next sees Admiral McDonald, he should ask him to whom he was referring. However, the hon. Gentleman was nicely taken up by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), who pointed out that most of the time serving officers claim that they do not have a sufficient amount of the equipment they need.
We have ordered 41 new ships since May 1979, and in real terms we are spending about £2 billion more than would have been the case had the performance of 1978–79 been maintained. In this year alone, excluding any special provision for the Falkland Islands, we are spending £500 million more in real terms.
Mr. Nicholas Brown: Is the Minister able to say anything definite about the two type 22s which have been delayed? In particular, can he say that both will be committed to Swan Hunter?
Mr. Butler: The answer is no. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the tenders expired and the orders again had to be put out to tender. These are being examined, and I hope that we shall be able to announce them before the end of the year. With only two ships involved, it is clear that one or two yards will be disappointed. The decisions have many implications for naval capacity and jobs in different yards. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's concern, but at present I cannot say which way the orders are likely to go.
The debate on Trident took a fairly predictable form because it is not the first time that this matter has been
1180
considered. I shall not discuss in depth whether or not we need Trident. Some hon. Members will not be persuaded of that. Our very firm view is that an independent nuclear deterrent must form part of our defence strategy. If we are to have a nuclear deterrent, it must be at the front of the state of the art—in other words, as up to date as it can be.
In that respect, the views of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) are futile. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) pointed out—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is the right hon. Gentleman?"] He apologised for not being present, but he made his speech and rushed out. It was an interesting speech. The right hon. Gentleman tried to suggest that in some way we could maintain credibility by having a second or third rate deterrent and that in some way we could have a second or third-rate nuclear missile. He did not go as far as to suggest that sea-launched cruise missiles were what he had in mind, but he seemed to think that in some way one could add a small contribution to the NATO deterrent, thereby making it more effective. He seemed to suggest that we should build Spitfires or Hurricanes because they were much less costly than Tornados or Jaguars and that in some way they could supplement the forces of the 1980s and 1990s. I wholly reject that suggestion.
It is important to put the cost of Trident into context. The position has been rehearsed many times. There has been a movement in the cost based on the rates of exchange which obtained at the time the costings were carried out. It is correct that any costing based on today's rate of exchange would show an increased dollar cost and, therefore, an increase in the total cost of Trident. But that would be in respect of the exchange rate today. The actual commitment on Trident at this moment is as little as £600 million and actual expenditure as low as £200 million. It is a fraction of the total. What we have to worry about is the rate of exchange when the bulk of the expenditure occurs.
I gave up forecasting the dollar-sterling exchange rate some time ago because I always got it wrong, but the majority of commentators say that the probability is that the dollar will weaken against sterling. Therefore, even when a revised estimate using current exchange rates is put before the House fairly shortly it must be borne in mind that that is not likely to be the exchange rate when the bulk of the expenditure takes place.
Mr. Douglas: The rate of the pound against the dollar has been held up by our ability to produce North sea oil. That has been a vital factor. When the peak years of Trident expenditure come in the 1990s, our North sea oil will be declining, so it is highly likely that the exchange rate will be much more adverse to us. The point made by the right hon. Member for Devonport will then be even more valid.
Mr. Butler: Perhaps I may debate the exchange rate with the hon. Gentleman on another occasion. I wish to deal with one further main point—the cost of naval ships and related equipment. Whether the naval budget grows or shrinks and whatever happens to the defence budget as a whole, we must make the best use of the resources available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed), who has apologised for having to leave, put

1181
forward some interesting ideas about making the men sleep on bare boards and reducing the quality of accommodation available to them. He felt that in that respect some of our ships were gold-plated. The hon. Member for Attercliffe used the term "gold-plated" in relation to ships in general and their current degree of sophistication.
It is easy to say that we need more and cheaper ships, but those ships have a job to do. One cannot sent a bare hulk to the Falklands or to any other combat area. A balance must be achieved between cost and capability. We set out to design a frigate in the shape of the type 23 which would show a significant reduction in cost compared with what had gone before. I was asked to provide figures. In the debate last year it was announced that the cost of the type 23 would be about 75 per cent. of that of the type 22. The gap may have widened a little due to the need to enhance capability, but the cost that we now expect is lower than was originally supposed. I believe that our competition policy will ensure that if the price is not reduced still further it is kept down in a way that might not have happened before.
In the procurement executive I am trying to get the best value for money in a number of ways, including competition. A number of examples already show that the cost of ships and equipment has been reduced through competitive tendering. It is certainly true that naval orders are less easy to put out to competitive tender than other forms of equipment, but we need to have arrangements whereby subcontract work is done as competitively as possible. About 76 per cent. of the subcontracts and supplies for the type 23 will be subject to competitive tender. That is why I am able to say in confidence that, compared with previous experience, I would expect the costs of the type 23 to be better maintained. [Interruption.] I thank my hon. Friend who reminds me about dockyards. I was going to consider them. I was not, however, allowed as much time as I would have liked. We are nearing a decision on dockyards. I realise the uncertainty and, in some cases, reduction in morale that can occur from a lack of decision, but, once we have announced how we propose to go forward, consultations will take place with the unions in the normal way.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

The Royal Navy

  Mineral Workings Bill [Money] (No. 2)
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Mineral Workings Bill, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money provided by Parliament under any other enactment.—[Mr. Garel Jones.]

Summer Time
10.1 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.
The proposals contained in the Council document referred to are briefly these: that, for the next three years, the Community should retain its common starting date for summer time of the last Sunday in March, except where that day coincides with Easter Sunday, when it should be on the previous Sunday, and also that all member states should end summer time on a common date of the second Sunday in October.
Hon. Members will recall that it was agreed in 1979 under the first summer time directive that continental member states would advance their starting date by one week, and that we and the Republic of Ireland would delay ours by one week, in order to achieve a common date throughout the Community. That arrangement was thought by the Government to be a reasonable one, and it appears to have worked well in practice. In these circumstances, there would not appear to be any reason why the general principle of starting summer time on the last Sunday in March should not again be agreed. I hope that I take the House with me on that point.
The question of bringing the starting date forward by one week to avoid Easter Day is slightly more difficult. Frankly, none of our European partners seems to find any difficulty in keeping the starting date permanently on the last Sunday in March even where it coincides with Easter, and, indeed, on the continent it appears to have been regarded as more important not to move away from a starting date which is common, not only to the Community but to practically all continental European states, both east and west. This argument particularly applies to the principal Community transit countries, Austria, Switzerland and Yugoslavia, since unlike the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland they share common land borders with the continental member states, and dislocation through not having a common changeover date would be significant.
We do not see any particular difficulty in agreeing to start summer time on Easter Day in 1986, given that the changeover will be widely publicised in advance, and those principally concerned—such as churchgoers—will be fully aware of when the clocks go forward. However, as we have no recent experience in this country of the start of summer time coinciding with Easter Day, and as the third directive is only intended to cover the next three years, we shall have ample time for seeking amendment after 1988, should this prove necessary.
The Commission has suggested a compromise with a common ending date on the second Sunday in October, approximately mid-way between the continental ending date of the last Sunday in September and our own at the end of October.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Too early.
Mr. Mellor: I am glad to hear my perceptive colleague say that that is too early, because that is precisely the point I want to endorse.

1183
Putting to one side for a moment the implications of this proposal for the United Kingdom, I have to report that continental member states have indicated that they are reluctant to move away from the present ending date which is aligned with that of adjoining non-member states with which they have common land frontiers.
I come now to our own interests, which are foremost in my mind. We have relied upon a number of factors in reaching our decision. We appreciate that a common ending date would have a number of advantages for some international travel, business and commercial interests, but, and we think in the end these carry more weight, we are aware that strong feelings are held in some quarters, notably in agriculture, construction and domestic tourism, as well as by members of the public who value light evenings in October for recreational and leisure purposes and who are against any substantial shortening of our present summer time period.
Whilst, therefore, the Government would have been prepared to consider the Commission's compromise proposals if other member states had been prepared to do so, in the absence of such willingness we do not feel that it would represent a balanced view of opinion in this country to move our summer time ending date to the end of September, which is the only alternative means by which harmonisation of the ending date could readily be achieved at present.
The consensus in the relevant Council working group has been that the Commission's proposal of the second Sunday in October is unacceptable, and as a result an alternative suggestion is now expected to be made to the Council of Ministers on 11 or 12 December, under which member States would retain their existing dates for the next three years. No future commitment would be implied by agreeing to this proposal which, in the circumstances, would seem to the Government to be sensible and appropriate.
I hope that I take the House with me, when I invite both sides to agree that in the circumstances our existing dates should be maintained for the next three years at least.
10.5 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: The last time that I was at the Dispatch Box at this time of night, we were discussing the withdrawal of Greenland from the European Community. Notwithstanding the fact that it is excluded from the directive, looking at it, I must say that Greenland would appear to have got out just in time. It is with some reassurance that I see that the dependent territories of member States are excluded from the directive, because it would cause some confusion in Guadalupe to have its ending of summer time brought in line with the north of Scotland.
Mr. David Harris: The hon. Gentleman probably has not been in Europe as long as I have. If he had, he would know that Guadalupe is part of metropolitan France. It is not a dependent territory.
Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that the hon. Member has been in Europe longer than anyone, in fact, too long. I accept his correction, but I am sure that it is equally glad to be excluded. The motion is supported by the Opposition not just in relation to the starting time but the finishing time as well. We would have gone further with the wording if we had intended to table an amendment.
1184
The arguments in favour of what the directive puts forward are slight. We are told that business men throughout Europe will find contact between each other easier—there would be a longer coincidence of office hours. However, in the United States and Canada, where there are four or five time zones, they do not find it difficult to communicate with each other from one side of the continent to the other.
We are told that timetables for the jet setters would be easier if our clocks changed at the same time, but there are relatively few of those jet setters, as the hon. Member knows, being one of them, and they are expert timetable readers and can take account of any adjustments that occur at the beginning and end of October.
All those matters could be dealt with, if harmonisation has to come about, if it came at the end of October based on the United Kingdom date. That would be advantageous everyone because it would give more summer time for all. The arguments against are overwhelming. I shall not dwell on the argument put forward in the European Parliament by our former colleague Mr. Les Huckfield, who considers that the European proposal is a charter for rapists. It is not an argument that we would advance as being the most significant.
As the Home Office report states, there would be an effect on the construction industry. Every hour worked at that time of the year is important in terms of jobs and construction in general. We are also concerned about the effect on farmers.
Mr. Eric Forth: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the construction industry, is he thinking about building a greater Europe?
Mr. Foulkes: No, I spoke in the context of building a greater Britain and of building more in Britain during periods of daylight.
We are also concerned about the tourist industry. Mr. Holmes of the Scottish Tourist Board writes to me as follows:
"I have checked with the British Tourist Authority who say that their view and that of the UK national tourist boards is that British Summertime should remain unchanged since at present it contributes to an extension of the tourist season."
I have also called Mr. Ian Melrose of the Scottish National Farmers' Union. The Scottish NFU is strongly opposed to the proposal. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will appreciate, much work is done on the farm during October in relation to winter sowings, work with the cattle and other preparations for winter.
Those are strong arguments. When all that has been said, the House may wonder why the Opposition were anxious to discuss the proposal—albeit briefly. First, we were concerned about a report in The Times on 24 October to the effect that the Government would abide by a decision of the European Parliament on the issue. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is not the case. I see him nodding, but I hope that he will put his view on the record.
Secondly, the change is being proposed under article 100 which—as experts on Europe will know—requires a unanimous vote of Council before it can be implemented. It is ironic that a unanimous vote is required, and that therefore there should be a veto on summer time but not on subjects such as the budgetary discipline of Europe which are—although I would not belittle the importance of summer time—infinitely more important.

1185
As unanimity is required, we require an assurance from the Government that they will not give in to pressure in any way, or relinquish their authority in the European Parliament. We need an assurance now—as an Order in Council is required to implement this proposal in the United Kingdom and there is no further opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny—that the Government will stand firm not just for the next three years but into the foreseeable future. The farmers, the tourist industry and the construction industry—on all of which many jobs depend—seek such an assurance.
10.13 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I am pleased that the House is so poorly attended for this debate, because that must mean that Her Majesty's Government have made the correct decision. If my hon. Friend had come to the Dispatch Box and said that we were to go along with the proposal, the House would have been packed and the debate would have lasted for the full one and a half hours.
It is true that there are problems for international travellers, but it is my experience that most airline personnel are capable of working by the 24 hour clock and of working by half a dozen different systems at the same time—Greenwich mean time, Alpha time, Zulu time or whatever it may be. There is no great hardship for such people in continuing with the present arrangements.
I do not want to waste time in a debate about time. However, there is one group of people whom I should like briefly to mention. I am thinking of the farmers. I echo the comments the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that it is vitally important for the agricultural interests that the present arrangements should be continued not just for three years but for all time—or at least until some awful climatic alteration changes the hours of darkness naturally. I should not like my hon. Friend to say that the present arrangements will continue for the next three years but that after that we shall fall into line. It is vital for agriculture that the present system continues indefinitely.
10.14 pm
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Maclean), I came here just to hear the announcement. My fear was aroused by the magazine Europe '82 of October 1984 which implied that we might have to conform with the rest of Europe. We are a separate country, and there is no need for us to conform. The proposed alteration is far too early. We must maintain our individuality. I am assured by what my hon. Friend the Minister has said. The word "harmonisation" always fills me with fear in regard to the European Community. I urge my hon. Friend to ensure that it does not occur in this case. I am pleased to hear that the Government will keep the present arrangements in force.
10.16 pm
Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I might have a faulty memory, but I recall that perhaps 12 years ago, when the House discussed summer time after an experiment you, Mr. Speaker, were extremely brave and voted with a small minority against the practicalities of it. In your present neutrality you will be listening to the
1186
debate in a quite different way. My view has altered. We are wet and weak in our attitude to summer time. We should maximise our hours of daylight. If we turn our backs on Europe saying that we disagree for a special national reason on this issue, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will speak to his colleagues in the Department of Education and Science about corporal punishment as we are now adopting double standards. We are agreeing on one because it suits us and disagreeing on another.
10.17 pm
Mr. Mellor: With the leave of the House, I should like to respond to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). It is not every week that he comes down from Carrick, Cumnock, not to mention the Doon valley, ready to heap praise on the Government——
Mr. Foulkes: That is true.
Mr. Mellor:—for our wisdom. I am glad that on this occasion, if on no other, he is at his most perceptive. I thought that he made a good speech. I am sorry that his reputation as an orator with his colleagues went ahead of him so that not many of them were here to hear him. His speech was good and deserves an answer. We regretted press reports in October—they were utterly misleading. We never intended to agree with the proposal. We examined it on its merits, just as the Government did in 1979 and just as we shall do again in 1988. The case for doing what we recommend is clear. I dare say that it will seem equally clear cut in 1988. I cannot anticipate precisely what the circumstances will be then, but I should have thought that there would have to be a convincing change in the material factors to make us change our minds. I hope that that is the assurance which the hon. Gentleman seeks. I appreciate how important the issue is in Scotland where the consequences of change would be much graver than further south.
Mr. Foulkes: I thank the Minister for that. Let me give him the reassurance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) that we shall take the same attitude in 1988 in Government.
Mr. Mellor: I shall be interested to know what happens in 1988. Even on a subject such as British summer time, the British people do not deserve to have that decision taken either by the hon. Gentleman or his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock).
Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend agree that the reasons for the matter before the House this evening are not, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) suggested, nationalist, but they can be seen in an entirely pragmatic and reasonable light? We are here making a decision which is based on common sense, pragmatism and reason. It has nothing to do with any sort of nationalist approach or divergence from the other countries of Europe, merely that we are doing what seems to us to be sensible and natural. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that.
10.22 pm
Mr. Mellor: I stand here at the Dispatch Box, as ever, as the embodiment of pragmatism and reasonableness. On that welcome note, which I see is greeted with assent on both sides, I shall quit while I am ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 8175/84, Proposal for a Third Council Directive
1188
on Summer Time Arrangements, and, while recognising the reasons for the proposal, urges Her Majesty's Government to press for the retention of the existing arrangements.

Meat and Poultrymeat (Health Controls)
10.20 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 7686/84 and 7948/84; and in respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure that the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.
I shall deal first with the two documents concerning the harmonisation of charges for inspection of meat, that is 7685/84 and 7686/84.
The background to this subject lies in the strenuous criticisms which were initially made by the poultry processing industry in this country some years ago. It argued that the Community requirements for inspecting poultrymeat were not being properly enforced elsewhere in the Community and it was therefore subject to unfair competition. The Government argued on behalf of our industry in Brussels and in 1981 the Commission brought forward proposals intended to remedy the problems. One of its proposals to reduce the distortions of competition was designed to harmonise the charges which were paid by the poultry processing industries of the member states to meet the cost of the inspection work.
The proposal was amended this year by the Commission, which also produced a parallel proposal to cover red meat inspection costs. The Commission proposed that a flat rate charge be made on the industry, with responsibility for any extra costs which were incurred being met by the authorities responsible for the inspection work. In Great Britain meat inspection is the responsibility of local authorities, which have the power to charge the costs of the work to the slaughterhouse operator. The effect of the proposals would therefore have been to place on local authorities a new financial cost. It was because a potential new cost would be placed on local authorities that the Select Committee on European Legislation originally recommended these proposals for debate.
During study of the Commission's proposals in the Council of Ministers an agreement has emerged that the form of the legislation should be further adjusted. The concept of a fiat rate charge is being replaced by a minimum charge, enabling member states to charge more than the standard rate, up to the level of their actual costs of inspection. This will enable local authorities to continue to obtain reimbursement from slaughterhouse operators for their full costs; and this, of course, resolves the problem identified by the Select Committee.
I should add that the proposals, which are now being discussed as a single joint text covering both red meat and poultrymeat, also make provision to implement a longstanding decision at the Council of Ministers to set a charge on imports from non-Community countries, to cover the cost of inspecting meat at the ports.
In its present form the proposal leaves open the level at which the standard, or minimum, rate of charge would be set. The level and the detailed arrangements would be
1190
set in further legislation by the middle of next year. The rules would then become effective from 1 January 1986. There has been discussion in the Council whether the minimum charge should be set in the proposals before us today. Progress in considering the levels has so far however been rather slow and it is not at all clear that the Council will be in a position to take decisions on this aspect when it next meets.
I am well aware that these proposals are the subject of criticism by the slaughtering industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister has carefully considered the arguments put to him and has explained his views to the industry. We understand fully that the industry disagrees with the principle that the costs of meat inspection should be met by the industry. Nevertheless, I can offer no hope that the Government will change their policy on this issue; a policy which has been maintained over a substantial period of time by successive Governments.
I have sympathy with the argument put forward that standards of inspection for poultrymeat should be harmonised before inspection charges can be harmonised. There would clearly have been advantages in proceeding in such a logical manner. We have pressed for the harmonisation of the standards of inspection of poultrymeat, and will continue to do so. My hon. Friend the Minister of State stressed the urgent need for action on this matter at the last Agriculture Council. So we are to a considerable extent in agreement with the industry on this point. However, I do not consider that it is necessarily unjustifiable to make progress on both fronts at the same time; and since the proposals on charging are before us we are prepared to consider them in order to help to remove distortions in competition between the industries of Community member states.
Mr. Nicholas Baker: If my hon. Friend can answer my question, she may go a long way towards allaying the fears of the poultry industry, which have been forcefully expressed to me, and no doubt to many of my colleagues. There is concern that if Ministers go ahead and agree a standard charge for poultrymeat there will be distortions. It is more important to concentrate on the standard and quality of poultrymeat inspection. Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that she will not go ahead with agreeing a standard charge before the quality of inspection point has been settled?
Mrs. Fenner: My hon. Friend will see that my hon. Friend the Minister of State is on the Front Bench. He is seized of the importance of getting the standards of inspection harmonised, but there does not seem to be a reason for not seeking to avoid what would be a distortion if there was not harmonisation of minimum cost. I assure my hon. Friend that we are fully seized of the industry's view that that is important in preventing distortions.
It is also argued that these proposals will not achieve complete harmonisation of charging practice, and this is true. However, there is also a provision for a review of the system. If the legislation were approved, we would have recognition in Community law of the principle of harmonisation and a minimum rate. These would provide a basis on which to build further in the future.
Finally, I should explain that an agreement on this issue at the Council of Ministers would have further implications of benefit to the meat industry. A range of other proposed measures is currently blocked in the

1191
Council and is to be brought into force only when the harmonisation of charges is settled. These other measures include import arrangements related to control of foot and mouth disease, brucellosis testing, and some adjustment of the rules for control of classical swine fever. They also include two provisions of importance to the poultrymeat industry itself, namely, the extension of the authority to produce New York dressed poultry and to chill poultry by immersion without subsequently freezing it. The Government will take account of the interest of the industry in those other issues in assessing their position when the proposal comes before the Council again.
I come now to the proposal in document 7984/84, which would amend the existing controls over the use of hormone growth promoters.
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Before my hon. Friend leaves the first order, I should be grateful if she would clarify one matter. She said that the cost of inspection that is not borne by the processor should fall on the rates. On whom does the cost fall for inspecting poultry and meat products imported from the European Economic Community to ensure that they are correctly graded? Does it fall on local ratepayers, or on United Kingdom taxpayers generally, since the benefit or disbenefit of inspection or lack of inspection is not concentrated in the area of the port, but is spread throughout the United Kingdom?
Mrs. Fenner: If I am to give my hon. Friend an accurate answer, I shall get a response that I can send to him in a note. I take his point and will answer it later.
As the House will recall, the preparations which are currently allowed consist of a solid pellet implanted in the ear of a beef animal. The implant slowly releases a hormone which improves the feed conversion of the treated animal. These hormone implants represent important tools of management to livestock farmers which reduce costs and are of benefit both to him and the consumer.
A number of these implants have been licensed in the United Kingdom for some years under the stringent controls of the Medicines Act 1968, under which Agriculture and Health Ministers have to be satisfied as to the safety—that includes the consumer's safety—quality and efficacy of a product before it is allowed on the market.
Some years ago there was a scare in Italy over baby food that was discovered to be contaminated with a forbidden hormone growth promoter. The baby food had been made from carcases originating in France. The result, predictably, was a call for panic legislation at European level. After much discussion, the controls currently in force were agreed. They made little difference to the United Kingdom because, by contrast with some member states, we already had good regulatory machinery in operation.
A feature of the existing European controls is that member states are allowed to avail themselves of five active ingredients for these implants. Three are found naturally, namely, testosterone, progesterone and oestradiol 17 beta. Two are derived from sources outside the animal body, namely, trenbolone and zeranol. Preparations based on the last two are widely used in the United Kingdom beef industry— and elsewhere in the world. However, the European Commission has been required to produce a scientific assessment of those five
1192
active ingredients with special respect to their safety. The outcome of its deliberations has been that the three natural substances have been declared safe, while judgment ha; been suspended on the two synthetics pending the provision of further scientific information.
In passing, I may say that the information shortfall or trenbolone was made up almost immediately, while that on zeranol is being prepared.
The document before the House translates the scientific findings into new controls and advances other aspects of the controls over the preparations. First, it is proposed that member states should allow the use of preparations based on the three "natural" active ingredients. There would be a Community system, of authorising preparations based or them. Secondly, it is proposed to ban preparations based on the two synthetic active ingredients. Then there are proposals imposing much stricter controls over the use of all of those preparations, such as the random sampling of live animals on farms and in abattoirs and the sampling of carcases and meat at all stages of manufacture and transport from abattoir to consumer. Meat products are, of course, included.
The United Kingdom can obviously agree with the proposal that products based on the three natural active ingredients should be authorised for use, but some member states cannot apparently do so. That raises two important issues. First, their attitude means that the advice of the Commission's scientific working group is being disregarded. Secondly, if some member states use the preparations and others disallow them, the latter may try to block the imports of meat from the former. Trade upsets within the EC could be significant. The same problem would arise for third country supplies. We believe that scientific advice should be followed here and that there can be no justification for disregarding it.
The proposed ban on trenbolone and zeranol would have repercussions on our beef producers, as they would have to switch to alternative products, but we believe that the information submitted will clear trenbolone, and it: is a matter for regret that the Commission has been so slow to examine it. Zeranol is used in many countries and has been cleared by many regulatory authorities, including our own. The trade consequences of a ban on zeranol must be serious for the EC, and it is to be hoped that this proposal will be reconsidered on the basis of scientific knowledge.
It has been the United Kingdom's policy all along, and will remain so, that the controls to be applied to the use of hormone growth promoters should be based on a strict scientific assessment of the facts.
There can be no quarrel with the idea that proper controls must be exercised over the use of hormone growth promoters, and there can be no objection in principle to the extension of detailed controls proposed in the draft directive, but we must take every care that we endorse only practical propositions. For example, it is unrealistic to propose that every implant must be done by a vet. I do not believe that it would be operated in practice in any member state. Similarly, although checks on live animals, meat and meat products may be desirable, we must recall that the work and tests involved are costly. We need to test at no higher level than statistics show will reveal whether there is abuse of the preparations. We must approach with caution the proposition that tests must automatically be carried out where there is no suspicion that an offence has

1193
been committed. Although random testing is accepted elsewhere in British law, we must be careful that it goes no further than is justified in protecting consumer safety.
I hope that I have explained the documents, and I shall listen with care to the views of hon. Members.
10.39 pm
Mr. Mark Hughes: I shall deal first with the poultry meat regulations. The motion shows that the Government's aim is to reduce distortions in trade. That section does not have the support of the British Poultry Federation, which objects to it. I quote from a letter dated today and sent to me by hand, which says:
"The motion under discussion, so far as it relates to poultrymeat hygiene inspection, seeks support for the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions in trade. It is tabled in the teeth of the opposition of the poultrymeat industry, not only in the United Kingdom but also throughout the EEC.
Charges are the symptom, but not the root cause of distortions of competition arising from poultrymeat hygiene inspection. The basic problem is a widely differing interpretation of the same European legislation as to what staffing levels and hygiene procedures are appropriate to ensure that birds are fit for human consumption."
At the root of the objections of the British Poultry Federation and other bodies to the proposed regulations is their belief, with which I agree, that what is being asked for is approval for a set of regulations made without deciding what are the predeterminates on which one should regulate. If one wants regulations, one should know what one is going to regulate. So far, the EEC has not determined that.
The letter continues:
"In the United Kingdom our standards of inspection are acknowledged to be more onerous than in other countries; consequently the number of birds that can be sold at top quality prices is less, and the costs of staffing and administration arc greater, than for our competitors.
The motion will do nothing to eliminate distortions of competition as to the grading of birds".
Without equality of grading of birds, there can be no effective control over how one discriminates and how one works the regulations. There is no EEC-wide agreement on the grade or quality that the poultry industry has to meet. As long as that is missing, there will be distortion of trade both internationally and nationally.
It is no good saying that this order will lead to harmonisation if we do not know what a grade one poultry bird is from one country to another, or one part of this country to another. The Opposition may want a common, harmonised procedure to inhibit distortion of trade, but I cannot believe that these proposals aid that. In fact, I fear the reverse.
There is also the problem of costs. As the Minister knows, there are three proposals. There is that of the European Parliament, Assembly— call it what one wishes—which suggests that all costs should be borne by the Community. There is that from the Commission, that all costs should be borne equally across all countries, between producer and member Government.
Then we have these proposals, to which Her Majesty's Government appear to agree. The cost of the inspection will be borne wholly, solely and completely by the producer, who will have to pass it on to the consumer. I must advise the Minister that that introduces distortion. If French, Belgian or Dutch poultry producers have
1194
inspection costs carried by their Governments whereas ours have to be borne by our producers, our producers will carry a distorted penalty into the market place which they cannot reasonably be expected to bear.
However much I would like competition on poultry meat hygiene inspection to be uniform and fair throughout the Community, I do not accept that the proposals before us achieve that end.
I turn to the difficult problem of trenbolone, zeranol and other such products. There is clearly a major difficulty, because we cannot ascertain whether they are in the carcase. That is true of a number of these products. The naturally occurring ones are excluded because it cannot be ascertained from examining the carcase whether they have been used. However, they palpably aid growth and they are growth promoters. I ask the Minister to tell us the procedure that will be adopted to enable trenbolone to come back into use. Will there have to be a unanimous verdict or will there be a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers? Is the House to have the power in future—it has always had it in the past—to permit the use of hormone additives? I have a suspicion that the proposals imply that a majority decision in the Council of Ministers would allow that which we have hitherto prohibited to be available in Britain as a growth promoter. I would be unhappy at that.
We have major objections to the poultrymeat proposals, but we accept that there are detailed difficulties on the use of hormome additives, future adaptation, scientific advance and the introduction to the market of new products. Will it be in the power of the House to inhibit their use in Britain for the safeguarding of our consumers, or will that issue be transferred to a majority decision of the Council of Ministers? I should be extremely unhappy if consideration of new products of the trenbolone type, or whatever they might be, are transferred away from the House and the scrutiny of the Chamber to another body.
10.48 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words about the poultry industry. I do not intend to detain the House for long. To a certain extent, I welcome the paper that has been put before us by the European Community for the equalisation of payments for the examination of poultry costs. However, there is a major factor, which has been touched upon by the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), that causes our poultry farmers dissatisfaction. There is such a dichotomy in the payment of veterinary costs for the examination of poultry throughout the EEC that much depends on the country from which the system is operated as to the cost of the meat when it is sold. In some respects, it can be regarded as a hidden surplus, especially in turkeymeat. In speaking on behalf of the turkey farmers of Lancashire, I can say with firmness and sincerity that they are greatly worried about the pricing between France and Britain. One turkey farmer informed me that he was paying 9p per turkey in veterinary examination charges. That amounted to £22,000 per year, which is a great overhead in the production of turkeys.
The producers are greatly concerned that there is no unity of standard for examination of poultry within the Community. Higher standards exist in Britain than anywhere else in the Community. As a consequence, Britain rejects or downgrades birds that other parts of the Community allow through the examination net as grade A

1195
birds. They then command a higher price and are imported into Britain on that basis. Those birds, if tested in Britain, would not meet our high standards.
Before we consider any further step towards the equalisation of payments, we must put before all else the equalisation of standards. That is looked for by the poultry producers as a major step towards protecting their markets from unfair competition from the Community. It will also ensure that we can compete economically in the export of turkey and poultrymeat of various sorts.
I welcome the comment from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that we are fighting hard as a Government to ensure that equal standards will be adopted in the Community in the near future. I wish the Government all power to their elbow. Before they sign any agreement binding Britain to an equalisation of cost policy, I urge them to keep in the back of their mind and in the forefront of any negotiations the equalisation of examination standards.
10.52 pm
Mr. Andrew Hunter: The hour is late, and brevity would be commendable, not least because several of my hon. Friends hope to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I want briefly to consider certain features of the draft instruments pertaining to health aspects of red meat and poultrymeat and the draft instrument on the implantation of hormones in animals.
I have three brief observations to make on the draft instruments on red meat and poultrymeat, following the cue given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary of taking them together. The objective and the goal must be the seeking of harmonisation of health inspection between member states. I do not think that there is any need to stress or to detail the arguments for that, other than to say that, unless harmonisation prevails, certain individual member states will be disadvantaged. I therefore welcome the principle of seeking to obtain greater harmonisation embraced by the two draft instruments.
But, secondly, having made that point, I give warning that I am unhappy about certain aspects of the draft instruments, because I do not think that they will necessarily achieve their objective in this very respect. I understand why some people find it attractive for the cost of health inspection to be borne by the public authorities but reimbursed by a minimum charge to the slaughterer or importer. However, that will not do much to iron out the current discrepancies, differences and variations. Indeed, it might increase them. It could create fresh scope for national protection.
Different member states have different slaughter procedures and different administrative systems for inspection. They have different abattoir overheads and different standards of inspection. Much else also differs. This creates obstacles to harmonisation both in the degree and cost of inspection. Moreover, whatever formula the Council determines, it will surely be open to various interpretations, according to the sympathies of each member state.
I do not believe that harmonisation in health inspection can be achieved significantly or satisfactorily unless the cost of that inspection is funded by the taxpayer. There are one, two or possibly more routes by which the money can go from the taxpayer to cover the cost of health inspection,
1196
but the underlying principle is the same. Inspection takes place for the benefit of the taxpayer or consumer, so it is right that the cost of it should fall on the taxpayer's shoulders. More importantly, this is the only way that we can get round the potential and real disadvantages of continuing the lack of harmonisation. It is better to achieve harmonisation in effect, by removing all costs of inspection from the producer or slaughterer, rather than to fail to achieve it despite direct intentions so to do, as in the regulations. So much for the first two regulations.
I shall deal with more brevity with the third draft instrument, dealing with hormone implants for cattle and the recommendations found in article 5. I welcome the authorisation of the natural hormone substances oestradial, progesterone and testosterone. There is no room for debate on that. These substances and their derivitives have been appraised on a scientific basis. Their use in farm animals does not present a hazard, either to animal or consumer. However, that is not the only point to be made.
If such substances are authorised by the EC, they must be authorised by and in each member state. For that which is authorised in the directive to be banned in certain member states is unacceptable. In its own small way that would undermine the concept of a common market. It would be a thinly disguised ploy by some member states to protect their domestic producers. I urge my hon. Friend to bear that in mind.
Article 5.2 causes me anxiety. I am somewhat reassured by what the Minister said tonight. It states
"the aforementioned substances"——
—the natural hormones to which I referred—are to be
"administered by a veterinarian."
As the Minister said, this must not be. There is no earthly reason why a farmer should not administer such substances. Farmers are skilled to do that. If a person is not so skilled, he should not be a farmer. It makes no sense to deny farmers the authority to administer the substances. Then there is the cost argument.
Such a measure would significantly increase the producer's costs.
I have been told that an experienced team of administrators can take up to four hours to implant 200 steers in ideal conditions. The thought of the cost of that operation expressed in vet bills is alarming.
Nor should we overlook the possibility that such a measure might lead less scrupulous producers either to administer products illegally or to administer cheaper, proscribed products.
Mr. Mark Hughes: I may have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but did he say proscribed products?
Mr. Hunter: Yes, I did.
The last observation which I wish to make concerns article 5.5. With regard to the synthetic compounds zeranol and trenbolone, I was somewhat reassured by the Minister's remarks. I understand that technical and scientific studies called for by the EEC Commission are still uncompleted, despite the fact that manufacturers' evidence of safety was submitted some months ago. Until these reports are available, we can only reserve judgment on the products. It therefore follows that it is quite absurd for these draft regulations to propose to ban these substances after 1 July. That is premature and unfounded. The decision should be made only in the light of scientific evidence and when that scientific evidence is available.

1197
I want to avoid the sin of repeating my arguments, but I confess that there is cause for concern in these draft regulations, laudable though their overall objective undoubtedly is.
11.2 pm
Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Not much has been said—indeed, nothing at all—about the categories in this country which will benefit or suffer from the proposed regulations. First, there is the consumer. She would be buying a class A bird if it were inspected in Britain, but if she buys an imported one she might well be cheated, simply because the enforcement standards, quite apart from the classifications, are not common throughout the whole of the EEC.
For example, the regulations about the amount of water permitted in a frozen bird are simply not adhered to in France, and those who buy poultry imported from France could find that they are buying a load of French water and, consequently, are paying more per lb than they thought.
That is why I ask: who bears the cost of the inspection at the ports? If this falls on the local ratepayers, there is an incentive to let the produce through uninspected. On the other hand, it is not the local ratepayers primarily who will suffer if substandard poultry products are imported through their port. In addition, there will be a greater incentive for EEC exporters to channel their exports through those ports where it is known that the inspection is most lax. Therefore, the consumer is the first person put at risk by failure to have common standards, commonly enforced.
In this context, it is interesting to note that during this debate not a single Liberal or SDP Member has been present, so little is their interest in the consumer.
The interests of the producers does not mean just those who rear poultry, but the many thousands of people whose livelihood lies in processing poultry. It is all very well for my hon. Friend the Minister to say that the local authority and not central Government can bear part of the cost above the minimum charge, but the ratepayer is already tortured and severely constrained by the increasing proportion of expenditure that falls on the rates rather than on central Government. In many cases, the amount that local authorities can spend is up against the limits imposed by central Government, so it is no real reply to say that they can bear part of the burden instead of placing it all on the processors. It is beyond dispute that the standards to which we religiously adhere but which our continental competitors do not even pretend to observe mean that the cost of inspection in this country can make our product apparently uncompetitive, although it would not be uncompetitive if the same standards were applied on the continent.
What is to be done about this? My hon. Friend the Minister will be relieved to hear that I did not argue on the order relating to summer time that the solution was for the Commission to ensure that the sun rose and set at the same time in all EEC countries, because that would not have been a practical solution to the problem, although it would have been a reasonable ground for harmonising summer time. In this context, however, there is no such fatuous situation. It lies within the power of those who control the destinies of the EEC to ensure common standards of meat and poultry inspection throughout the Community: and as
1198
an incentive, to make the free movement of such products contingent on the establishment of common standards of inspection and enforcement. The whole concept of the EEC depends inherently on that, even if it is not explicitly stated. It is the lack of common standards that causes the distortions that we are considering today.
Therefore, I exhort my hon. Friend the Minister to put the horse before the cart and to tell the EEC, which wants common charges, that we will not agree to those common charges, which we also want, until common standards are established. Until both those objectives are achieved we should pursue the course very sensibly prescribed by the European Assembly— so often misdescribed as the European Parliament— that the differential cost of enforcing differential standards should fall on the central Governments concerned and not on the producers, who are not themselves responsible for those differential standards and who have no means of remedying the situation except through their national Parliaments and Governments.
It is for that redress that producers in the United Kingdom look to my hon. Friend the Minister today, and so do I.
11.9 pm
Mr. David Maclean: I have only a few quick, brief points to make, because I know that other hon. Members wish to contribute to the debate. I shall be much more brief than document 7948/84 which has been circulated to hon. Members. I hope that I shall be slightly more intelligible than that document.
When I tried to read Mr. Giolitti's letter to Mr. Claude Cheysson, I was glad that it was translated from Italian. I wish, however, that the translation had gone much further.
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And been legible.
Mr. Maclean: And been legible. I had to give up when I reached page nine, when I read:
"Genotoxicity was examined by mutagenicity tests and by the capacity for DNA binding, Neither beta-Trenbolone nor alpha-Trenbolone showed any mutagenic activity in prokaryotic systems nor in any in vivo test for bone marrow and germ cell cytogenetics."
However, the House will be pleased to hear that,
"Clastogenic activity in vitro against human lumphocytes in culture were negative".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I hope that all those words are in order.
Mr. Maclean: I do not think that those words are in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can reconcile myself to the fact that I might not know much about chemistry, but I have never before come across "lumphocytes". I presume that the document refers to lymphocytes, unless in the past few days some EEC boffin has discovered a new substance called "lumphocytes". Ignoring this document would be the best thing to do. Common sense should prevail.
These documents have gone a little overboard when dealing with trenbolone and zeranol. I do not believe that we should make them subject to full Council agreement when all other products can be approved by the Standing Committee. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said, it is premature to go for a ban on those products when we have no positive evidence that they can be harmful. Zeranol is used in 40 other countries, and it is used extensively in the United States. We all know how rigorously the United States enforces medicine safety. I believe that we are being a

1199
little excessive in going for a ban on trenbolone and zeranol, because we have no firm evidence that they can be harmful.
I am pleased that Oestradiol 17 beta, Testosterone and Progesterone have been given a clean bill of health. The only question that remains is whether they should be prescribed by veterinary surgeons or whether it should be left to the farmers to administer them. I do not think that a case has been made for the administration of those drugs to be the exclusive province of veterinary surgeons. The vast majority of farmers can do the job properly and well. However, if in future years we detect that there have been cases of abuse, where farmers have not followed the recommended guidelines and have injected the products shortly before the animals were sent for slaughter, we should look at this matter again. There would then be a case——
Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And prosecutions.
Mr. Maclean: In addition to the prosecution of those concerned. Of course, there would then be a case for looking at these drugs and perhaps giving veterinary surgeons the power to administer them. That case has not been made, and that action would be premature.
Unless farmers administer these products carefully there will be increasing consumer resistence. One of the greatest threats faced by agriculture in daily fanning comes not so much from quotas or anything that the EEC may do but from the fact that consumers are worried about the amount of fat in milk and butter. There is some resistance to buying those products. Similarly, there is a certain amount of concern that too much of the meat arriving on our shelves may have too many hormones in it. Certainly there is a demand for healthier and hormone-free food. The Ministry should make it clear to farmers that this trend exists and that they must watch what the consumers want.
I do not believe that at present we need to ban these products, but we should give a clear warning to fanners that in future years product sales will be affected not by a ban but by consumer resistance—the housewife will not buy. Time is needed, and I appeal to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to give our fanners time to switch over in future years to using fewer hormones in beef production, because that is what the consumer wants.
11.13 pm
Mr. David Ashby: The motion provides that
"any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry."
I regard that with a great deal of trepidation, because I believe that we should consider only the interests of the consumers. Livestock producers and the meat trade will go on producing meat and the pharmaceutical industry will go on producing Pharmaceuticals. The consumers have to eat the products, and it is up to us to see that those products are as safe as they can be.
We are discussing scientific assessments. I have the gravest fears about the present results of scientific assessments. Additives to meats and other foods should be studied with the greatest care. I am not complacent about the way we handle foods and the additives we use in foods and meats.
1200
I spent about an hour and a half last Monday with someone who is eminent in this sphere. He explained to me at great lengths the time bomb we are storing by allowing hormones to be used as growth additives. The effects of hormones in our foods will not be fully known for 20 or 30 years. It sometimes takes three generations before their full effects become known and it takes three more generations to get rid of the effects.
It may not be known to many hon. Members that in Brazil, for example, there are children of seven who are conceiving. They have been eating chickens which have had growth promoters added. They have had grave effects on the children who have had all the signs of physical maturity without emotional maturity. Doctors are finding that the age of puberty is becoming lower and lower.
A long-term study is needed. Some people are blind to the problem because they want to be blind, but many of the wiser counsels and scientists attribute that early puberty to the use of growth promoters in meat and food.
I consider this directive with the greatest trepidation. I am not complacent. Synthetic hormone growth promoters are undoubtedly bad and should not be used in any foods.
I have the gravest doubts also about natural growth promoters. We are talking about a time bomb which will explode in about 20 or 30 years.
11.19 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: The good news about the debate is that the House is showing a characteristically lively interest in EC matters. That is right and proper, and long may it be so.
I have enjoyed the privilege of serving in the European Parliament—I use the word "Parliament" in spite of the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) about that term—and I have become well aware of the meaninglessness of the wording of much of that emanates from the EC.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary interpret the words in the motion for me? They are obscure, to say the least. European Community experts often seek to seduce us down the path of wording that tries to mean all things to all men, but ends up meaning nothing. The motion invites us to
"take full account of the interest of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry."
One could almost add "Uncle Tom Cobleigh and all".
How can we take account of all those interests? In the good old days when the common agricultural policy was first revised, we were given a similar form of words which invited us to support the CAP because it would simultaneously serve the interests of the consumer and the producer, give fair prices and adequate supplies and do nearly everything else. Regrettably, the CAP has not fulfilled all those objectives; it cannot.
In the same way, it would be extremely diffiult, if not impossible, simultaneously to serve the interests of consumers and producers and the interests of the meat trade and the pharmaceutical, industry. We are constantly invited to subscribe to such formulae from the EC. At best, they are meaningless and, at worst, they are positively dangerous.
It is time that the Government stopped adhering to such formulae and started asking what we really mean. I should be happier if we came clean and said that we will serve the interests of either the consumers or the producers. It is rare that we can serve both at the same time.

1201
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton mentioned implementation and policing. There is a danger that we shall be invited to implement a series of recommendation throughout the EC, but that they will eventually be implemented by only a few of the member states. We shall certainly implement them, the Dutch will almost certainly implement them, we can expect the Germans to implement them and the Danes will probably implement them. After that, one would have to draw a veil over most of the other member states. Yet again, we are putting ourselves at a disadvantage. As ever, we shall adhere to the strictest standards of control, inspection, quality and hygiene, but our competitors in the EC will probably not do the same.
Will the Parliamentary Secretary give the House a guarantee that we shall not subscribe to the suggested new standards and regulations unless we are certain that the mechanisms exist to ensure that all other member states will simultaneously apply the standards at all times? If we can be given that assurance, we can support the motion. Otherwise, we should not support it.
11.23 pm
Mr. Neil Hamilton: As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has hit the nail on the head. It is well known that I have not been a starry-eyed admirer of the way in which the Community has developed over the past 10 years, but almost everybody, however starry-eyed he might have been at the beginning, is seeing the Community in a different light.
The sort of standards that we have voluntarily accepted aver the years are not always accepted in other parts of the Community, especially when they impose a cost on the producer. We have seen hidden subsidies and state aids for producers in agriculture and horticulture. Milk quotas are not adhered to in France, and Italy has done almost nothing towards introducing a system of control. Similarly in poultry production, we shall continue to have high standards but will not be able to do much to extend them through out the Community. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said in a cogent speech, we are putting our producers at a significant disadvantage. This is an opportunity to use our voice in the Council to assist our producers or at least to prevent them from being disadvantaged by unfair competion in the Community.
I should like to consider charging for health inspectors in the poultry industry. Under Community law, member states are not allowed to make a profit out of the levying of charges for health inspections. If that is so, the minimum and maximum charges must be according to the lowest common denominator. If that is so, as Britain has more expensive health checks, we must incur greater costs. If those costs fall on producers they will inevitably be put at a disadvantage. I cannot see why we should sanction that disparity for the indefinite future. Athough it would be open to the Council to decide rates of charge, which might vary, the history of the Community shows that, once an arrangement is institutionalised, it is the devil's own job to change it. If we now accept that there is to be a disparity of costs between this and other countries, it will be difficult to change that.
We must get the matter right at the beginning. If we cannot get it right now, we cannot depend on the good will of other Community members, which might not be as
1202
fussy as us about health standards. I implore the Government not to harmonise for the sake of harmonisation without getting it right at the start. As will have been seen from the interest in this debate, especially in Conservative Benches, there is grave disquiet among hon. Members whose constituents include poultry producers. They are looking to the Government to stand up for the British poultry producer and not to harmonise for the sake of it.
11.27 pm
Mrs. Fenner: The House has shown that it intends to give the Government its views on these matters before we make decisions on this package of proposals.
The hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes) referred to pay in Belgium and other countries and the differences between payments in various countries. That is the whole point of the directive—it does not do all of the things that we want it to, but at least it does something to ensure that a minimum charge is made throughout the Community.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned trenbolone and zeranol. The draft directive provides for approval of new active ingredients and products based on them. Approval of active ingredients will depend upon a qualified majority in the Council, but the United Kingdom will play a full part in the discussions leading up to such a decision and this is our opportunity to safeguard the interests of consumers and farmers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) is concerned that the present costs of inspection of imported meat are met by the port health authorities, which find the cost from rates raised by local authorities. I promised my hon. Friend an authoritative answer. The proposal is to set a charge to meet the costs which will be paid by the meat importer. I reiterate that we are fighting for common standards, commonly enforced, and common pricing of a minimum charge is only the first step. But it is a first step. That covers the point made by the hon. Member for City of Durham about the problem of different systems within countries.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton misunderstood me. Originally it was proposed that local authorities would have to cover any extra cost, but when the matter was rediscussed a proposal emerged which ensures that the local authorities can continue to obtain reimbursement for their costs as they do now. The Scrutiny Committee was very worried about that problem.
The hon. Member for City of Durham and my hon. Friends have properly pointed out the concern of the British Poultry Federation in this matter and we understand it well. As I said in a letter to the federation:
"When the subject was discussed at the Council this month, John MacGregor spoke strongly on both points, and we have maintained our reservation that standards should be harmonised before charges. As a result of our efforts, there is to be a discussion in the Standing Veterinary Committee later this month on the merits of the Commission's ideas on modified poultrymeat inspection."
I hope that that will reassure my hon. Friends.
We are taking steps in the right direction. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has had to go, but I am sure that he will read my answer to his comment in Hansard. I fully understand the views of the British Poultry Federation. It believes that to resist the proposal now would provide a lever for

1203
obtaining harmonised inspection standards. We sympathise with that aim, and we are pressing for action in Brussels on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said that he did not believe that charges should be made, but local authorities have had powers to charge for meat inspection in Britain for 20 years, under both Conservative and Labour Governments. Nothing is different.
I agree that we should obtain the best scientific evidence on hormone growth promoters and not disregard it. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) is anxious about the effects of hormone growth promoters. The motion puts consumers first. All additives to foods should be scrutinised with the greatest care, and hormones are a potential threat for two or three generations if they are abused. The United Kingdom Government make them available and avail themselves of the best scientific opinion before allowing the use of growth promoters. Moreover, the conditions of use are carefully limited by means of product licence conditions. I am unaware of any scientific evidence that ascribes the earlier age of adolescence to the use of growth promoters.
Like me, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) has had the privilege of serving in the European Assembly or Parliament—call it what my hon. Friends will. I went to the European Assembly specifically in order to serve consumers' interests, and as a nominated member to a producer-oriented system. Thus, I am well aware of the terms of the treaty of Rome, which mentions consumers. As a Minister at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I cannot possibly accept my hon. Friend's assertion that the interests of consumers, producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry are in some way incompatible. Every day I ensure compatibility of fairness as between traders, consumers and all the interests represented in my very diverse Ministry. I assure him that I do not find those interests incompatible, and I cannot agree with him about that.
1204
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) that since 1981 we have been trying to secure just that prevention of distortion about which he spoke so forcefully. The level of the minimum charge is not in any way disadvantageous to us, because countries which have a lower level will not be paying the same. The point is that they will have to pay the same minimum charge. Community lawyers do not agree with my hon. Friend that there is no way in which this can be done because member states are not allowed to make a profit. They will have to comply with that minimum charge and our producers will not be placed at a disadvantage.
I do not know that I have succeeded, but I have tried to cover all the points that were made. The debate has certainly commanded great interest. The Government will carefully consider the arguments put today when the proposal comes before the Council. However, as I said when opening the debate, the setting of a minimum charge applicable throughout the Community might reasonably be seen as a positive first step towards promoting fairer competition between member states of the Community. I have emphasised that the Government support the argument that effective action must be taken to harmonise the standards of enforcement of the poultrymeat directive, and are pressing for urgent action by the Commission.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 7685/84, 76E6/84 and 7948/84; and]n respect of 7685/84 and 7686/84 supports the Government's approach in pressing for charging provisions which reduce distortions to trade; and in respect of 7948/84, supports the Government's intention to seek to ensure i:hat the provisions of any new directive should be based on a scientific assessment of the available information as to safety in use and should take full account of the interests of consumers, livestock producers, the meat trade and the pharmaceutical industry.

Meat and Poultrymeat (Health Controls)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at the sitting on Monday 3rd December, the Local Government Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Twelve o'clock.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

PETITION

  Human Embryos
  11.37 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I beg to ask leave to present a petition that has been signed by a considerable number of my constituents, who have expressed concern over the contents of the Warnock report, and I share their concern, It states:
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the House of Commons will take immediate steps to enact legislation which forbids any procedure which involves purchase or sale of human embryos, their use as sources of transplant tissue or as subjects for research or experiment (unless done solely for the benefit of the embryos concerned).
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will every pray you so do.
  To lie upon the Table.

Social Security (Reviews)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.38 pm
Mr. Gordon Brown: I wish to raise the important matter of the Government social security reviews into pensions, supplementary benefits, children's and young persons' benefits, housing benefits and the social services. Most of them were established by the Secretary of State for Social Services earlier this year to report to him by the end of the year to lead to recommendations by the beginning of next year and, presumably, to legislation in the next session.
Yet although the Secretary of State for Social Services, has said that the reviews were the most important and far-reaching reviews of the social security system since Beveridge, a number of important questions pointed out that about them remained unanswered, unexamined and undebated by the House.
When at least 7 million people depend on means-tested benefits, more than 16 million people are on low incomes, when we have poverty that no one dared imagine 20, 10 or even five years ago, poverty on a national scale that is a national disgrace, poverty that sends children to school ill clad and hungry, forces pensioners to choose between eating and heating, affects millions, yet has left British industry worse off than ever before, no one can doubt the need for wide-ranging improvements in our social security system to secure opportunity in youth, sufficiency in family life and dignity and comfort in old age.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has been prepared to call his reviews independent, objective, impartial and comprehensive. However, performance has not yet matched that ambitious claim. Although we cannot expect this evening to hear the final recommendations of the reviews, we can expect answers to some questions about the remits, the membership, the precise objectives and detailed activities of what we were told were open reviews.
The Minister who will reply must be aware of many of the widespread criticisms of the reviews. Although they were to be comprehensive, only 12 weeks were allowed for evidence to be submitted by interested parties and only the chosen few were asked to give oral evidence. Far from being independent, the entire membership of, for example, the children and young persons' review team consists of Mr. Rogers, who had to declare an interest when the Institute of Directors advocated the abolition of child benefit, and Mrs. Barbara Shenfield, whose chairmanship of the WRVS sounds promising but who just happens to be co-author of an Adam Smith Institute pamphlet, which advocates the abolition not merely of child benefit but of the welfare state. Other review members include building society managers, a biscuit manufacturer who happens to be a leading Conservative, a college lecturer who is also a former Conservative councillor and our statutory Lady Bountiful. To the public, the independent members of the independent reviews must seem as independent as the Prime Minister would like her Bishops and Archbishops to be.
While a study of the transcripts and evidence demonstrates a consensus on the need to protect and raise benefits among Labour party and trade union opinion, where they have submitted evidence, and voluntary and

1207
charitable organisations not normally associated with the Left-of-centre parties in the United Kingdom, it is a measure of the distance between the Committee, the review teams and the reality of life in Britain in 1984 that many witnesses appearing before the Committees are frequently asked by review team members whether there is a role for the welfare state in modern Britain.
We know that the reviews will report to the Minister by December, that a paper will probably be published in the new year, that there is a central review unit co-ordinating the work of the individual review teams, and that other Government Departments are contributing to the reviews.
I have a number of specific questions which I hope that the Minister can answer this evening. Will there be further consultations on the conclusions of the review team before any decisions are finally taken by his Department? Will there, therefore, be a Green Paper instead of a White Paper published by the Department of Health and Social Security? Will the full reports of the individual review teams be made public so that those who have submitted evidence and everyone else can see the conclusions?
When we talk about Government Departments, what is the role of the Treasury in the review? Is Mr. Peter Riddell of the Financial Times right when he states that the Treasury now have rights of representation on the review teams and that this is the price that the Secretary of State for Social Services has paid for agreement to the reviews in the first place?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, who told us five years ago that the rich must get richer to ensure true prosperity for all, now believes that it is necessary that the poor must become poorer, whether they are in work or not, for his policies truly to succeed. Can the Secretary of State for Social Services really compare himself with Beveridge and yet accept direct control by a Chancellor who wishes to make his political reputation on destroying the legacy of Beveridge in the same way as he has destroyed the heritage of Keynes?
When a pensioner on supplementary pension has an income of little more than £5 a week, after paying his rent, and when members of a family whose breadwinner is unemployed have even less, it is regrettable that the terms of reference for the supplementary benefits review state clearly that one reason why so many people claim supplementary benefit is that the benefit levels are so generous. It is even more regrettable that the reviews have conducted no research into the adequacy of benefits, nor have they surveyed or studied public opinion among benefit claimants about the adequacy of the rates. What is more fundamentally wrong about the social security review, and about which the House deserves precise answers this evening, is what is called in Treasury jargon the "nil cost basis" of the reviews—the fact that no more public money will be available whatever the outcome of the review teams' investigations.
We are being told that, if pensioners are to benefit, the unemployed will be worse off; if single parents are to do better, the disabled will do worse; if families are to improve their position, teenagers will experience more hardship.
The Secretary of State for Social Services has gone further than that. In reply to a question he stated clearly that savings found from the benefits system could be used for reductions in taxation. That is not a nil cost basis but apparently a lower cost basis for the reviews.
1208
Only this week the Financial Times stated that, in return for a standstill budget in real terms this year, the Secretary of State had promised real cuts in his budget for next year.
The House deserves a fuller answer than we have been given by the Secretary of State until now, and 1 expect some detailed answers from the Minister to several detailed questions. Has the Secretary of State agreed to a public spending ceiling for the social security budget? Must the review teams, individually as well as collectively, recommend lower spending, or is it the case that the review teams, which have received excellent evidence from organisations such as the policy study units on the inadequacy of benefit rates, are not in a position to recommend the precise level of benefits that should be paid, and that that will be left to negotiations between the Treasury and the DHSS?
If a public spending ceiling has been agreed, if public spending cuts can be considered but public spending increases cannot—if the review is comprehensive, but the only way the budget can go is down—is it not a complete distortion for the Secretary of State to have compared his review with that of Beveridge?
Although the review teams can consider spending cuts, they cannot consider tax-related issues. One has the right to ask in those circumstances why, under the social security reviews, pensioners stand accused, having to justify their meagre heating additions, teenagers are under scrutiny, having to defend this pitiful supplementary benefits, and mothers and children are as though on trial, having been told that £6·85 for child benefit is too generous, when unexamined, uninvestigated and undebated are the tax concessions, the fringe benefits and the gilt-edged black economy of the very rich, who have benefited by £13 billion in taxation changes since 1979? Some of them now earn more in a day than most manual workers earn in a year, at a time when inequalities are increasing faster than ever before. The text that governs the Government's conduct is not, as the Prime Minister would have us believe, that God helps those who help themselves, but that God helps those whom he has already helped.
We are anxious about the review on child benefit, which is the right of 7 million mothers and which the Prime Minister called evidence of the Government's commitment to the family. The Foreign Secretary called it the most effective means of relieving family poverty. This benefit, which averts poverty for several million families and mitigates it for millions of others without the humiliation of a means test, is now at risk.
When the Secretary of State was asked whether he was now considering the means-testing of child benefit, his reply was: that the Government were considering all options in child benefit and supplementary benefit, and that that was what a review is all about. Last May, the Prime Minister assured the country:
"there are no plans to make any changes to the basis on which the benefit is paid or calculated."
Last July, the Secretary of State gave us what he called: "a categorical guarantee" about child benefit. He said that the Government did not intend, and had never intended, to change the basis of that benefit, and that that was just another scare during the election. The House needs to know now whether, under cover of this review, the Government are secretly overturning promises made to the

1209
House and the country, and whether, without the consideration of the House, the assurances of 1983 are to become the betrayals of 1984.
The Minister must give me a precise answer to these questions. Are the detailed plans for changing the present structure of child benefit part of the work of these review teams? Are the Government now considering means-testing the child benefit—a measure that would achieve substantial savings less by eliminating the claims of the rich than by deterring the claims of the poor? As The Times suggested last week, are the Government considering a two-tier system of child benefit, with a flat rate as low as £3 a week, with the remainder means-tested?
The House cannot expect to know this evening what the precise recommendations of the review are likely to be, but the Minister has a duty to tell us whether the Conservative promises of the last election are to be honoured or are to be abandoned during the examination of these reviews. We are told that other changes are being discussed by the social security reviews.
There is also the problem of the long-term rate of supplementary benefit payments, the price protection of which was guaranteed by the Government in their election manifesto. There are fears that the means that the Government will choose to abandon price protection of the long-term rate of supplementary pension is to abandon the long-term rate altogether. That matter has apparently frequently been raised by members of the supplementary benefit review teams when interviewing witnesses. Again, we need a promise from the Government that they will hold to the pledge that they made to pensioners and others on long-term benefits when they faced the people last June.
Many people believe that that pledge also included the protection of the weekly additions and the single payments that pensioners and other groups receive. Some 2·5 million people—I suspect more after this week—receive heating additions, 75,000 people recieve clothing allowance and the latest figure is that 1·33 million exceptional needs payments are made every year.
My reading of the transcripts of evidence and of the questions put by the review teams is that it is likely that these allowances and additions will be severed. Thousands of people will be floated off supplementary benefit or pensions as a result. The Minister has a duty to tell us whether the pledge that has been made to long-term supplementary benefit claimants is to be abandoned because of the work of these review teams.
My final query is about our teenagers, who have suffered under this Government. Many have lost benefits in the first few months of their unemployment, many more are worse off because of the deduction of housing addition for those who are not householders. Statements made in the other place by Lord Young suggest that the intention is to remove the right of these teenagers to supplementary benefit altogether. The Government must know that the majority of teenagers on supplementary benefit already live in poor income households. When the Government treat youth unemployment as if it were a problem of youth, and not a problem of unemployment, what do the promises that have been made to the generation on which our future depends mean?
1210
We are entitled to specific answers as to whether the Government's promises at the last election are being taken away by the work of these reviews. In March, the Prime Minister told the House:
"We shall protect the poor and those in most need of help, honourng our pledges on benefits".— [Official Report, 8 March 1984; Vol. 55, c. 665.]
Are these pledges to be honoured, or are they to be abandoned by the nature of the work of these reviews?
The Secretary of State for Social Services compared his work with that of Beveridge. I doubt whether Beveridge would have seen the similarities. The comparison is as fundamentally misplaced as the Prime Minister making common cause with Keynes and the 1944 employment White Paper. Beveridge talked of
"grand and magnanimous aims removing the giant evils caused by poverty and unemployment"
and
"achieving security against want without a means test."
The Fowler reviews refers only to
"making the best use of available resources."
In his time Beveridge represented a huge and altruistic attempt to relieve poverty and hardship in a comprehensive and unified manner. The Fowler review appears to be divisive, penny pinching and an attempt to apply the principles of the Victorian era to Britain as it approaches the 21st century. This is possible only because the Minister has forgotten and ignored the problems which Beveridge had to tackle.
This year is the 150th anniversary of the Victorian poor law commission. That commission suffered also from inadequate terms of reference, a loaded membership and political preconceptions that affected its conclusions. The Government have already shown by the activities of the review committee that their work is different from that of Beveridge in 1942. They have yet to prove that the methods, recommendations and outcome of the review will be different from those of 1834.
11.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) for giving me the opportunity to discuss the important reviews of social security which have been initiated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman, who has established a reputation for his interest in social security matters, should choose to use this opportunity to read out some phantasma of paranoia which are unrelated to the realities of today. In his final burst of fantasy, he took us back to 1834.
My opportunity is therefore even more welcome than it would otherwise be to reject the premises on which the hon. Member's speech was based, not least his references to poverty on a scale that no one dared imagine five or 10 years ago and to policies which have left industry worse off than ever before. As most hon. Members and most of those outside the House realise, the objective of the Government's policies is to take the burdens off industry. We wish to ensure that our economic policies strike a balance between relieving industry of its burdens and enabling it to create employment while fulfilling the obligations, which we sincerely accept, to those who are in need.
The hon. Member referred to the promises made by the Conservative party, and I am glad to explain to the House,

1211
especially to the hon. Gentleman, how those promises have already been honoured by the Government. I tell him that he should not be led astray by whatever he reads in the organs of the press, be they distinguished or not. He should not be misled either by, in his own words, his readings of the transcript of the evidence put before the social security reviews.
Given the hon. Gentleman's assault, I shall remind the House of some of the Government's achievements on social security. Only this week we have increased benefits yet again, covering all benefits fully against inflation. Retirement pensions are 84 per cent. higher than they were when we came to office. That increase is substantially greater than the 76 per cent. increase in prices over the same period.
Supplementary benefit rates are about 5 per cent. higher in real terms than when we came to office. Child benefit has just been increased to £6·85 per child and is now at its highest ever real value. Mobility allowance has been increased to £20 per week, double what it was when we came to office, and worth about 14 per cent. more in real terms.
Expenditure on social security has increased substantially. During the last year of the Labour Government in 1978–79, the social security budget was just over £16 billion. In 1984–85 it will be about £40 billion. That is an increase of 27 per cent. in real terms. Much of that increase is due to increased numbers of pensioners, of unemployed, of one-parent families, and of the long-term sick and disabled. Nevertheless, improvements in benefit rates have added about £2·75 billion to the total budget.
The same is true of the National Health Service, but I shall not go into the details now. The major point to set against the distortions to which the hon. Gentleman has treated the House is that we have continued to honour our determination to protect the weakest in our society and we have continued to find the resources to meet those commitments. Therefore, it is nonsense for the hon. Gentleman to suggest that there is any attack on the welfare state. and he knows that full well.
Four major reviews of social security are now under way, covering pensions, benefits for children and young people, supplementary benefit and housing benefit. Taken together, they cover some four fifths of the total expenditure on benefits, and represent the most substantial re-examination of the system since the Beveridge report was published some 40 years ago. It is important to realise that the system today is not the same as the one that Beveridge envisaged. The hon. Gentleman had a lot to say about Beveridge.
Beveridge proposed flat-rate contributions paid into a proper insurance fund to finance flat-rate benefits. We have earnings-related contributions, some earnings-related benefits, and a fund that is operated on the pay-as-you-go system. We have a wider range of non-contributory benefits than Beveridge envisaged. The scope of supplementary benefit is enormously greater than the residual role envisaged by Beveridge for national assistance. Furthermore, that is against the background that the real value of the main benefits has more than doubled between 1948 and now; and that spending is now five times what it was then in real terms.
We have therefore every reason to believe that we have a record of which we can be proud. We have now embarked upon a wide-ranging consideration of the whole
1212
social security system. It is of great importance, which is why we have sought to involve the public from the outset in an unprecedented manner.
I was sorry that the hon. Gentleman was not prepared to give the credit that is most certainly due to my right hon. Friend for the way that this has been achieved. People have been brought in from outside Government and the Civil Service to assist and advise Ministers. They were appointed for their personal qualities and for the different perspective that they could bring to bear. The individuals concerned have, between them, experience in business, local authority administration, housing and voluntary and advisory work. I am glad to take this opportunity to thank them for the substantial amount of time they have given to their task so far and for the contribution that they are making.
I am especially sorry that the hon. Gentleman sought yet again to raise any question mark about two members of one review team—Mrs. Shenfield of the WRVS and Mr. Parry Rogers. It was explained clearly to the hon. Gentleman, in a letter that he received from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister dated 3 October, that his assertion that Mrs. Shenfield was the author of a pamphlet from the Adam Smith Institute was incorrect. She was one of those who offered advice and information. As a matter of courtesy, the authors acknowledged those who gave such information.
Mr. Parry Rogers has been a member of the Institute of Directors for many years, as he has of many other organisations associated with business and commerce. There is no question of anyone being obliged to declare an interest. That has been clear from the outset. He took no part in the discussion when the IOD gave oral evidence at a public session. The reasons were given openly at the public hearing.
The hon. Gentleman complains about only 12 weeks being allowed for giving evidence. Surely three months is a long time, considering the importance of the problem and considering that those invited to give evidence were specialists and had a day-by-day professional interest. I do not accept that three months was too short a time in which to present their evidence.
The hon. Gentleman was dissatisfied that only a chosen few were selected to give oral evidence. The list of those chosen was representative. I wish that the hon. Gentleman would give credit for the fact that the hearings were held in public, and not only in London, but in Scotland and Belfast. The public were invited to participate. The fullest consultation took place.
I do not have time to answer all the hon. Gentleman's specific questions, so I shall write to him. We are not yet in a position to give any idea about the conclusions of the reviews because the 4,500 pieces of evidence are being absorbed and studied by the review teams. The hon. Gentleman is clear about the timetable. When the time comes, a document will be issued and there will be a further chance for public comment.
There is participation by other Government Departments, organised by the DHSS, but final conclusions are for the Government as a whole. We are talking about an exercise which involves about 30 per cent. of public spending, which reaches——
Mr. Gordon Brown: Can the Minister answer three questions by saying yes or no? Will there be a Green

1213
Paper, is the Treasury represented on the review teams, and has the Secretary of State for Social Services agreed to cuts in the budget?
Mr. Whitney: If the hon. Gentleman reads my remarks, he will see that I have answered those questions.
1214
This is a fundamental exercise which will give fundamental answers within the timetable which we have already announced.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o' clock.

ENERGY
  Mining Research and Development Establishment, Bretby
  Mining Research and Development Establishment, Bretby
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  South Wales Electricity Board (Report)
  South Wales Electricity Board (Report)
WALES
  Hyperbaric Oxygen
  Hyperbaric Oxygen
  Internal Drainage Districts
  Internal Drainage Districts
EMPLOYMENT
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police (Computers)
  Police (Computers)
  International Youth Year
  International Youth Year
  Television (Concessionary Licences)
  Television (Concessionary Licences)
  Community Service Orders
  Community Service Orders
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Didcot (Police Accommodation)
  Didcot (Police Accommodation)
  Mr. Mohammed Siddique
  Mr. Mohammed Siddique
  Longmoor
  Longmoor
  Parking (Fines)
  Parking (Fines)
  Food Hygiene Regulations (Enforcement)
  Food Hygiene Regulations (Enforcement)
  Prisons (Repatriation)
  Prisons (Repatriation)
  Arab Visitors
  Arab Visitors
  Yasser Arafat
  Yasser Arafat
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Citizens' Advice Bureaux
  Citizens' Advice Bureaux
  Properties for Sale (Descriptions)
  Properties for Sale (Descriptions)
  Telecommunications (Advisory Committee)
  Telecommunications (Advisory Committee)
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  BT Share Issue
  BT Share Issue
  EC (Industrial Aid)
  EC (Industrial Aid)
  United States (Exports)
  United States (Exports)
  Export Intelligence Service
  Export Intelligence Service
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  Restrictive Trade Practices Law
  Restrictive Trade Practices Law
  Companies (Legal Safeguards)
  Companies (Legal Safeguards)
  Post Office Closures
  Post Office Closures
  Insolvency Law Review
  Insolvency Law Review
SCOTLAND
  Employment Statistics
  Employment Statistics
  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Rape and Sexual Assault
  Timber-framed Houses (Report)
  Timber-framed Houses (Report)
  Building Control
  Building Control
  Students' Allowances Scheme
  Students' Allowances Scheme
ENVIRONMENT
  Council Houses
  Council Houses
  Rates
  Rates
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Voluntary Organisations
  Voluntary Organisations
  Housing (Approved Warranty Scheme)
  Housing (Approved Warranty Scheme)
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Rate Demands
  Rate Demands
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Rate Support Grant (London)
  Rates
  Rates
  Grant-related Expenditure (Reviews)
  Grant-related Expenditure (Reviews)
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  GLC (Net Revenue Expenditure)
  GLC (Net Revenue Expenditure)
  Housing Associations (Grants)
  Housing Associations (Grants)
PRIME MINISTER
  Minister Without Portfolio
  Minister Without Portfolio
  NCB (Chairman)
  NCB (Chairman)
  Basingstoke
  Basingstoke
  USA (President)
  USA (President)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Overseas Aid
  Overseas Aid
  Secretary of State for Energy (Speech)
  Secretary of State for Energy (Speech)
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
TRANSPORT
  Road Surfaces (Grip Standards)
  Road Surfaces (Grip Standards)
  Rear Fog Warning Lights
  Rear Fog Warning Lights
  Roads
  Roads
  Engineering Staff (Recruitment)
  Engineering Staff (Recruitment)
  Lorry Ban (London)
  Lorry Ban (London)
  Aircraft Noise (Gatwick)
  Aircraft Noise (Gatwick)
  Pesticides (Aerial Spraying)
  Pesticides (Aerial Spraying)
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Merseyside (Visit)
  Chemicals (Road Transport)
  Chemicals (Road Transport)
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT UNESCO
  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT UNESCO
  Chile
  Chile
  World Bank
  World Bank
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Armagh Gaol (Strip Searches)
  Armagh Gaol (Strip Searches)
  Constitutional Matters (Public Opinion)
  Constitutional Matters (Public Opinion)
  Kilbrandon Inquiry
  Kilbrandon Inquiry
  Constitutional Talks
  Constitutional Talks
  High Technology Development
  High Technology Development
  Comprehensive Education
  Comprehensive Education
  Security
  Security
  NHS (Management and Financial Control)
  NHS (Management and Financial Control)
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Grammar Schools (North Down)
  Grammar Schools (North Down)
  Housing Executive (Prefabricated Buildings)
  Housing Executive (Prefabricated Buildings)
  Gas Pipeline
  Gas Pipeline
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Under-25s (Benefits)
  Under-25s (Benefits)
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  School Leavers (Benefits)
  School Leavers (Benefits)
  Family Practitioner Services
  Family Practitioner Services
  Old People's Homes
  Old People's Homes
  Funeral Expenses
  Funeral Expenses
  Personal and Occupational Pensions
  Personal and Occupational Pensions
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  Constant Attendance Allowance
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Practitioner Committees
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Medical Consultants (Unemployment)
  Medical Consultants (Unemployment)
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  Clatterbridge Hospital
  RHAs (General Managers)
  RHAs (General Managers)
  Health Authorities (Members)
  Health Authorities (Members)
  Federation Dentaire Internationale
  Federation Dentaire Internationale
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Blindness Allowance
  Blindness Allowance
  Essential Drugs Policies
  Essential Drugs Policies
  NHS (Food Hygiene)
  NHS (Food Hygiene)
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  NHS (Ancillary Services)
  Census (Ethnic Question)
  Census (Ethnic Question)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  RIBA (Correspondence)
  RIBA (Correspondence)
  Scientific Research Capital Allowance
  Scientific Research Capital Allowance
  Capital Outflow
  Capital Outflow
  Pound Sterling
  Pound Sterling
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  £1 Coin and Note
  £1 Coin and Note
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Chile
  Chile
  Manufacturing Industry
  Manufacturing Industry
  Milk
  Milk
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Soil Survey
  Soil Survey
  Butter
  Butter
  Environmental Health Officers
  Environmental Health Officers
  Pesticides
  Pesticides
  Internal Drainage Districts
  Internal Drainage Districts
  Land Drainage Schemes (Severn-Trent)
  Land Drainage Schemes (Severn-Trent)
  Aspartame
  Aspartame
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
  Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Law of the Sea
  Law of the Sea
  Warsaw Pact (Talks)
  Warsaw Pact (Talks)
  Mr. John Sprange
  Mr. John Sprange
  Tristan da Cunha
  Tristan da Cunha
  Wirebird
  Wirebird
  Mr. Yasser Arafat
  Mr. Yasser Arafat
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 LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Secondary Schools and AS Levels
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they now propose to take in order to widen the secondary school curriculum in the light of the responses to the proposed introduction of AS levels.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will make an announcement on AS levels in due course, after considering the responses to the Government's proposals.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. However, can he assure us that his honourable friend is fully aware of the very widespread concern that there is over widening the syllabus for A-level students? Is he also aware that there is a feeling that perhaps the present suggested AS levels are likely to make the position more rigid rather than to widen the syllabus in the way it is hoped?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I understand that the response from universities and, for the most part, from the rest of higher education has been extremely favourable. The examination boards, employers, independent schools and sixth-form colleges have generally responded favourably. However, as I think the noble Baroness said, among other schools there have been considerable misgivings about the proposals in their present form, and, indeed, opposition to them. Of course, all these matters are just what my right honourable friend is at present considering.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, will the right honourable Minister convey to his right honourable friend that it is not possible for the schools to do justice to a scheme of this sort when they are under such enormous financial pressure as they are at the present time? Will there be resources to make sense of this or any other innovation?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am very flattered by the noble Lord promoting me to "right honourable", but I am afraid I am not "right honourable"; I am just an ordinary, common or garden "noble", like others in this House. The noble Lord has made a very fair point: it is the resource implications which are worrying schools. Again, this is what my right honourable friend is considering.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, can the Minister assure us that the interests of the less academic pupils
1006
will also be taken into account in looking at the reforms? For example, will the needs of students who are taking the TVEI courses be catered for under the proposed AS levels?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, yes, all these matters are being considered by my right honourable friend at the present time.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, with the growing need for care in the community for elderly people and for those who have all sorts of handicap, would the Minister consider that there is a need for teaching care in the community in secondary school curricula for perhaps the academically less able pupils? There is a very severe need in the health service.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, there was a chapter in the consultation document on subject coverage, and if this is the sort of question which has been answered then I am sure that my right honourable friend will consider it.

EEC Refunds to United Kingdom
3.3 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: 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, in the light of the successful negotiations over the 1983 EEC budget rebate, whether they will state the annual figures for net refunds paid to the United Kingdom since 1980.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, the annual figures for the net refunds paid to the United Kingdom since 1980 are £645 million in respect of 1980, £783 million in respect of 1981, £624 million in respect of 1982, and £391 million in respect of 1983. There is still approximately £43 million in respect of 1983 outstanding, which represents 10 per cent. of the refunds and which will be paid after the Commission have inspected the projects to which the refunds are being applied. We expect this to be paid by the end of the year.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend the Minister for that very informative reply, may I ask whether he does not agree that it gives cause for considerable satisfaction that, due to the tenacity of this Government, we now have straight the question of budget rebates, and that as I understand it, from next year the United Kingdom will receive its rebates automatically?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I certainly agree with my noble friend. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said when reporting in another place on the Fontainebleau Summit, the agreement is a successful culmination of the Government's,
"long and persistent efforts to correct the budget inequity and to put the United Kingdom's refunds on a lasting basis"—[Official Report, Commons, 27/6/84; col. 993.]

1007
My right honourable friend described the outcome of the council meeting as good for Britain and good for the Community, making possible a relaunching of the Community in which Britain will play a full role.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that during the period 1980 to 1983 the total net United Kingdom contributions to the EEC amounted to no less than £2,456 million, an average of £600 million a year? Will the noble Lord not agree that that is a far cry from the broad balance promised by the Prime Minster at the start of the negotiations? Furthermore, does he not also consider that these payments, for which we receive no tangible benefit, are a bad bargain for Britain, especially at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is slashing public expenditure in all directions?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the last part of the noble Lord's question goes rather wide of the Question on the Order Paper. However, so far as our net contribution to the Community in the future is concerned—and this is the important point and the point which has been brought out by my noble friend's Question—the fact is that our net payments in future years will be around half what they might have been had there been no agreement reached at Fontainebleau; there would have been no further refunds and no abatements. The noble Lord might like to know that more detailed information on our net payments in future years will be published in the next public expenditure White Paper.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, talking of playing full roles, will the Government now take us into the European Monetary System?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that that is another Question.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that, now this matter has been settled we hope once and for all, we should hear much less about these shop-keeping arrangements and more about the development of a really effective Community?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, I entirely share the noble Baroness's views.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the results are due not only to the tenacity of the Government, but also to the good will of other members of the Community?
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, my Lords, other members play an important part as well.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is the noble Lord really saying that the matter will now be closed, even though there is such a big gap between what we pay and what we receive?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the matter will be closed in that sense, because, of course, it is an ongoing concern. But the fact that these arrangements have now been made will allow us to look at the restructuring of expenditure generally and over time
1008
perhaps reduce the proportion of the budget spent on agriculture and, therefore, release more funds for structural projects, including those involving regional and social funds. I think that that goes some way towards meeting the noble Lord's concern.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, is not the noble Lord confusing the House with this talk of reductions? It still means that the United Kingdom, which is not the richest member of the Community, is paying into the fund much more than it is getting out.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the fact is that we are now able to get out rather more than we were previously.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister not think that it would be nice if somebody paid tribute to the Prime Minister for having got back this money? Is the noble Lord aware that some of us—and I certainly speak for myself—are sick and tired of this constant nibbling away at a job of work which I for one think has been well done?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I quite agree with the noble Baroness and I entirely share the sentiments that she has expressed.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would answer one short question in relation to our future contributions, which he mentioned, which of course will be 1.4 per cent. of VAT as opposed to 1 per cent. now. Has actual agreement been reached on future control of the Community's financial matters? Has that been finally agreed?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I think that the answer to that question is, yes, at Fontainebleau. I gave the details in my earlier answer to the noble Lord.

London Tube: Escalator and Lift Repairs
3.10 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 whether it continues to be the policy of London Regional Transport to carry out themselves major repairs and renewals of lifts and moving staircases on the London Underground rail system, how many lifts and moving staircases are now out of action, and what is the longest period of shutdown of any of these services.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, major repairs and renewals to lifts and escalators in London Underground stations are carried out by contractors selected by competitive tender by London Regional Transport. I understand that there are currently nine lifts and nine escalators out of service while being replaced. The longest periods out of service, on current contracts, are about two years for lifts and 19 months for an escalator.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that informative Answer. Is he aware that it confirms my own impression that too often these moving staircases and lifts, which are vital to the movement of millions of people every day by London Transport, are out of use because they are subject to major repair? Is it not possible in these days of modern technology to achieve a more rapid reconstruction when major works are needed? Does he not agree that this really is a substandard service for an underground railway system which is still potentially a first-class service itself?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we must understand that there are often difficulties of access to the equipment and problems arising from the need to keep the stations open. In some cases special building work is needed and the replacement with modern machines often requires extensive modernisation of the existing buildings. I am sure that London Regional Transport try to do these things, or to get the contractors to do them, as quickly as possible.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, would my noble friend pass on the suggestion that when an escalator has to be taken out of service it is best to keep in operation one that is going up and not one that is going down?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall indeed pass on that observation. In fact I thought that that was normally the case.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the Minister said that this work is sent out to competitive tender, does this not prove that all the problems of transport are not going to be solved by competitive tendering, which is what the Government are proposing in their buses White Paper? This surely proves that that is not the case. Would it not be worth having a look to see, in what is a question of capital development, whether there is need for capital to be put in to bring some of the equipment up to date?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the problems of competitive tendering in this field are that the level of competition is limited because of the number of firms interested in tendering for this highly specialised work in often restricted site conditions. We do not believe that it is a problem of finance. The problems are technical, not financial.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that these repairs are a continuing impediment to people with severe disabilities? I am not referring to those in wheelchairs but to those who necessarily can walk only slowly and for a limited number of steps. The very large number of steps even going down constitute not only a hazard but in some cases a barrier. If an example is needed, the station at Hyde Park Corner has been out of action for about a year, and that is on the main line to Heathrow.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall certainly draw my noble friend's question to the attention of LRT.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the noble Minister aware that even when the lifts and moving staircases are in order there are still grave disadvantages for travellers arriving at Heathrow with either personal wheels in the form of a wheelchair, or wheels for luggage, if there is no way they can get off the Underground system without steps? At Heathrow they are given no warning that if they get on to the Underground, which they can easily do at Heathrow, these hazards will await them at the other end, wherever it is. Could the noble Lord ask London Transport to look into some system whereby passengers could get off more easily with luggage in London, because this brings a lot of money to the capital?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, again I shall certainly draw my noble friend's question to the attention of LRT.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the steps both of the moving stairways and of the static staircases are often steep, and that that causes problems not only to those with disabilities, as my noble friend Lord Campbell has said, but also to very old people, small children, and pregnant women? Will he bear in mind, therefore, that this is a real problem which should be given the highest possible priority for solution?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I must again draw my noble friend's question to the attention of London Regional Transport.
Lord Teviot: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that alterations in escalators and stairs are inevitable and that London Regional Transport are to be congratulated on the way that they have dealt with the Earls Court problem? They have given every indication that people should change at stations alternative to Earls Court. On the other hand, though I am aware that he will not be able to give me an absolute answer, there is an unsatisfactory situation at the Embankment station when changing from the Victoria to the Bakerloo line. It is rather more important than Hyde Park Corner because the Embankment deals with an interchange and you have to go down an unsatisfactory iron staircase rather like an old-fashioned fire escape. I have an aged relative who has suffered injuries, and that is an area that should be looked into.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the details of individual stations with me here at the moment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, in the light of the disaster at Oxford Circus the other day, can my noble friend confirm to the House and to all users of London Transport that any material that is used in repair works or modernisation will not contain asbestos as was the case at Oxford Circus?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, a full inquiry is taking place into the Oxford Circus fire. Asbestos was contained in the roof and debris from the ceiling material was found to contain traces of white asbestos.

1011
Measurements taken now show no significant levels of airborne asbestos fibres. Measurements will continue as a precaution.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that if you are elderly, disabled, pregnant or have luggage it is really a lift which is necessary and not an escalator?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, that may well be the case, but it is not possible to install lifts in all the stations where escalators are already in use.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that, rather than have these detailed questions raised in the House of Lords, it would be far better if LRT had been left with the GLC so that the matters could be raised through elected representatives?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we would not agree that LRT should have been left with the GLC. However, again I shall draw what is turning into a debate to the attention of LRT.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, granted that the noble Lord has not got individual figures with him, could he arrange to put in the Library the official figures for the length of time during which some of these installations have been out?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I do not know whether it would be possible to give individual figures for each station. I have said in my original Answer that the longest period out of service was two years for a lift and 19 months for an escalator.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, I do not wish to delay matters any longer, but this is a serious question. In the Oxford Circus inquiry, is the asbestos problem going to be taken into account, because it is a serious problem?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am sure that it will be taken into account.

EEC Consumer Ministers' Meeting
3.18 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 what date has now been agreed for the fourth meeting of the EEC Consumer Affairs Ministers and what business outstanding from the third meeting held on 5th June remains to be decided.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the decision of whether or not a particular Council of Ministers should take place lies at the discretion of the presidency. The Republic of Ireland currently holds this position and have not confirmed their intention to hold a Council of
1012
consumer Ministers. Of the issues discussed at the 5th June Council the proposed Directives on product liability, doorstep selling and the price indications of foodstuffs and of non-food products remain outstanding.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware from his file that when the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, dealt with these matters he told me that he hoped that the incoming president, who was the Irish Minister, would be able to fix a meeting for December, that we have now practically reached December and we are no further on? Might I ask the Minister, arising from that, whether he realises from the file that this is an interminable process on which we have made no progress at all? Can he give me, as a supporter of the EEC, any indication as to what we could do to hasten these matters? Would it not seem at present that our consumer affairs Minister is simply wasting time when he goes there and that in between for several months he gets no response at all?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am aware of the interchange of question and answer between the noble Baroness and my noble friend. I do not think that I can agree with her that no progress has been made. For example, progress was made on advertising. Some progress has been made on doorstep selling, although some matters are still outstanding. The noble Baroness is more aware than perhaps I am because with a number of countries involved these matters take what appears to us to be a long time.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, if the Minister would allow me to ask this question, does he recall that these three Directives which he has just mentioned are still outstanding? I am not saying whether or not progress has been made. Does he further realise that they have been outstanding since the mid-1970s? Can he please tell the House when he expects that the next meeting of the Ministers for Consumer Affairs is likely to be held?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, since the fixing of a meeting is for the presidency, and as I do not have the ear of the presidency, I am unable to answer that question.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether a draft Directive on unfair advertising is under consideration, and what the attitude of the Government would be if that were so?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the draft Directive on misleading advertising was adopted on 10th September. Member states have until 1st October 1986 to implement this directive. My right honourable friend is having consultations with interested parties in relation to the method whereby the United Kingdom will implement the directive. I can tell the noble Lord that it is intended that this shall be by giving the Director-General of Fair Trading further powers.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question. I know all about the first Directive on advertising and that it has now been

1013
agreed. I am asking whether another Directive about unfair advertising is under consideration and what is the attitude of the Government to that draft Directive.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I hope that I am not being obtuse but so far as I am aware we have one Directive and that is the Directive on misleading advertising. It may have a longer title such as "unfair and misleading", but I know of no other draft Directive on the subject matter of advertising.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that at the moment there is a backlog of over 250 draft Directives floating about, including many on consumer affairs? Will the noble Lord use his good offices with his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to ensure that this backlog, which has been in existence for many years, is discussed at the next Summit meeting with a view to the Community getting a move on in some of these matters?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I would not contest the figures of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I did not know that there were that many draft Directives on innumerable affairs since the original Question was on consumer affairs. I regret that I cannot make further comment on the others. As for drawing the attention of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to this matter, I have no doubt that her private office will have their attention drawn to it by virtue of the noble Lord's question.

Business
3.23 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Glenarthur will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Social Security (Board and Lodging) Payments. This will be followed by my noble friend Lord young of Graffham who, again with the leave of the House, will repeat a Statement on Skillcentre training.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, is the Chief Whip correct in saying that his noble friend will "repeat a Statement"?
Lord Denham: My Lords, with apologies to the House, may I say that the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, is right. My script is wrong and I should like to make a drafting amendment to it—"my noble friend will be making a Statement".

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill proposes three important innovations. The first of these is set out in Part I of the Bill and offers a fundamental reform of the prosecution service in England and Wales.
1014
At present and in most police force areas, criminal prosecution is in the hands of the prosecuting solicitor's department of the locally responsible police force. High standards have been achieved under that system, and under it prosecutors have normally maintained a proper independence of judgment. Our decision to bring about the changes proposed in this Bill is in no way a rebuke to those at present responsible for criminal prosecutions and I take this opportunity of placing on record our regard for the value of the work which they do.
This idea of an independent prosecution service is new neither to the Government nor to this House. Your Lordships are very familiar with the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure. Our debates on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act have made us all not only familiar but even expert in Chapters 1 to 6 and Chapter 10 of that profoundly important work. The remaining three chapters were devoted mainly to the commissioners' review of our prosecution system and to their proposed reform of it. They are the origin of this Bill and it is therefore out of the same stable as the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. With that Act it forms an integral part of our approach to the criminal justice system as a whole. In the Act we sought, and in this Bill we continue to seek, to secure both improvements in the way the system works and an increase in public confidence in its various parts.
A major part of our efforts in drafting the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was to secure a balanced system. The central balance was between, on the one hand, the needs and rights—and especially the public order rights—of society as a whole, and, on the other, the needs and rights—and especially the civil rights—of private citizens suspected or accused of crime. That balance is inescapably demanded by natural justice. It is also fundamentally necessary for public confidence in the criminal justice system. In striking it we had to be certain that the powers and functions we gave to the police were adequate to their task. We also had to be sure that we neither gave, nor appeared to give them, either the means or the motive for pursuing a suspect beyond what was reasonably justified by the information at their disposal. That balance was equally sought by the Royal Commission, and with the commission we feel that it is best struck by separating the power of prosecuting offenders from the power of investigating offences.
In this we are I believe on common ground. The spokesmen of the three opposition parties all declared themselves in favour of this separation when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked an Unstarred Question about our intentions on 26th July 1982 and told us then, I recall, that it was time for action rather than words.
These are views which I believe we all share with the Royal Commission. I should however also mention a point on which the Government differ from the Royal Commission. Having proposed an independent prosecuting authority on a national basis, the Royal Commission considered and rejected the idea of its being centrally directed. We also have been into this matter and in some detail. We have come to the conclusion that a national system is definitely to be preferred. What is needed is a service that avoids rigid

1015
uniformity; that applies consistent standards throughout the country; that is free of undue local influence, but makes efficient use of public money; that is accountable through established channels to Parliament; and that provides an attractive and fulfilling career structure for its members. Many of those requirements could, indeed, be met by locally-based services, but if we are to meet all of them, as we must, then we can see no way of doing so except by setting up a service on a national scale. Your Lordships will doubtless wish to test both the principle and the detail of this in Committee and I shall not therefore spend too long on this now.
I should, however, acknowledge that consultation has revealed to us a number of anxieties which we do not wish to ignore. Of these, the chief consists of a fear of over-centralisation and excessive bureaucratic control. That is a perfectly understandable fear, and we do not intend to disregard it. It springs from an expectation that cases will be referred unnecessarily to London. No one is more concerned than my right honourable friend the Attorney-General to prevent unnecessary referral of cases to London. For the purposes of this debate I hope that that assurance will suffice. But my right honourable friend recognises that concern about unnecessary referral to London and discussion about how to avoid it will continue. He therefore proposes shortly to publish a White Paper describing how he intends business to be distributed between the local offices of the new service and its headquarters at the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.
From the White Paper, which your Lordships will have before the Committee stage, your Lordships will see that what we propose is not rigid uniformity, but a sensible degree of consistency. We simply wish to ensure that there are no inexplicable variations in the decisions taken in different areas. Naturally, if local circumstances affect the decision whether a prosecution should proceed, the Crown prosecutor for the area concerned will wish to take account of them. The police, too, will take account of relevant circumstances in making their decisions (which, under the Bill, they still have to take) as to whether to initiate proceedings.
The second of the three principal innovations to be brought about by the Bill goes back once more to the need to promote and maintain public confidence in the criminal justice system. Your Lordships will be aware of a number of occasions over recent years when there has been an outcry at what has appeared to the public to be an inexcusably lenient sentence passed upon a very serious offender. That outcry may have been ill-informed; it may rest upon ignorance of vital considerations; but it does represent a source of genuine disquiet among those who live under the law and who believe that they have been inadequately protected by it. And there are occasions, my Lords, when that disquiet is not absolutely without foundation. We believe that we must be able not only to prevent those few doubtful decisions setting a precedent, but also to demonstrate that this is being done.
The means by which we propose to do this is embodied in Clause 22 of the Bill. This clause
1016
empowers the Attorney-General to refer Crown Court sentences to the Court of Appeal—not for revision, but so that the court can pronounce an opinion. Some people have suggested that this proposal in some way gives the prosecution a right of appeal. That is not so. The convicted person will not be exposed to double jeopardy and the sentence will stand unaltered. The purpose is not to change the sentence in the case referred; it is to secure, from the appeal court, a statement of the principles involved and the length of sentence appropriate in any similar cases that may be brought to judgment in the future. We believe that that will be a useful procedure in its own right and that it will provide valuable reassurance to the public that sentences which appear to them to be idiosyncratic will not be allowed to weaken the general force of protection and the punishment offered by the law.
The third of the principal innovations to be brought about by the Bill gives effect to our commitment to move towards a system of statutory time limits in criminal proceedings. Your Lordships will remember how, throughout the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, we considered a great many difficulties and anomalies, many of which concerned the way in which a suspected offender is taken into the criminal justice system and how he is handled thereafter.
We gave each of these questions our close and detailed attention in turn. But behind all our considerations hung a general awareness of how slowly the machinery could turn once the suspect had been drawn into it.
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—who much regrets that he is unable to be here today but who, your Lordships will be glad to hear, will take an effective and large part in our later proceedings—has each been working consistently and with effect to reduce delays in criminal justice. We believe that the measures we now propose will be able to improve upon what they have so far achieved.
Our proposal is to prepare for the development, trial and improvement of a set of statutory limits to the length of time that can be spent on the preliminary (that is to say, the pre-trial) stages of criminal prosecutions. These stages are fairly complex and the considerations can vary widely from case to case. Moreover, the concept that we wish to apply is new to English law. It is not new to Scottish law and I am sure that I shall be reminded that—and it is interesting to hear a Welsh cheer in support of that prediction. Scottish law is very different from English and(if I may so term it) Welsh Law, and that institutions that administer Scottish law are very different from the institutions which we have south of the Border. We do not therefore believe that we know enough about how this idea will work in practice to embody it directly in statute.
What the Bill does therefore is to set up an order-making power and a framework within which it can be exercised. When that framework is in place, the Home Secretary will use the power in the light of the results of the field trials which he will conduct. These trials may be limited in both duration and area and will make it possible to test out the effects of different patterns of statutory requirements and compare the

1017
results. By that means we expect to discover, with the help of all branches of the legal profession, what best serves the public interest and what ought therefore to be the requirements of the law.
The institution of the independent Crown Prosecution Service, the provision of a means of bringing apparently over-lenient sentences before the Appeal Court for comment, and the setting up of the framework within which we can establish statutory limits on the length of time taken by the prosecution to bring a criminal case to trial are the principal effects of the Bill. Before commending them finally to your Lordships a useful convention requires me to recite very briefly the provisions within the Bill by which they are brought about.
Clauses 1 to 3 in Part I of the Bill set up the national Crown Prosecution Service. The head of the service will be the Director of Public Prosecutions. As head of the service, he will work, as he does now, under the superintendence of the Attorney-General.
The duties of the service are set out in Clause 3. They will be broadly as the Royal Commission recommended; that is, to take over and conduct all cases where proceedings have been instituted by the police and to advise the police on criminal matters. Your Lordships will note that we do not propose that it should take over the prosecution functions of others who prosecute on behalf of the public—local authorities and government departments, for instance. But it will cover cases instituted by police forces other than the civil police, such as the British Transport Police.
Legally qualified officers of the service who are designated by the Director will, under Clause 4, have the rights of audience that practising solicitors currently have. It is clearly right that all the lawyers employed in the service, whether they are solicitors or barristers, should have equal rights to appear in court in cases which they have a statutory duty to conduct. In the Crown Court the service will brief counsel to appear on their behalf. I should emphasise that the Government hold strongly to the view that rights of audience in Crown Court trials should continue to be confined to an independent Bar which both prosecutes and defends.
The right of private prosecution, which we regard as an important safeguard, is preserved in Clause 6. It is subject to the continuance of the Director's power to take over the conduct of any case. Clause 7 reproduces certain provisions of the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1979. Accountability for the operation of the service is established in Clauses 8 and 9. Clause 8 provides for chief officers of police to be required to report to the Director every case of specified kinds occurring in his area for which there appear to be grounds for proceeding. The regulations making this requirement can specify what information must be included in the report. This will give the Director a proper overview of the operation of the service for which he is responsible. He in turn is required by Clause 9 to report annually to the Attorney-General on the discharge of his duties; and that report will, by virtue of subsection (2), be laid before Parliament.
This system of reporting is based on a familiar and tested pattern. Together with the Attorney-General's answerability to Parliament, it avoids interference
1018
with individual decisions while they are under consideration but it does provide, soon after they are made, the means and the opportunity to require an explanation of the legal and policy considerations on which they were based.
Clause 10 of the Bill enables the Attorney-General to transfer into the new service staff currently engaged on prosecution work in prosecuting solicitors' departments and in the Metropolitan Police Solicitor's Department. A staff commission will be set up under Clause 11 to safeguard the interests of staff affected by the transfer. The Bill also makes provision in Clause 12 for the continuing use, where appropriate, of the accommodation at present being used by prosecuting solicitors' departments, and for authorities making such accommodation available to receive appropriate reimbursement.
Part II of the Bill adjusts the system of dealing with costs in criminal cases to take account of the new system. It also takes the opportunity to rectify some existing anomalies. Thus Clause 15 enlarges the powers of the courts to enable them, where the circumstances warrant it, to make awards to defendants acquitted on some charges but not on all. Clause 19 also enables the courts to make awards against a party whose improper and unnecessary acts have caused his opponent to incur unnecessary expenditure.
The main effect of this part of the Bill, however, is to adapt current arrangements for costs to reflect the fact that the new service will be centrally funded. It will not therefore need to seek awards of costs to pay for individual cases. Other public prosecutors are also funded from public monies, and we feel that there is no real justification for such awards to be available to them, either. In future, therefore, the prosecution function of public bodies will be funded in the same way as their other functions, and Clause 16 accordingly limits awards from central funds to indictable cases brought by private prosecutors.
I now turn to Part III of the Bill. Clauses 22 and 23 provide respectively for reference of some Crown Court sentences to the Court of Appeal and for the institution of time limits on the preliminary stages of criminal cases. I have already spoken to both these clauses, which, with Part I, provide the principal substance of the Bill. We now come, therefore, to Clause 24. This clause introduces a new check on vexatious prosecutors. It is designed to cope with the exceptional case where it would be wrong even to allow proceedings to be started. If it seems a little familiar to your Lordships, that is because it follows quite closely procedures which are now well established for dealing with vexatious litigants in civil proceedings.
I hope I have said enough to give your Lordships a clear idea of what is proposed in the Bill. I will expand on the remaining clauses in Committee if I am required so to do. Your Lordships will also wish to have an idea of what the Bill will cost. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum shows that it will take about 2,500 civil servants to run the new service. Management consultants are at present helping us to refine this estimate by assessing how many staff would be needed on different organisational assumptions so that we can make a more accurate

1019
estimate of costs. The transfer of work from local government to the Crown Prosecution Service will of course permit a saving of some 1,700 civilian staff and of the order of 600 police officers. "Saving" is, of course, a relative term, as the 1,700 civilian staff are expected to transfer into the new service. However, the police officers will be redeployed to other duties.
Our earlier work suggests that the staff costs of the prosecution function, exclusive of support costs such as accommodation, would be about £3 million less than at present, although that reduction would be offset by the continuing cost of police manpower released from prosecution work to other duties.
Some people have suggested that a national service will cost considerably more than a local one would have done. Certainly the national system will involve some extra costs because of the need for national administration. The working party, whose report was annexed to the White Paper, estimated that this might provide work for 45 extra staff in the Director's office. That is not a very large number; but, then, the Crown Prosecution Service will not, looked at nationally, be a very large service. The figure of 2,500 staff which I mentioned a moment ago is a total both of lawyers and of support staff; there is nothing to add to it. We believe that the costs of the small national administration are well worth paying for in view of the benefits which we expect the new system to achieve.
Your Lordships now know what we propose in the Bill and what we expect it to cost. The final question I shall be asked is when, if your Lordships approve it, it will come into effect. Our general intention is to have the Crown Prosecution Service fully operational in England and Wales from October 1986. The provisions in Part II, as to costs in criminal cases, will be brought into operation at the same time. In the six police force areas covered by the metropolitan county councils we would propose to bring the new service into operation as the successor bodies to those councils take over their functions under the legislation at present in another place in April 1986—that is, a little earlier than the others. The provisions on referring certain sentences to the Court of Appeal and on time limits will be brought into operation as soon as may be feasible. This will depend on the need to set up any necessary procedural machinery, which includes, for the time limits provisions, the making of rules of court, and after the successful completion of the field trials.
I commend this Bill to your Lordships as a useful and a reassuring measure. As I have said, it does three principal things. It separates the power of prosecution from the powers of investigation and arrest. I believe that is a small but reassuring and useful constitutional change. It is reassuring to know that an independent view will be taken of the merits of doubtful cases before they are brought to court; and it is useful because the police will have some 600 of their officers restored to operational service.
It also provides for a sentence that appears to fall seriously short of fitting a serious crime to be reviewed by the Court of Appeal. This is no threat to the convict in question because the sentence cannot be changed, but it does enable the court to say something important; and it is important, not only to judges but to the public, whose anxiety may have been very
1020
sharply aroused. What the court will be asked to do is to give an opinion on what, in similar cases involving similar principles, a proper sentence would be. That, also, is useful and reassuring, and I believe it will on occasion allay a great deal of public anxiety which is often, but not always, needlessly aroused.
Finally, the Bill enables us to try out and, when we have got them right, to impose precise limits on the length of time the prosecution can take in bringing a case to trial. Those limits will be strict, because they will be embodied in subordinate legislation; but they will not be absolute since they can be extended by the court, but only if due cause is shown. It is useful to speed up the processes of justice. Justice delayed, as The Times reminded us this morning, is justice denied; and it is reassuring for those suspected of crime to know that they cannot be kept indefinitely awaiting trial at the whim of the prosecution.
Your Lordships will wish to test the detail of this useful and reassuring measure, but I look forward to the help of noble Lords in moving it towards the statute book. I therefore beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Elton.)
3.49 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for highlighting the important issues which arise on this Bill and for doing so, if he will permit me to say so, with his usual competence. I want to say at the outset that we on this side of the House and, I suspect. Members in all quarters of the House, welcome the decision to transfer the control of prosecutions from the police to independent Crown prosecutors. The aim must surely be for total independence in which the relationship between the police officer and the prosecutor will be one of mutual respect and acknowledgment that each is doing a separate but related task. The model of the procurator fiscal in Scotland shows that a relationship can be created which is effective and in the interests of justice.
What is proposed in the Bill in this regard has, as the noble Lord has indicated, been urged for a very long time by those concerned in the administration of justice. The decisive step was the setting up in 1978 of the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, which, in its report three years later, concluded that, in the interests of fairness, greater efficiency and better accountability, the prosecution arrangements should recognise the importance of independent legal expertise in the decision to prosecute and to conduct proceedings. We were glad to hear an assurance from the noble Lord in his speech today on that latter point in particular.
The Royal Commission found that the present arrangements were defective and, in particular, failed to provide a filter to avoid bringing to court cases which are unmeritorious, either evidentially or otherwise. It proposed that the function of the chief officer of police should end with the decision to prosecute. The Crown prosecutors would then take over responsibility for the subsequent stages of the process and have a discretion to discontinue proceedings if they thought that that was right.

1021
However, the Bill departs in one important respect from the Royal Commission's proposals, which suggested that a centrally directed national prosecution service was neither desirable nor necessary. The matter is. dealt with pungently in the report in Chapter 7, paragraph 7.22, where, after indicating the case for a national service and pointing out that one member of the Royal Commission supported it, which is significant, it went on to analyse,
"the disadvantages that are likely to accrue from the bureaucratic nature of a large national organisation working in this area. In order to transmit policies from the centre into effective practice at the local level and to ensure adequate accountability to the Minister, elaborate reporting and other supervisory systems would be required; this might create pressure for management to be in the hands of professional administrators rather than of solicitors. All would be at the cost of substantial resources".
It went on to say:
"Furthermore there would be powerful forces at work tending to promote the interests of those at the centre rather than of those on the periphery whom the organisation is, in fact, there to serve and to work with—the local police courts and community".
Then, as a matter of interest, it added in the next paragraph:
"We know of no common law jurisdiction in which the equivalent of a national prosecution system of the type we are discussing either covers an area with anything approaching the population of England and Wales"—
and, if I may say so in passing, where there are such differences between England and Wales and not only in the linguistic fields—
"or deals with a crime load of anything like the same order of magnitude".
These are very important reservations which we shall pursue in detail when we come to the Committee stage.
There is clearly a danger of over-centralisation in the new prosecution service. To some extent, this was traversed in the debate on the Address and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, dealt with it at that time by indicating that it is intended to devolve decision-taking to the local level to the maximum extent possible. We shall await with great interest the publication of the White Paper dealing with this part of the matter and I am glad to hear, as I understand, that we shall certainly have that before the Committee stage is concluded. At least, I hope that that will be so, because it will clearly be quite crucial to the consideration of this issue of over-centralisation.
What has troubled me and others in regard to the degree of decentralisation which can be possible is the position of the Crown prosecutor. As it stands, Clause 1(4) merely seems to give power to the Director to bestow a courtesy title of Crown prosecutor, without in any way setting out the exact position of such a person. What is being done or proposed to raise his status; for instance, his status vis-è-vis the chief constable of the area? What is to be the tenure of his office? What are to be his qualifications? Can the DPP hire and fire him? Is he a civil servant more or less? In our view, it is essential if some reality is to be given to this important office that the status of the Crown prosecutor should be specifically provided for and raised as far as is possible.
According to Clause 1(4) of the Bill,
"The Director may, for any area specified by him, designate a prosecuting officer".
What area has the Home Office in mind in regard to
1022
this matter? Will it be circuit areas, counties or police areas? How many are we to have of these important officers? This is a question that is left completely at large in the Bill as it now stands. In the important Clause 1 of the Bill, subsection (6) states:
"Where any enactment&

(a) prevents any step from being taken without the consent of the Director or without his consent or the consent of another; or

(b) requires any step to be taken by or in relation to the Director",

any consent given by a prosecuting officer may be taken as given by, or in relation to, the Director. We shall require some detail about that very open-handed provision, for we certainly feel that some decisions should be taken at a very high level; for instance, prosecutions of political importance and significance or those dealing with sensitive issues. The importance of the Director of Public Prosecutions being in control of such important matters, which will determine prosecution policy, is great. I hope that no dilution of that responsibility is intended by Clause 1(6).
Clause 3(2) states:
"It shall be the duty of the Director—

(a) to take over the conduct of all criminal proceedings . . . instituted on behalf of a police force".

Is it not intended that prosecutions should not be instituted on behalf of the police? Their function should be to prevent and investigate crime. We should like to have further information about the significance of subsection (2) of Clause 3.
Turning to the staffing of the prosecution service, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister how much consultation has taken place between the Home Office and the staff who will be affected by Clause 10 of the Bill? I am informed that the amount of consultation has been quite inadequate and that the morale of those running the prosecution service is at a very low ebb. They feel hardly and badly done by. Perhaps we could have an assurance at the end of the debate about that complaint.
Difficulty arises over rights of audience. It may be that noble Lords who are more directly involved will address the House on that issue in due course. Clause 6 contains a provision that nothing shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings that the director can take over. I am not sure whether the right of private prosecution needs to be maintained; but should an attempt be made to specify cases in which there could be private prosecutions there may be no great harm in it, because the number of private prosecutions represents only about 1 per cent. of the total number of prosecutions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has raised a matter of very considerable principle. Is it not one of our fundamental rights and freedoms that there should be the right of prosecution as a safeguard against concealment or abuse by authority, with the exceptions provided by statute whereby the Attorney General or the Director of Public Prosecutions must give his consent?
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I see the force of that point. What I said about it was couched in very reserved terms. I should like to consider the matter. Private prosecutions are brought principally about

1023
shop stealing and assault. There would be no great harm in the courts hearing such cases. Perhaps therefore my initial idea is met by the counter-advantage which the noble Lord indicated of the occasional case where there may be a reluctance to prosecute—a reluctance which has not been marked, I am bound to say, in my experience.
I turn next to what is bound to be a very controversial part of the Bill; namely, Clause 22 which allows the Attorney General to refer to the Court of Appeal any case in which he believes that the sentence passed by a Crown Court judge ought to have been different. That, being translated, means thought to be too lenient. The proposal is, I submit, wrong in principle. I ventured to refer to this point during the debate on the gracious Speech. The principle is that those who prosecute an offender should have no say in sentencing. This is expressly provided for by the Bar code of practice which states:
"Prosecuting counsel should not attempt by advocacy to influence the court in regard to sentence".
This clause will empower the Attorney General, the leader of the Bar, to attempt by advocacy to influence the Court of Appeal in regard to what the sentence should have been in a particular case and in regard to future sentences for comparable offences. The class of case is to be specified in an order. Perhaps the noble Lord could indicate what he has in mind about that matter.
As the noble Lord pointed out, it is quite true that the sentence of a particular offender will not be increased if the Attorney General argues successfully that it was over-lenient. The Court of Appeal has to state what the sentence should have been. The result will be that the trial judge will be thwarted in the exercise of his discretion. Sentencing is almost entirely a discretionary matter. The offender will be told publicly what the sentence ought to have been. There seems to me to be no great concern about the preservation of anonymity. Perhaps that will emerge in rules that we know not of at the moment. However, the offender will receive a public rebuke and public condemnation.
Who at the hearing will speak for the defendant in the stated case? Who indeed will speak for the judge and justify the judge's exercise of discretion? Sentencing is essentially a matter for the judge who is provided with information. He can seek help from all kinds of sources—the police, social security, schools. To depart from the principle of the power and duty of the judge to decide the matter, subject to any errors of law which can be remedied in the Court of Appeal, is, in our view, wrong. We submit that prosecution neutrality is and has always been an important feature of our system. I fear that the Attorney General will be subjected to increasing pressure from the press, from party, from Parliament. Enough pressure is already exerted upon him. I have had some years of experience of it.
Therefore we view the proposal with apprehension. That there are cases when it is right for the Court of Appeal to give indications on policy about sentencing is abundantly clear, but that is being done already. Frequent policy declarations are uttered by the Lord Chief Justice, in particular by the present Lord Chief
1024
Justice. He has rightly made declarations about sentencing when he has believed it to be necessary. He has made such declarations in firearms cases, in possession and supply of drugs cases, in causing death by reckless driving and other cases. This is one of the functions of the Court of Appeal. It is energetically exercised by the Lord Chief Justice. In some cases, earlier guidelines, as happened in the case of armed robbery, have been carefully reviewed. It is not therefore as though there is a blank here which is not filled or which is not capable of being filled. The machinery is there and it is being exercised.
It is not surprising that at a seminar attended by 75 judges and recorders in January of this year there was a strong argument against giving the prosecution the right to appeal against sentences and against the Attorney General having the power to refer sentences. Therefore, I hope that this matter will be seriously reconsidered during the proceedings on the Bill.
Turning to the proposal to impose statutory time limits upon the detention of those awaiting trial, we fully support what is suggested. A 110-day rule already exists in Scotland for serious offences. We welcome the power given to the Secretary of State to set time limits in relation to preliminary stages of criminal proceedings, but why is there a distinction included in Clause 23(2)(a) and (b)? The subsection states:
"(2) The regulations may, in particular—

(a) be made so as to apply only in relation to proceedings instituted in specified areas;

(b) make different provision with respect to proceedings instituted in different areas".

Why is there that distinction? Why do the regulations not apply across the country as a whole?
It is perhaps regrettable that the opportunity was not taken to specify the proposed time limits in the Bill itself, but it may be that a trial period—or whatever it is—is the explanation of that. There is room for a little concern over whether there are not too many loopholes and opportunities for extending the time.
Clause 23(3) states:
"The appropriate court may, at any time before the expiry of a time limit imposed by the regulations, extend, or further extend, that limit if it is satisfied—

(a) that there is good and sufficient cause for doing so; and

(b) that the prosecution has acted with all due expedition".

We shall have to look at that aspect, too, in a little detail.
I do not want to rely too much on the patience of the House, but there is one further matter I should like to mention. It has been raised with me by more than one Member of this House and by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, in particular; no doubt she will be elaborating on this point herself. It concerns the fact that—apart from the provision in Clause 27 regarding care proceedings alleging commission of an offence by a child or young person as to which, in proceedings brought by a constable, the Director of Public Prosecutions has to consent to the allegation being made—the Bill makes no provision for special measures for dealing with juvenile offenders in the criminal process. Yet, unhappily, juveniles make up a substantial proportion of those who are brought before the criminal courts.
There is general agreement that offending children should, as far as possible, be spared the formal

1025
procedures of the criminal law. The acknowledged need to consider the welfare of children and young persons has long been recognised as a necessity in dealing with children. Has consideration been given to adopting for England and Wales the system of children's hearings established by the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968? These hearings are divorced from the system of criminal justice for adults. In dealing with grave crimes, of course, the DPP and the Attorney General would indicate what class of offence should attract a reference to the prosecutor rather than the children's welfare official, who in Scotland is I believe called the reporter.
It is significant that other parts of the criminal justice and penal systems accept the desirability of specialisation work with juveniles. For example, there are police juvenile bureaux, juvenile courts, junior attendance centres and junior detention centres. Is not the case for such specialisation among prosecution personnel also very strong?
It is clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has himself indicated in identifying some of the issues here that this House will have an important responsibility—one that it is so well fitted to perform, as an examination of those whose names appear on the list of speakers for today (apart from my own, perhaps) indicates. We look forward to the willingness and readiness of the Government to listen to our submissions on a matter where party politics do not enter into consideration, but where questions of great importance to the citizen and to the administration of justice arise.

Supplementary Benefits: Board and Lodging Payments
4.15 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement on board and lodging payments under the supplementary benefit scheme which is now being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on changes I am proposing in the system for making board and lodging payments under the supplementary benefit scheme. I have referred these proposals to the Social Security Advisory Committee for them to report their views to me after a process of consultation. Copies of the consultative document are available in the Vote Office.
"Supplementary benefit expenditure on board and lodging is escalating. During 1983 it rose from £205 million a year to £380 million a year. My latest information suggests that unless action is taken, expenditure will grow by a further 50 per cent. each year during 1984 and 1985. No responsible Government can allow expenditure to increase in this way unchecked. As an immediate measure of cost control, I laid before the House on 22nd November regulations which will empower me to impose a temporary freeze on the existing local limits governing board and lodging payments. These regulations will be debated soon. They will be
1026
replaced by new arrangements which will come into operation in early 1985 following the consultative process.
"There is particular concern about the growing number of young people receiving board and lodging payments, especially those spending long periods on benefit in seaside resorts. The number of such people aged 25 and under went up by 60 per cent. during 1983. The increasing evidence of abuse makes it essential to move quickly to bring ordinary board and lodging expenditure under control.
"As far as residential homes and nursing homes are concerned, I welcome the contribution which the many good establishments make. However, the present system of paying for such care under the supplementary benefit scheme does not discriminate adequately between homes for different types of resident or patient. Furthermore, it is difficult to see why the charges for residential care homes for the elderly met for supplementary benefit claimants should vary from £51 a week in one part of the country to £215 a week in another. We must move to a system in which there is less variation throughout the country.
"My consultative document proposes several changes. The responsibility for setting the maximum amounts of benefit payable will be transferred to Ministers. For ordinary board and lodging accommodation, the existing locally-determined limits will be replaced by two new limits—one for the Greater London area and another for the rest of the country. I am also proposing limiting the eligibility of 16- and 17-year-olds to claim board and lodging in their own right. We shall also prevent young people setting up unnecessarily in long-term board and lodging accommodation. But we shall safeguard the position of the genuine job searcher.
"In the residential care and nursing home sector I am proposing a new structure of national limits for payments. These new limits will be designed to reflect the varying cost of providing different types of care. There is no question, however, of elderly, handicapped or disabled people being moved out of their existing accommodation, and their position will be protected. At the same time, I am proposing that attendance allowance should be taken into account in assessing claims for supplementary benefit from people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes.
"Subject to the process of consultation I have mentioned, I propose bringing regulations before the House in February next year with a view to implementing new arrangements in April 1985. I shall be monitoring the new arrangements closely after implementation and will not hesitate to produce further changes if these seem necesary. I shall also be considering alternative approaches in the light of the current review of the supplementary benefit scheme.
"The supplementary benefit scheme is there to help people in need. The Government are committed to that. We are equally committed to our policy on care in the community. So we shall continue to meet the needs of elderly, handicapped

1027
or disabled people. But we are equally determined to make sure that the supplementary benefit scheme is not abused or exploited. I am determined that we should no longer make unjustified board and lodging payments. I therefore give this warning: that if claimants do not need board and lodging accommodation or if the charges are too high, the supplementary benefit scheme will no longer pick up the bill."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating that long and complicated Statement, which I am sure we shall have to discuss at greater length at some other time. I must say, however, that underlying the Statement there seem to be suggestions that, somehow, too many people are getting too much money out of the system. While not condoning fraud or deceit, I have to say that the real sadness is that much of this syndrome is symptomatic of the malaise and demoralisation of today; especially the despair of continuing unemployment among many young people, who see no hope of ever getting a job. They feel that society does not care for them, so why should they care for society except to get what they can out of it? Therefore, the pity for us all is, first of all, that the skill, the ingenuity and the intelligence which they could contribute to enriching their own and the nation's life is squandered in what some of them call "working the system".
The problems referred to in the Statement cannot be considered separately from the worsening economic situation. We must deplore this, simultaneously with regretting any mischievous deceit. It is a palimpsest, and we must look at both sides of it. Reading through the Statement I see that the Minister suggests that there will be opportunities for further debate. The Statement then goes on to say:
"These regulations will be debated soon and new arrangements will come into operation in early 1985".
Is that not a little presumptuous? It may be that during the debates this House or another place might not agree with what is proposed, so how will arrangements be able to come into operation in early 1985? We might not like them; we might turn them down. What will the Minister have to say about it then?
The consultative document which was placed in the Printed Paper Office today, and which I do not think many noble Lords have had time to read, states:
"Young people can receive £80 to £90 a week as boarders. This far exceeds what many of them could earn".
But where can they earn anything? We are talking about young people who do not have a job and do not earn anything; so that seems to be a most irrevelant remark. Moreover, who gets that £80 or £90? We are talking about the enormous and increasing sums which are being paid to boarding house keepers and private hostel owners. That money is going to the landlords. It is the biggest growth industry in the country. The private landlord can charge £110 per week for a room for a homeless family. That money does not go to the occupier, it goes to the owner. We know that there are fortunes being made by people crawling out of the woodwork in their substandard
1028
boarding houses and so-called hostels and hotels and picking up this money from the Department of Health and Social Security. That is where the department should be looking.
The emphasis in the Statement, although it refers obliquely to those boarding house keepers, does not seem to take on board sufficiently the fact that the people who are living in that kind of accommodation are often impoverished and are putting up with the most substandard accommodation where even the fire regulations are not observed, where there are no facilities for children to play, and no proper provision for cooking or for dealing with the ordinary necessities of life. Therefore, I regret that the whole tone of the Statement seems to be correcting those who are suffering from the situation rather than those who are profiteering from it.
The Minister made reference in the Statement (and I shall quote, because I always want to be fair) to the fact that,
"The system allows proprietors of low-quality establishments to inflate their charges".
But the Statement does not go on to say what is to be done about it, or why it has gone on for so long. That is a serious omission.
I must also ask the noble Lord another question. I assure him that I am leaving out a few of the questions I should like to ask because I hope there will be further opportunities to raise them. The Statement refers to "board and lodging". What is the position of a lodger without board? This applies to many people who are in hostels which provide a bed for the night. Many of the voluntary hostels which are doing a very important job among the homeless and the down-and-outs in our big city make some accommodation available for the night, but if they are able to give a cup of soup I do not call that board. I want to know whether the proposals will make life harder and more impoverished for such people.
Will the Minister also bear in mind (and I have to put this in the form of a question) the problem of people who are in hostels for all sorts of reasons—perhaps drug addicts who are recovering, alcoholics or battered wives? I know that the consultative document refers to people in that situation, but it seems to me—and I say this without being too tendentious—that there are some things which do not marry up between the Statement and the consultative document. For instance, the Minister says in his Statement that payments in that situation are to be frozen. If they are to be frozen, and take no account of inflation, surely there will be difficulties for many of the voluntary organisations which are doing such good work among homeless people and those in need. How is that gap between the Minister's "freezing" and the inflation which we all know is going to get worse (even the price of tea and coffee is, I understand, going up) to be met in the case of this very real need?
This is a Statement and not a debate, but I feel I have put to the Minister some of the anxieties which many of us on this side feel. I hope that the Government will recognise that the difficulties which arise in the social security field are a direct product of their economic policies, and that that is where the reform needs to begin.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this important Statement, which has been made necessary by the mushrooming of private residential accommodation for the elderly and the increase in board and lodging for young people. The consultative document, we learn from the Statement, had been referred to the Social Security Advisory Committee. Will the Government pay due attention to the advisory committee's recommendations? Can the noble Lord tell me how long the consultation process will last? It does not look very long. If the matter is coming back to us early in 1985, is that long enough?
Can the noble Lord tell me how other interested bodies—that is to say, Age Concern and those concerned with the problems of the elderly and of the young—will be able to feed into the consultative processing? Will they feed their comments through the Social Security Advisory Committee or direct to the department? This is an important matter, particularly if the process is to be rather telescoped.
I think that is rather naive of the Statement to say that it is hard to understand why,
"the charges for residential care homes for the elderly met for supplementary benefit claimants should vary from £51 a week in one part of the country of £215 a week in another".
The answer is given in the consultative document, where we are told:
"The local limit system simply reflects local patterns of charges determined by proprietors without any checks on unreasonable increases. It facilitates cartel-type activities by groups of proprietors".
A little lower down we learn that:
"There is particular criticism of young people spending long periods in seaside resorts and of proprietors advertising for DHSS clientele".
So far as young people are concerned, it is clear that one reason why they are flocking to seaside towns is high youth unemployment. That is something the Government might like to reflect on.
Can the noble Lord clarify one other point, please, on page 3? The Statement says that the Secretary of State is:
"proposing that attendance allowance should be taken into account in assessing claims for supplementary benefit from people in private and voluntary residential care and nursing homes".
Can he clarify that for me? I understand that attendance allowance is sometimes necessary for people, particularly in residential homes. Is the Statement telling us that that will be withdrawn? If that is the case, it is rather a serious matter.
Finally, the Government commit themselves in the last paragraph I think to their policy on care in the community. But does the noble Lord not think that the Government have brought some at least of the residential problems on their own head? Does he agree that they could have largely been avoided if local authorities had not been squeezed to the point that they cannot expand or even maintain their own residential accommodation; and that if the Government had pledged sufficient funds to make care in the community a reality, many more elderly people would be enabled to stay on in their own homes?
4.33 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for their comments. I shall endeavour to answer some of the points that they have made. I think that the most important point to make at this juncture is that what we are dealing with here is basically an abuse of the system. That is why it has been necessary for my right honourable friend to take the steps that he has.
The noble Baroness asked me to elaborate on what the Government are going to do to sort out that abuse. As I said when I repeated the Statement, we shall bring payment limits under direct ministerial control. Instead of local limits that simply follow increases in local charges made by landlords, Ministers will determine what is a reasonable maximum amount for supplementary benefit to pay. Our limits will be realistic but they will restrict the scope for the exploitation and profiteering that I mentioned just now. As I said in the Statement, there will be two new limits—one for London and one for the remainder of the country. Areas where the existing limit is below the new figure will retain the lower limit, uprated to allow for inflation for the present. We shall decide on the level of the new limits when the consultation period is over; but at present we are thinking in terms of a maxima of £70 in London and £60 elsewhere. That should lead to reductions in some 75 per cent. of local limits. That is a substantial measure of retrenchment.
The noble Baroness asked what evidence we have of this abuse. She will perhaps have seen in the newspapers some of the examples. For example, there is a wealth of advertisements for Thanet hotels and guest houses, specifying, "High-class DHSS accommodation"; "DHSS fees arranged"; "On DHSS? Living in poor conditions? Why not live by the sea at Margate? Transport to Margate arranged"; all that sort of thing. That is the sort of evidence that we have.
The recent growth in numbers of young people claiming board and lodging payments, to which the noble Baroness referred, far exceeds any growth in unemployment. There were 60 per cent. more boarders in 1983 aged from 16 to 25, when the numbers of unemployed rose by 9 percent. If that does not show that it is not just a question of unemployment but that people are taking advantage of the system, I do not know what does. It seems that youngsters are simply choosing to set themselves up in board and lodging at the expense of supplementary benefit. I do not think anyone can applaud that. I have the figures and I can certainly let the noble Baroness have them.
So far as standards of accommodation are concerned, new guidance is being prepared so that local office staff can draw to the attention of local authorities deficiencies in accommodation attracting ordinary board and lodging payment. The sort of things that I am thinking of are overcrowding, health dangers, fire hazards, and so on. In addition, that will bring to the attention of local authorities and health authorities any doubts about residential care and nursing homes.
As I said, local limits have risen significantly. They rose significantly in 1983. The average ordinary board

1031
and lodging limits rose from £47 to £66 a week; and all the indications were that similar increases, far in excess of the rate of inflation, could be expected this November. For example, 80 residential care limits have been further increased in 1984 by an average of £25 a week. It would have been irresponsible to allow that trend to continue. It could well have jeopardised expenditure on other parts of the social security programme. I am sure that that is not something that either the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, would like to see.
On the question that the noble Baroness asked about board without lodging—I imagine that hostels cover broadly the class to which she is referring—there will be special arrangements for hostels which will give protection. I do not have the details with me, but perhaps I may let her have them in due course. So far as hostels for the homeless are concerned, a special limit for them, intended to safeguard their position, will be brought forward. On the question of drug and alcohol misusers, a new limit for them will come forward which will meet higher charges than before.
The noble Baroness asked about the freeze. Perhaps I can explain to her that it is the limits that are to be frozen; it is not the actual payments. I hope that that clears her mind. She may like to study the document with a little more time, and I think that it will become clear to her. The point is that at the moment the limits will be frozen. We shall no doubt discuss those arrangements in due course of time in your Lordships' House.
Turning now to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, he asked about the SSAC consultation, how long it will last and whether other bodies will have a chance to make representations. The committee has been asked to report in January. All interested bodies, such as Age Concern to which he particularly referred, will be invited to put their views to the Social Security Advisory Committee.
The noble Lord also asked about attendance allowance. Attendance allowance is disregarded in calculating the benefit entitlements of people in private and voluntary homes, even though they normally have the full cost of their care met by supplementary benefit. That is out of line with the position of people in local authority care, and has also attracted considerable criticism from, among others, appointees responsible for handling claimants' money and proprietors of homes. We therefore propose that the allowances should be taken into account in assessing the ability of claimants in residential care and nursing homes to meet their fees. Some people have been drawing attendance allowance to help meet particularly high charges, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that we shall provide generous transitional protection for them.
Basically the most important point (to repeat what I said earlier) is that these arrangements will reduce the scope for exploitation and abuse—which has certainly been going on. I do not think there is any doubt about that. They will also help safeguard public money, and that of course is an important feature.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, perhaps I may from here thank the noble Lord for his Statement this afternoon,
1032
though I think neither the Statement nor the consultative document do anything to expose the tremendous scandal that lies behind the figures for abuse. None of us of course would condone the kind of abuse which has been outlined by the Minister or other noble Lords in their speeches this afternoon; we would certainly not want to go along with that.
However, is the Minister aware that the abuse, certainly in London, is a direct result of the shortage of suitable accommodation, or any kind of accommodation, for the many thousands of people who crowd into the metropolis, literally homeless, jobless, and in all sorts of other trouble? I say this from experience, which I know is shared by many noble Lords on both sides of the House. The voluntary organisations like the Simon Community, Age Concern, which has been mentioned, the Spastics and many housing associations are struggling to implement this policy of Care In The Community. But we are beginning to think that the Government are paying lip service to this policy of Care In The Community because they do not supply the resources to go with it. So the abuse arises from the shortage. That is brought about, as I say, by the lack of resources given to local authorities to provide and maintain the accommodation. That is brought about directly by Government policy in restricting these resources by rate capping and so on.
We look forward to a very early debate. The noble Lord may well be aware that at this moment Camden Town Hall is under seige by many people. It is occupied by people who are demanding a serious change in the provision of bed and breakfast accommodation for people in these situations. It is a serious situation. It is far more serious than the Minister outlined in the Statement and certainly far more serious than many people throughout the country understand.
It is not just a question of changing the rates, of freezing the limits. It is a question of tackling the major problems that exist in places like London and other inner city conurbations in order to deal with the biggest problem facing our society at the present moment. So I hope that the Minister will go a bit further than he has done in tackling the causes of these abuses. I certainly look forward to an early debate.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I do not accept all that the noble Lord, Lord Stallard, says, by any stretch of the imagination. The fact is that there are many examples of straight abuse. There are examples even of families arranging for their teenagers to go to other families, doing a sort of swap of teenagers, so that they can claim the necessary charges. That is one of the abuses that this announcement which my right honourable friend has made will bring to an end.
On the more general question of London and the limits so far as access to accommodation is concerned, in setting new limits for ordinary board and lodging the Government are concerned to improve equity between those on supplementary benefit and others on low incomes. This will ensure that high board and lodging payments do not act as a work disincentive—which can happen with the current limits. Supplementary benefit claimants should, like others on low incomes, have to bear in mind their level of income in choosing where to seek accommodation,

1033
rather than assume that the supplementary benefits scheme will meet their costs. This may mean that in some expensive places such as central London, claiments will have to accept only basic shared accommodation or look in cheaper areas.
We must live in the real world. The changes which are proposed may in the noble Lord's eyes affect the Community Programme. But I can assure him that the Government are committed to the Care In The Community programme. I deal with this quite regularly so far as the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill are concerned. By no stretch of the imagination is it easy, nor is it going to happen overnight. But it is something to which the Government are committed and I can assure the noble Lord that we will go ahead with it.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, on the point that the noble Lord has mentioned, I am still not satisfied that the Minister has made out a case for freezing the limits and the payments on the basis of one or two abuses. There is ample legislation and there are ample measures at the moment in existence to deal with those abuses. It should not be said that the whole system has collapsed, that everybody is on the fiddle and that they are all scroungers. We know the people who are abusing the system and so does the Minister. We do not need this kind of approach. We need an entirely different approach.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, the reason why the freeze has had to be applied is because the amount of money that was being spent has risen from something like £39 million to £102 million in the last year or so. We simply could not sustain that growth. It was quite out of all proportion to the real need that the Government and the taxpayer at large could be expected to meet from that sort of expenditure. That is why it was necessary to do it. However, the noble Lord will have a chance to debate it when the necessary orders are made.

Skillcentre Training
4.45 p.m.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to repeat a Statement on Skillcentres being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. My noble friend the Chief Whip has asked me to offer his apologies to your Lordships for inadvertently misleading the House in this respect. The Statement of course is the Statement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"In the White Paper Training for Jobs, the Government set out their proposals for doubling the number of adults receiving training under Manpower Services Commission programmes including a substantial increase in the number of unemployed training for jobs, and for ensuring that the resources available for training are used in the most effective way.
1034
"In this connection, the Skillcentre Training Agency yesterday put forward to the Manpower Services Commission its proposals for improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Skillcentre network. Copies of the full proposals and background information are available in the Library.
"These proposals will be considered by the Commission at their next meeting on December 13th. In the light of their considerations, the Commission will advise me how they would propose to proceed in this matter. I shall of course keep the House informed of further developments."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for correcting that slight error and for repeating the Statement made in another place by the Secretary of State for Employment. However, it appears a bit odd to me that this Statement had to be made at all today. This time yesterday, up to 6 o'clock, we were involved in a debate on unemployment, and this fact was known, had been made available to the press and was embargoed, I think, for 5 o'clock. I make no accusations against Lord Belstead, for whom I have the greatest respect, but I think if it was made public at that time it ought to have been made known here and it might have saved us this exercise today.
What strikes me about the Statement is its real lack of meaningful content. This is the second Statement that has been made in the last 24 hours. I should like the Minister to tell us whether he would agree with the observations made this morning by such responsible organisations as the CBI, the TUC and other organisations involved in industry and commerce, that both these measures that are going to be brought in by the present Government will exacerbate still further the unemployment figures published today, which I understand are the worst set of figures we have had in any November since statistics were taken.
Would the Minister also not agree that the proposals, taken in total, once again affect more adversely the northern regions of this country as against the South, which appears once again to be receiving more favourable consideration from the Government? I should like the Minister's comments on those two points because that is the view that is being taken outside this House on the two sets of proposals.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement being made in another place. In view of the fact that, as the Statement says, discussions are going on about the proposals put forward to the Commission, we would like to stress again the tremendous importance we attach to a rapid increase in facilities for training for skilled trades, which are in short supply. It is becoming increasingly clear that such recovery as this country is having will be retarded because we are already unable to fill key jobs through lack of skilled personnel. There is an urgent need, as in wartime, that it should be regarded as a matter of high priority to speed up the training of such categories of people so that this obstacle to recovery does not continue.

1035
I should also like to ask the Minister whether, in these new proposals which are coming forward and in the changes which are taking place, it will be possible for training programmes to start much more quickly than they have done in the past in response to identified need. It is of the greatest importance that, when an unemployed man, or indeed a man in an occupation, who wishes to train for another occupation makes a decision to train, he should be able to get this training without delay. As the Minister knows, it is at present often a matter of months before such a person can get on to a training programme.
If we mean business about training and meeting our skill shortages, the speeding-up of the training is of the highest importance. It is common knowledge that in some countries this can be done. Sweden, for example, claims that if a man decides on a Thursday to go on a training course, he can start the following Monday. This is the way to meet skill shortages. May I further ask the Minister whether there is to be any increased provision for residential accommodation in connection with highly specialised training? Obviously, highly specialised training cannot be made available in every centre. However, in order that this training can be undertaken—it is jobs of this kind that form bottlenecks and prevent progress—every incentive should be given to people to go on residential courses for concentrated highly specialised training.
Lord Young of Graffham: In thanking your Lordships I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, that the timing of the Statement was dictated perhaps by events occurring in another place and also by the receipt of the proposals from the Skill-centre Training Agency which have been laid in the Library of the House. I am sure that no slight was intended against yesterday's debate. I, for one, apologise for not being here for that debate. It is important to look at exactly what are the proposals of the Skillcentre Training Agency. They are all there within the framework of the adult training strategy—a strategy that was drawn up by the Manpower Services Commission last year after full consultation with employers, with trade unions and with the world of education, approved by the commission in November 1983 and submitted to Ministers and approved by the Government early this year.
Within the adult training strategy the number of people helped in adult training will be doubled, from 125,000 to 250,000. Within the delivery of that particular programme, it appears that the commission has looked (it announced back in January that it would be so looking) at the proposals for the Skillcentre Training Agency itself. I would be surprised, and regret it, if bodies such as the CBI or even the TUC criticise these proposals once they have seen them in detail. These proposals are to do with the efficiency of running the particular programme, and are concerned very much with providing not yesterday's skills but the requirements for tomorrow's jobs.
The proposals involve a small reduction, from 12,500 to 10,500, I think, in the number of training places being provided, but also a vast increase from 7,000 to 54,000 in the number of weeks provided by
1036
mobile training instructors who can move round and train in employers' premises or otherwise train in locations. There is no major conurbation that will not have its Skillcentre. However, it is premature to look at the plan. These are proposals which have been published by the Skillcentre Training Agency. They are to be considered by the Manpower Services Commission on 13th December. No doubt that decision will be communicated to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in due course.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that we would accept, and I am sure that the Manpower Services Commission would accept, that there is a requirement for changing quickly the nature of training. I suspect that that is what these proposals are about. I hope, on due reflection, that noble Lords will decide that these proposals are about updating the provision for training in this country to ensure that it is people who benefit and not buildings.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord has been good enough to deal with those two questions very fully. We are grateful to him. The noble Lord has of course been appointed in an effort to deal with the appalling unemployment problem that is a source of so great a worry to all of us. Is he aware that this matter was dealt with when we heard the Statement repeated yesterday about the Government's new regional aid policy? It is very difficult to think of questions to put to the noble Lord in view of the paucity of this Statement. However, is he aware that the words,
"improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Skillcentre network",
do raise doubts in my mind? This is usually the classic introduction to a cut in expenditure.
Can the noble Lord say, as we have not read the report in the Library, whether the recommendation is that there should be a cut in the number of Skillcentres? Can he say whether the number of Skillcentres in Wales, in Merseyside, in the North and in Scotland, for example, are to remain the same?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Lord, I think it would be premature to start debating the detail of the plan that has been placed in the Library. There is a reduction in the number of Skillcentres nationally. There is a reduction in the number of Skillcentres both in Wales and in Scotland. However, the point that I should like to put to your Lordships this afternoon is that the amount of money spent by the Manpower Services Commission within the adult training strategy remains unchanged. What we are talking about today is a plan by the Skillcentre Training Agency itself, submitted to the Manpower Services Commission, on a way to improve its efficiency. That means changing its reliance upon buildings and existing locations, perhaps, and, it may be, upon training for yesterday's trades, and looking at a different method of delivering training for tomorrow's skills.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, is it the effect of the changes that are to take place that more and not fewer people are going to be trained? It does not seem to me to be of any significance whether they are trained in

1037
Skillcentres or by peripatetic trainers "in house" in organisations. What is of interest is that the total number of people being trained, particularly for jobs and skills where there are shortages, will be increased by the new proposals.
Lord Young of GrafTham: My Lords, I am happy to assure the noble Baroness that under the adult training strategy the number of people trained will be doubled.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, may I briefly ask the Minister before he sits down whether he would care to comment on that part of my question in which I stated that the TUC, the CBI and other organisations had expressed the opinion that both the packages put together would further increase unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not think that it is for me to comment upon the views of the CBI or the TUC on regional aid. I would be surprised—I have yet to see its statement in detail—if the CBI had inferred from the plan of the Skillcentre Training Agency that this will increase unemployment. Quite the contrary. A large part, I believe, or a part, certainly, of unemployment today is due to the absence of the proper skills. I hope that this is part of a process that the Manpower Services Commission is devising to produce the right skills in the right place at the right time.

Prosecution of Offences Bill [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I hope that it will meet with the approval of your Lordships if we now return to the Prosecution of Offences Bill, and its Second Reading. Your Lordships will recall that a week is a long time in politics. Seven hundred weeks is a very long time in politics. It is just over 700 weeks ago that two young Queen's counsel—one is now a distinguished circuit judge, and I was the other—produced a report for Justice called, The Prosecution Process in England and Wales. Fourteen years late, the Government are at last acting on most of our recommendations. They are I think to be congratulated on moving with their customary rapidity.
We recommended, in the first place, that there should be established a Department of Public Prosecutions to be responsible for the conduct of the prosecutions. That is clear and welcomed in the present Bill. We went on to say that it should be responsible also for the decision to prosecute. I still believe that that would be fairer, more efficient and more consistent than leaving the decision in the hands of the police. But I accept that this would be a major alteration to the Bill. It would not I think be in order to pursue it further when considering the Bill now before the House.
We then recommended that the department should be responsible for all prosecutions, but that in practice it would be necessary to limit it in two respects. First, we said that the prosecution of the trivial and routine
1038
type of offence would have to be left in the hands of the police. I should like to ask the noble Lord to say, when he comes to reply, whether that in effect is the significance of the words in Clause 3(2)(a), that the Director shall,
"take over the conduct of all criminal proceedings, other that specified proceedings".
Are those words in fact intended to exclude for the time being what we referred to as the trivial and routine type of offence?
Secondly, we recommended that prosecutions at present dealt with by Government departments and public bodies should be left in their hands. Again, that I assume is the significance of the words in the same subsection that the Director is,
"to take over the conduct of… proceedings … instituted on behalf of a police force".
We then went on to recommend that the right of private prosecution should not be abolished. I assume that the Government support that position and that that is recognised by this Bill. We believed it to be, and I still believe it to be, a very important freedom for the individual, even if very often it is for a highly eccentric individual.
Then came the crux of the matter. We recommended that the Department of Public Prosecutions should be entirely independent of the police. It would be headed by a Director and would be under, and subject to, the control of the Attorney-General, who would be answerable to Parliament for its actions. That is the crux of this Bill, too, and I welcome it. We went on to say that the department has, of course, a ready-made basis and could conveniently be organised and developed out of the existing staffs of the Director of Public Prosecutions, the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police and other prosecuting solicitor departments. We then said that in addition to having a strong central organisation it should have regional and local officers throughout the country, headed by assistant directors. It is here that one begins to have one's first real doubts about the Government's proposals. At the present moment, in Clause 1(3), the Director has the right to designate prosecuting officers; but subsection (5) goes on to say that he,
"shall exercise those powers under the direction of the Director".
We shall await with very great interest the White Paper that the noble Lord the Minister promised us. In the meantime, it is perhaps fair to observe that there is no mention in this Bill of any delegation of discretion to local prosecutors; there is no mention of any appointment of regional Crown prosecutors; there does not appear, on the face of it, to be any scope for local decision-making by local prosecutors. I say at once that I accept entirely the principle that there should be a centrally directed service. I am not suggesting there should be a local service responsible to some rather curious form of local supervisory body; but I am worried that, as it stands at the moment, the principal clause in this Bill creates not merely a centralised service—of which I am very much in favour—but an over-centralised service, which I should be very much against.
Then we went on to refer to the staffing of the new department and said that it should be possible to provide status, remuneration and a career structure

1039
which would attract men and women of the right calibre. I believe this is one of the reasons (though not by any means the only reason) why some form of central service would be an improvement on a local service. It would offer to prosecuting solicitors a national career structure which they have been deprived of in the past. However, the importance of providing a satisfactory career structure is bound to lead us to look with some care in Committee, in due course, particularly at Clause 10, which deals with the transfer of staff. I do not want to make Committee points at this stage; that I think would be quite wrong. I am, however, troubled by the expression in Clause 10(2) that the Act,
"may make different provision with respect to staff employed in different areas".
I am not quite sure what that is aimed at, and I should be grateful for some elucidation.
I am troubled by the proposal in subsection (5) of the same clause, where it appears that, for the purpose of computing a period of employment, the period of employment from which a prosecuting solicitor is transferred shall count as a period of Crown employment, but only, so far as I can see, in the singular; so that if a prosecuting solicitor has served a number of different authorities it is only the most recent of those employments which is to count. I suspect that is not intended; it is another matter that will have to be looked at in Committee.
I am deeply concerned also about subsection 6(b) of Clause 10, where it appears that if a prosecuting solicitor, for however good a reason, feels himself unable to agree to be transferred to the new department, he shall lose all his redundancy rights. That I think cannot be correct and I hope that is another matter we can put right when we come to deal with this Bill in Committee.
Having dealt with the question of the staff of the department, we then added this observation; I want to say just one word about this. We thought that the department's staff should have the same rights of audience as are afforded to the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That was a perfectly simple rule, a perfectly simple principle, easily and widely understood. I am dubious about the significance of Clause 4, subsections (1), (2) and (3), which attempt to deal with the definition of the rights of audience under the new procedure. That again is a matter that will have to be explored with care in Committee.
I welcome very much what the noble Lord the Minister said today when he appeared to be indicating that all prosecutions at the Crown Court would in fact be conducted by members of the Bar. I believe it is important that that should be so; and I have no interest to declare because I am no longer a practising member of the Bar. I believe it is important that all prosecutions at the Crown Court should be conducted by those who are totally independent of the prosecuting authority itself. I would add this, if I may. I believe that an independent Bar is one of the mainstays of our democratic system and that any derogation in the rights of audience, however logical the case for each particular step may be, is in fact going to lead to the destruction of the Bar as an independent profession.
1040
I have taken a little time over that particular issue because I am very much aware of the possibility that at some stage on this Bill there may emerge a rather squalid division of opinion between the two branches of the legal profession as to the rights of audience in the Crown Courts under this Bill. I hope very much that that will not happen and that the observations made today by the noble Lord the Minister will be accepted in good spirit by everybody in the legal profession.
Those are the principal recommendations that we made some considerable time ago, and as I say I am happy to see that the great majority of them are now contained in this Bill. I therefore want, if I may, to make comments briefly on only two other aspects of the Bill: first, on Clause 22, which I am bound to say I find not only objectionable but really somewhat ill-thought-out. This is the proposal in the clause which is headed:
"Reference to Court of Appeal of certain Crown Court sentences".
I could understand a system, although I would not for one minute approve it—I would oppose it bitterly—under which if a man is fined £50 when he should have been flogged, he is hauled up to a higher court and they say, "You should be flogged", and he is flogged. This is a system that commends itself to many backward jurisdictions in many parts of the world. But to follow the same example, to haul him up before a higher court so that the higher court can pontificate by saying, "You should have been flogged. Now go away; you are a very lucky man", seems to me to be much more likely to bring the system of justice into widespread disrepute than the present system. I would also add that it would take up a very great deal of time in the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal, where they are already extremely hard pressed.
I should also like to supplement what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, said, that it would inevitably involve prosecuting counsel in considerations of sentence when it has always been our tradition that he should stand above the heat of the battle. He would be involved. For example, he would be involved in advising the Attorney-General on whether or not the sentence in a particular case was adequate so that an appeal could be considered. He would be involved under Clause 22(2)(b) in actually arguing the appeal that the sentence was inadequate; and he would be involved in any future case in arguing that this case was the same as that case and therefore the sentence should be the same as the court indicated in that previous case.
For all those reasons, I believe that this proposal is thoroughly undesirable and I would also add that it does not take account of the fact that every case differs in detail in its circumstances and in its merits. It is quite idle to say that one can look at one case and say, "The Court of Appeal has suggested that the appropriate sentence is so and so; therefore in a totally different case, with a totally different defendant, it is our view that we should impose the same sentence".
There is one other matter which my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich mentioned to me, and it is an interesting point. If, under this new system that is proposed, a sentence of, say, two years' imprisonment

1041
is passed, and the Court of Appeal say that in their view the proper sentence would have been six years' imprisonment, and the man still serves two years' imprisonment, what view does the Parole Board take in particular of the advisory comments of the Court of Appeal in those circumstances?
Finally, I should like to make a comment about Clause 23, dealing with time limits. I cannot oppose it and I do not oppose it. But I am bound to confess that I am somewhat lukewarm about it. By imposing time limits, one can always get one case on earlier by the simple expedient of standing out another case so that it comes on later. It does not seem to me that to impose time limits will in itself lead to any real solution of the problems that face the courts at this time. The problems can only be solved either by increasing the number of courts—and I accept that there are resource implications about that—or by reducing the amount of work, and particularly by reducing the amount of work at the Crown Courts—I hasten to say, not by adopting the proposals that are sometimes put forward for the elimination of the right of trial by jury in certain cases. That would be a great mistake and would be very strongly resisted by many of us in your Lordships' House.
However, I believe that there are ways in which summary trial can be encouraged and particularly, of course—and the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will remember this well because we had many debates about it—by the widespread adoption of Section 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977, so that before a magistrates' court hearing the defence knows the prosecution case in advance. The noble Lord will be aware that there have been experiments in, I think, Newcastle which appear to show that, where that system is being tried, then first, more defendants are pleading guilty at the magistrates' court than previously pleaded guilty—which is an enormous saving in time and expense—and, secondly, more defendants are electing to be tried summarily rather than to go for trial in the Crown Courts.
Therefore, I hope that today, when the noble Lord comes to deal with the question of time limits, he will realise that these are closely associated points and that there is at least one practicable method of reducing the pressure on the Crown Courts which would much assist the present proposals about time limits.
In concluding, I ought to say how grateful I am sure the whole of your Lordships' House is to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, for enabling the House to take this important Bill at this early stage in its history. It is an extremely important Bill. It merits very careful consideration, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that from time to time there will also be scope for considerable improvement.
5.15 p.m
Lord Diplock: My Lords, the increasing number of cases which are reaching the Law Lords in their judicial capacity has made me reluctantly impose upon myself a rigid restraint on speaking in the Chamber, even upon lawyers' law, where the long experience of Law Lords of the administration of justice may assist the House in its deliberations. I
1042
believe that the present Bill is so far removed from partisan emotion that I can make an exception to the restraint that I have imposed upon myself.
On this Second Reading I propose to restrict myself to one point only. I shall confine my remarks to that part of the Bill which provides for the separation of responsibility for prosecution from the responsibility for detection, investigation of a crime and arrest. To that separation I, and I think perhaps all of us who have experience of the law, give a warm welcome. A wise decision has been taken to that effect. But once that wise decision has been taken, it leaves a choice between a central, monolithic, bureaucratic prosecution service, having no local accountability, and a regional service corresponding with the police area which it serves and which of course must work in the closest collaboration with the police force.
Part I of the Bill in its present form opts lock, stock and barrel for the former, the monolithic service. If I were construing the Bill, I would say that the reference in Clause 1(4), as it stands at present, to a "Crown prosecutor" is meaningless window-dressing because, after mentioning Crown prosecutors, it gives them no functions which are not equally the functions of every Crown prosecutor in the central service. At the Committee stage I shall ask the Government to think again before rejecting the carefully reasoned and researched advice which was given with only one dissentient voice by the Philips Commission. I shall not seek to repeat or enlarge upon the reasonings in Chapter 7 of their report which led them to that conclusion. But it might interest the House if I were to add a footnote, or perhaps, chronologically, I should say a preface, to the Royal Commission's report.
For some time past—more than 20 years now—we have been running at about three-year intervals what we call Anglo-American legal exchanges in which we consider some aspect of procedure of how we deal with particular classes of case. In 1977 the subject matter of our exchange was that of criminal trial procedure.
What happens is that an American team headed—as it has been recently—by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and I, until recently, have been the leader of the English team), comes over here for two weeks to see exactly how we perform the task from beginning to end. Then in return we pay a similar visit to the United States, and, as a result, we hope to learn from one another some feature or other which we can adopt or, more obviously, adapt because our systems are different, which would make our system more effective than it is.
I hope I am not discourteous to our American colleagues when I say that in criminal law the result of our exchange was that we did not think that there was much in it that was better done than in our own. But there was one important exception, and that exception was the separation of responsibilities between the district attorney and the police so far as decisions to prosecute and the conduct of prosecution were concerned. When I use the expression "district attorney" that shows the local character of the work that the district attorney does.
Our studies on the spot showed the absolutely essential character of the liaison—and instant liaison—between the district attorney's office and the

1043
police authority. As a result when we returned—and the English team consisted entirely of lawyers—we made basically two recommendations to the Lord Chancellor. First, we recommended the separation of the responsibility for prosecutions from that of the responsibility of the police; and, secondly, we recommended strongly that it should not be a central service, but should be a local service.
The memorandum in which we made this recommendation was a short one. It did not elaborate upon our reasons for doing so. But it did, so far as I can recall, draw attention to the disparate regions in England and Wales, and call for variation in policy as between warning, to apply summarily, or to proceed upon indictment.
We regarded—and I still do, and I know that I can speak for my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman in this—local accountability as an essential feature of a proper prosecution service. No doubt one can leave with the Director of Public Prosecutions the right to take over cases. One can make the appointment of the local prosecutor an appointment by him after consultation with the local authorities. One can make provisions for reporting so that there do not arise unjustifiable differences in policy between one region and another.
As for the nature of the body to which local accountability should be rendered, there is plenty of discussion in the commission's report as to the various possibilities open there. Those details are for consideration of the Committee at the Committee stage. However. I would finish by once more asking the Government to think again as to the choice between central and regional responsibility for the prosecution process.
I fear that owing to the interruption which has taken place I shall not be able to stay longer to listen to the end of this debate, as I have a commitment which I cannot avoid, but my noble and learned friend Lord Scarman, who is at one with me in what I have been saying, will be here. If any questions are sought to be put, he will indeed be more competent than I to answer them.
5.28 p.m.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, it is always a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. I think that it is the first time that I have had this privilege. I can only assume that I was put in this place on the list between the noble and learned Lords who are speaking this afternoon, on the assumption that your Lordships would all be out at tea. But, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, has said, things have gone slightly awry today and I find myself speaking with other noble Lords in their places.
I should like to start by thanking my noble friend Lord Elton for his lucid and eloquent description of this important Bill. The Bill has taken a long time to arrive in this, or the other, House. It started with the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, 14 years ago, as he has told us, and went on to the Royal Commission on Criminal Proceedings, which started in 1978 and reported in 1981.
1044
This is a big and important Bill. The police, to my knowledge of 25 years of adjudicating locally, have had a difficult and onerous responsibility for the decisions as to whether to prosecute or not. Often they have been made in their own divisions where sometimes the decisions on whether or not to prosecute have been in respect of people who are known not only to the police, but to all the local inhabitants. Although I have never known a case when a decision was made incorrectly—that is, as far as I knew with the facts that I had before me—the task must have been invidious on many occasions. I have sometimes felt that the public have not always realised that the decisions were impartial. As we know, some members of the public have been worried about the variations that there have been thought to be (not, I feel, seen to be) in many parts of the country—variations on whether or not to prosecute.
These proposals mean that neither the police nor any local body will have a say in the decisions made on whether to prosecute. This is where I do not agree with the noble and learned Lord, I am afraid—I do not know how I dare—about local decisions. If we need to get uniformity of decision, then it must be led from the centre. I agree with the Government on that.
I take up the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, made about the representation of juveniles, and the decisions to prosecute them. As he so rightly said, we in this country make a great play of juvenile courts, juvenile bureaux, juvenile attendance centres and juvenile detention centres. We are extremely worried that the future generation should not be submitted to court procedures if it is found that any other way of dealing with them would be practicable. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to tell us that some of the prosecuting members will be specifically trained in juvenile court work. I assure all noble Lords—I expect they have more wisdom than I have—that having had 24 years working on juvenile crime I can say that it is so different from adult crime.
I should like to know from my noble friend whether, when the staff are transferred either from local authorities or police authorities, their pay will be the same as that of members of the board that they will be joining. Then, I think from what the Minister has said that this will come out in the ensuing White Paper, but I should also like to know whether the boundaries will be county boundaries, which they have been up to now, and whether the Director will control the work centrally or whether it will be diversified via the county boundaries.
I do not think this is the time for me to go into Clause 22. I do not think I agree with it any more than any other speaker; but I should like to pass on to and welcome Clause 23, which proposes a maximum period for the prosecution to complete the stages of the preliminary hearings in courts. I do not know a great deal about the 110 days in Scotland, but it seems to be working well and it might be a guideline to us south of the Border. It is so important, as I am sure your Lordships will agree, that reasonable speed should be the target in the interests of the defendants and the witnesses. We all know what memories are like.

1045
I need to make only one more point, and that concerns manpower. We are told that 600 police officers are likely to be released. That I welcome wholeheartedly, but I am certain that the service will need a far greater number—I hesitate to say this, but I imagine it is so—of trained solicitors and barristers, apart from their backup services. It is obvious that many people will need to be recruited. It will be very important, in view of Clause 23, that this service should not be understaffed, otherwise the machinery will clog up as it has been doing in the past.
This is an important Bill which I hope will be seen to be fairer by all concerned: not only those who may be apprehended and may come before the courts, but by the public at large. I wish it well.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, need not be unduly modest. This is a Bill which concerns everyone, and it is a concern on which the noble Baroness—a magistrate, I believe, too—has a great contribution to make, as she has made.
On the central proposition that there should be a division between the investigatory process (which is to be conducted by the police) and the prosecution (which is to be conducted by a solicitor with training looking at it impartially), there is no doubt whatever that the Royal Commission was right and the Bill is right in saying that there should be a separation. We should not have 600 police, superintendents or whatever, spending nearly all their time prosecuting in the magistrates' courts. They should be used on other duties; and their task of prosecuting—advising, if you please—on the merits of a case, and so forth, should be taken over by lawyers, legally qualified solicitors. That is the central recommendation of the Royal Commission, which I am sure is welcomed everywhere.
But there are hesitations when they say it is to be a national prosecution service. It is to be centrally directed, and it is said we should do away with all these local connections. Dear, dear: what a change in history! For the last 600 years the administration of justice and the prosecution of offenders has been county-wise, shire by shire, through the counties of England. Six hundred years ago, when the magistrates were appointed, they were three or four of the good and worthy people of the county. When the Grand Jury was summoned under the High Sheriff of the county, it had to consider whether there was a true bill or not. When someone was tried, he was tried by his own countrymen. Your Lordships will remember—perhaps you will not—that when a man was put up to plead and he pleaded, "Not guilty", the clerk said to him, "Culprit, how will you be tried?" His answer was, "By God and my country"—"my country" meaning my county. When putting the charge, the clerk would say to the jury, "To this charge he has pleaded 'Not guilty' and has put himself upon his country, which country you are"—the jurors of that county.
From those days to my younger days there were the magistrates dealing with the petty sessions and the more serious cases going to Quarter Sessions. Quarter Sessions were essentially a county matter. I was
1046
chairman of Quarter Sessions and had sitting with me magistrates of the county. Quarter Sessions were essentially locally-based within the county. How well they did their work, and with what confidence!
I do not like the drift towards the centre which was shown by the Courts Act; whereas we have no longer a country man as chairmen of Quarter Sessions or as magistrates. We have recorders going in and sitting, recorders with no connection at all with the county. I do not like that drift away and I hope that we shall not go any further. I merely say that to show that our organisation of the administration of justice and the prosecution of offenders has been country-wise, shire-wise, all but the area covered by the county police, and so on.
Is that all to be altered? The Royal Commission have gone into it. They have said that legal enforcement does not exist in a vacuum, that it must be influenced by the constraints and pressures in the environment in which it takes place. I can tell your Lordships that a Hampshire jury might decide very differently from what a Cornish jury would decide—and I have been on those circuits—and, in particular, from what a Welsh jury would decide. In other words, the administration of justice must not be national; it must not be central. And here I come to a very important point. The police authority which is carried on before the chief constable is absolutely independent of central government—and so it should be.
I venture to say, and I believe that it. is usually taken as correct, what I said in 1968 about the role of the chief constable in these matters being independent of central government. I said in the Blackburn case in 1968:
"I hold it to be the duty of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis as it is of every chief constable to enforce the law of the land. He must take steps so as to post his men that the criminals may be detected and that honest citizens may go about their affairs in peace. He must decide whether or no suspected persons are to be prosecuted and. if need be, bring the prosecution"—
if it is decided to be brought—
"but in all these things he is not the servant of anyone save of the law itself. No Minister of the Crown can tell him that he must or must not keep observation on this place or that; or that he must or must not prosecute this man or that. Nor can any police authority tell him so The responsibility for law enforcement lies on him. He is to account to the law and to the law alone".
This is important. The police must be independent of the Executive. They must not be directed by Ministers of the Crown when to prosecute or when not to prosecute. We should most certainly be coming into a most dangerous situation. I do not say that it happened, but I can tell you of the case of Gouriet. Your Lordships may remember that a trade union then said that the mail was not to be sent from England to South Africa by any of the men because the union opposed the doctrine of apartheid. That was a criminal offence; it was acknowledged to be a criminal offence to stop the mail.
The Attorney-General did nothing. Lord Wilberforce said that he regretted that the Attorney-General had not thought fit to say something, to say that it was unlawful to stop the mail. He did nothing. It is most important that no Minister of the Crown, of the Government, should have the decision not to prosecute in particular cases in which he may disagree. We will get into much danger on that attitude.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: If my Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will forgive me, did not the House of Lords overrule the decision of the Court of Appeal in that matter?
Lord Denning: My Lords, I did not refer to the decision of the Court of Appeal because that was on another point. We in the Court of Appeal made an injunction to stop the trade union carrying out those activities; and it succeeded. They did not stop the mail. We did what was right. The House of Lords said that we ought never to have done it. But they were wrong. My point on this particular case is that Lord Wilberforce in the House of Lords (sitting in its judicial capacity) said that he regretted that someone in authority like the Attorney-General had not declared that it was unlawful. That is the very point that I was making. The decision must not be left in this country to the Minister of the Crown. The decision must be independent.
What better than our present system in most, not all, of the counties? We have our county prosecuting solicitors, and they are independent. The police pass their investigations on to them. They give their advice, they prosecute and they conduct the whole matter on a county basis, shire by shire, and they have their organisation complete, as it is, to carry on this service which is recommended; namely, the prosecution service, which should be separate from the investigative service. Of course, there has got to be a great deal of liaison between the police, the investigators and the solicitors who are prosecuting. That must be so in the nature of the case. But that goes on all the time. Surely that is the best machinery. Surely it is best to keep that local machinery going and to build upon that in this new system. Let there be some central oversight if you please that everything is going properly—something such as reporting to them, and so on. That can be provided for. But, otherwise, do not make it national. The Royal Commission with only one exception—and they are a very valued body; and, if one reads the report, it is absolutely first rate—have said that a national service was neither necessary nor desirable. I would support, if I may, the Royal Commission on that point.
That is one point of principle. I would mention the other point: the reference of a sentence. After a man has been sentenced by the court, the prosecution can refer to the Court of Appeal and say, "That ought to have been more". I would regret any such thing. It is fundamental in our constitution that there is no appeal from a man who is acquitted, there is no appeal by the prosecution saying that the sentence is too low. That is absolutely fundamental in our whole thinking. This is just a way of getting round it.
Lord Elton: My Lords—
Lord Denning: Well, my Lords, perhaps not a way of getting round it; because they say it is not to be an appeal; it is just an expression of opinion. I think of a case that I tried at the Gloucester Assizes years ago when there was capital punishment. I remember it well. An Army officer was back on his leave and his wife nagged him terribly. He took out his revolver and shot her dead, pregnant as she was. He was tried before
1048
me for murder. I had to tell the jury that words were not sufficient provocation to reduce the charge from murder to manslaughter. Nevertheless, the jury did not want capital punishment. They found him guilty of manslaughter. No one can quarrel about that; there was no appeal there.
But what was I to do? My Lords, you might be surprised; the media might be surprised. I had heard all the case, I had heard of all the aggravation and everything about it. I sentenced him to two years; and the people in the gallery applauded. Was I right or wrong? I had heard all the case; I had heard all the circumstances. I imagine that the media, if they had got hold of it, would have said, "Two years is far too short! It ought to have been 10 at the least". And the Court of Appeal might have said that it ought to have been 10 years at the least if there had been a reference to them. Is that the right way to deal with a case? If these matters are referred to the Court of Appeal, if the prosecution want to go to the Court of Appeal and say, "That man ought to have had 10 years: he ought not to have had two," the Bill suggests that he can have counsel if he likes to say that it was quite right that he should only have had two. What man is going to worry about a counsel to represent him? He is not going to have his sentence increased in any way. So there may be no argument on behalf of the man, no argument on behalf of the judge: the argument is by the prosecution, saying that this ought to have been more. Is it not really only a sop to the media? The media, when they criticise sentences, do not know all the details. They will say, "This man only got so much for doing such-and-such", but when the media criticise like that they do not know all the circumstancs of the case.
I suggest that we leave the law as it is. When the judge has given the sentence as he thinks right in his discretion, it should be left there. The accused man can appeal if he thinks the sentence is too severe, but the prosecution should not be allowed either to appeal or indirectly to have the case referred to the Court of Appeal to see whether or not the sentence is too low. My Lords, these are just thoughts as this Bill goes forward. There will certainly be important points to be considered on Committee stage.
5.52 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, the central feature of this important Bill is the separation of the prosecution process from the investigatory processes of the police. That has received universal approbation during your Lordships' debate, and if I may say so I entirely adhere to that view. The difference of opinion that has developed is whether the new prosecution should be a national or a local service in the sense of whether responsibility for the decision should be made locally or to the central government of this country and ultimately to Parliament. I differ, with very great diffidence, from what is said by my noble and learned friends. Lord Diplock, Lord Denning and Lord Elwyn-Jones. But on this matter I found myself entirely convinced by the Minister, by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and by the noble Baroness. Shortly, I think that the reason why ultimate responsibility is better laid at the centre is because there is less likely to be political interference with the prosecuting decision.

1049
My noble and learned friend Lord Denning, with great force and historical learning, laid before your Lordships the courts of the county, quarter sessions and the Grand Jury. That is all very fine, but they have all gone. They were found not to fit in with our modern system of society; and to perpetuate them into a local responsibility for prosecutions seems to me to be an utterly illogical as well as a retrograde step.
My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones indicated that there are in any case a number of decisions as to prosecution and the like that have to be made or ought to be made centrally with responsibility to Parliament. An example I think he had in mind is a case where there are liable to be diplomatic repercussions. But it goes beyond that. Perhaps I might mention three examples to your Lordships. During the 1945 Government, Sir Hartley Shawcross was Attorney-General and at that time various wartime regulations about dock labour were still in continuance and there was mass defiance of those regulations. The Attorney-General took the responsibility—as I think rightly—that it would be an impossible task politically and a most undesirable course to prosecute all the persons concerned, with possibly the whole of the labour movement mobilised behind them. That was essentially a decision that had to be made by an officer of the Crown responsible to Parliament. Of course as always, since the Campbell case in 1924, the decision is taken by the Attorney-General of the time impartially, without regard to party considerations. Nevertheless, it rightly lay with him.
The second case was in my own time as a law officer. It concerned, as your Lordships may remember, a Russian woman athlete who was part of the team visiting this country. It may have been when my noble and learned friend was Attorney-General, but I think not. The Russian lady was attracted by some goods in a shop and she was charged with shoplifting. The Attorney-General, having taken advice—but advice only as to the diplomatic consequences—decided that the prosecution should be withdrawn.
Both the cases that I have mentioned might not have been in London: for example, the dock labour might have been in one of the provincial docks and the alleged shoplifter might, for instance, have been in Lewis's in Manchester. Nevertheless, the decision had to be made in my view—and I think this is the generally accepted view—by the Attorney-General, who was accountable to Parliament.
The third case was one where I, as Solicitor-General, had to defend an action by my Attorney-General, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller, and to intervene in the case of the flower sellers outside the cemetery in Manchester. They had the splendid idea that it was cheaper to be fined for persistently flouting the by-laws of Manchester than to give up their lucrative sale of flowers outside the funeral parlour. The only step that could be taken was taken by the Attorney-General. That was to obtain an injunction. Of course, that was quite a serious intervention in the judicial process, the prosecution process. It was questioned, and I had to defend it—and I must say without any particular difficulty.
1050
Those three cases—and one could multiply them greatly—were ones which, in my respectful submission to your Lordships, had to be made centrally and presuppose a national prosecution service. That does not mean that you must have a bureaucratic mass. Much will depend on the terms of the White Paper which the noble Lord, in his admirable speech, promised us. That will be scrutinised carefully to see that the necessity for a national prosecution service does not involve us in over-centralisation and a massive bureaucracy.
There is only one other point that I want to make about that matter. In one of the briefs with which your Lordships have been provided it states that a national prosecution service will be the thin end of the wedge towards a national police force. I cannot see that that follows. In any case, your Lordships will remember the pungent observation by Lord Hugh Cecil, that the British constitution is full of the thin ends of wedges that the good sense of the community refrains from driving home.
The only other matter in Part I to which I wish to refer is Clause 6, which preserves the right of private prosecution. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in his intervention. The right of private prosecution is an important element in the rule of law. Every citizen should be entitled to say: "You, the authorities of bureaucracy, the Ministers, may say that there are social or political grounds whereby one should not prosecute. I, who claim to live under the rule of law, proclaim my right to set the law in motion". I think that the Bill is entirely right to preserve that important personal liberty.
My only question on it is the considerable erosion that has taken place in that fundamental principle. I have here the Prosecution of Offences Regulations 1978, which give the various exceptions where the consent of the Attorney-General, of the Law Officers or of the Director is required. It is an absolute hotch-potch. When, very long ago, I was a Home Office Minister I asked the officials to explain to me the animating principle, and they were quite incapable of doing so. When I joined the Law Officers' department, I again asked the same question there, but with no more result. Since then, the only guide that I have been able to get is that each curtailment of private right to prosecution, or each attempt to do so, seems to have been based on a desire to inhibit Mrs. Whitehouse from taking action in relation to any offence which might disturb her. But I would ask the noble Lord to tell us, if he can, on what principle the right of private prosecution is now eroded; and your Lordships will probably wish to be satisfied, before passing from Clause 6, that the whole scheme is rationalised and not left as it is as just a hotch-potch.
I desire to say only this further. I entirely share the concern that has been expressed about Clause 22. Everything that I might have said has been very much better said than I could say it, but I have two main objections. The first is subsidiary in that, as has been pointed out, it is contrary to the whole tradition of our legal system that the prosecution should concern itself at all with the penal consequences of conviction. I say that it is subsidiary because I think we should be prepared to look again at anything in our penal system

1051
which may not make sense. There are other systems where the prosecutor demands the sentence that he thinks right and the defending advocate then claims the lesser sentence, such as would be sustained today by a plea of mitigation in this country. It seems to me that we ought to be prepared to look at that. It seems to me very much preferable to what is embodied in this Bill.
The precedent for Clause 22 is, of course, the power of the Attorney General to refer to the Court of Appeal a ruling of law which he deems to be erroneous, when that ruling is masked by an acquittal. But that does not seem to me to be at all on all fours. A point of law is essentially a justiciable issue, and it is entirely right that the Court of Appeal should be able to declare the law. But for the reasons put forward, especially by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning but by practically almost every other noble Lord who has touched on this issue, it seems to me extremely dangerous even to let ourselves appear to allow a prosecution to be appealing on the adequacy of a sentence. So I hope that the Government will consider that provision very carefully in the light of the, I think, universal disapprobation that it has received from those of your Lordships who have dealt with it. Apan from that, I wish the Bill well.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Hutchinson of Lullington: My Lords, as a mere barrister it is somewhat daunting to follow no less than four Law Lords out of seven previous speakers, but as most of them have disagreed with each other I am confident that in what I have to say I shall find support from one or other. In July 1982, when we last debated this topic, I leaned towards the concept of the local accountability of the prosecution service. I believed, as I still do, in the virtues of local justice. I was, and still am, resistant to this Government's passion for centralisation of power, and I had seen the acceptance of the Beeching report lead to the creation of centralised Crown Court complexes with the most unhappy results.
But now I am convinced—somewhat reluctantly convinced—by the arguments in the working party's paper before this Bill was introduced, and now I must support the central purpose of this Bill of an intergrated Crown prosecution service. I do so because I believe that the essential independence of the Crown prosecutor can be achieved under the Bill's provisions, and I feel that now, in this age, the manifest independence of the prosecutor and his freedom from local influence must be seen to obtain. If I may say so with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the situation now is very different from what it was when he practised on the circuit. It may not be the case in Hampshire but it certainly is the case in some parts of the country that there is a far, far greater tendencey to exert political interference than there ever used to be.
I support the Bill, too, because I believe that consistent, as opposed to uniform, policies, high professional standards and ultimate accountability to Parliament can be achieved in this service and because an established career structure could guarantee a high degree of professionalism and efficiency. That the
1052
prosecutor will no longer be the client of the chief constable and that the moral views of the local chief constable will no longer determine local prosecution policy are undoubtedly notable achievements.
Therefore, I support the Bill in principle, but I must confess that I do so with the greatest anxiety. Great dangers still lie ahead. There are dangers, already referred to, inherent in the creation of a new national bureaucracy covering a larger spread of population and a heavier crime load than in any equivalent body in any democracy in the world: approximately 2 million cases in the magistrates' courts, over 80,000 cases in the Crown Courts in any year. The Bill creates a department of central Government which will have ultimate control over the recruitment, training and promotion of every prosecuting officer in the land, each one responsible ultimately to the Director of Public Prosecutions, and from him to a Government Minister.
The Director's office is not renowned for its efficiency and its breadth of view, and that of the Solicitor to the Metropolitan Police is not renowned for its sturdy independence. The new service therefore must be genuinely new, not just the old service dressed up in wolfs clothing. It will work only if the Crown prosecutor is truly independent: if there is maximum delegation of decision-making, if the Attorney-General is content to do no more than lay down guidelines and the Director to adopt only a supervisory and arm's length role. I, too, am very glad to note the Minister's view, that the Government support entirely the recommendation of the Benson Royal Commission that the exclusive rights of audience in Crown Courts should remain with the independent Bar.
When quarter sessions and assizes were abolished and a national system of Crown Courts established in the name of Beeching efficiency, I remember thinking that if administration goes to the Lord Chancellor's office, not to the Home Office, all will be well. But it has not so turned out. Civil servants, running the courts' administration, have not worked, ever, at the coalface, if I may so call it. They have no deep loyalty to the complex of courts to which they are only temporarily attached. They do not have the "feel" of how to knit together smoothly the needs of the public, jurymen, witnesses, lawyers and the police. When I was the humble recorder of a city of 80,000 souls—what, I am sure, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would now call a real recorder—my clerk of the peace was a local solicitor. He ran the administration of that court for the 10 years that I was there with his own staff and on a shoestring. In five working days at those quarter sessions, in a single court we used to get through as much as the new complex, 20 miles away, now gets through in one court in five weeks. So there are dangers.
There are other dangers. Will this national service lead inexorably to the creation of a national police force, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale? Will the management of this service fall inevitably into the hands of professional administrators? Will centralisation and apathy be the order of the day and, one day, will abuse be possible, should the political head of the service come from the hard Left or the hard Right?

1053
Lastly, I fear for the future of the independent Bar: that vital bulwark of our liberties to which my noble friend Lord Wigoder referred. With the administration of the courts and a centralised grip on the levels of legal aid firmly in the hands of the Lord Chancellor's office, with the prosecution service and the levels of remuneration in the hands of the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Attorney General, it is only a very short step to the creation of a public defender's office. That means the polarisation of the Bar and the end of its independence. With the Lord Chancellor, the Home Secretary and the Attorney General wielding these wide and overlapping powers, are we not now on course for the creation of a Ministry of Justice? The working of this Bill will, I submit, call for constant vigilance.
I welcome wholeheartedly Clause 23, enshrining an idea which has been repeatedly aired from these Benches, in particular by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. The mention of field trials and the £100,000 to be spent upon them raises ghosts of the field trials which are still progressing after 10 years in relation to the tape recording of interviews. I sincerely hope that these field trials will be somewhat shorter than those.
I am sad that under Clause 6 of the Bill the role of the private prosecutor is specifically preserved. I differ, I am afraid, from other noble Lords who have spoken on that subject. Surely the private prosecutor today is an anachronism and, furthermore, a nuisance. I say this having benefited greatly in my practice from the existence of Mrs. Whitehouse. Many a brief has come my way in order to meet the predatory activities of that lady.
I must also add that on no occasion did I fail to win the case. Whether the public interest was served by those long and deeply fiercely fought battles in the courts of law I do not know; but at the Bar, certainly, the existence of Mrs. Whitehouse is supported. However, I submit that the role of the private prosecutor is an anachronism. The Royal Commission had absolutely nothing good to say about it. The Royal Commission said that its main manifestation—that is, the retail store prosecution for shoplifting—should be abolished. Furthermore, the Royal Commission said that if it was not abolished, then there should have to be an application to the public prosecutor—and if he turned it down, an application to the magistrates. I am sad myself that here is another opportunity for proper reform sadly missed.
I should like to ask the Minister two questions. One is the same as that which my noble friend Lord Wigoder asked: what are the specified proceedings envisaged in Clause 3(2)(a)? And in respect of Clause 13, where fees are fixed by the Attorney-General, will there be the same right of appeal to the taxing master as obtains at present in relation to legal aid fees?
Finally, I come to Clause 22. In my view, this clause is unnecessary for the reasons which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has mentioned. It is divisive and is unworthy of a place in what otherwise is a welcome Bill. The tradition of the Bar of England and Wales has always proudly upheld the principle of prosecution neutrality. No prosecuting counsel may
1054
ever attempt to influence the court in relation to sentence. Prosecuting counsel has no public view of the appropriate sentence in the cases he conducts.
Under this clause, the Attorney-General—who is himself a member of the Bar, and indeed the leader of the Bar—is to be given the power to take sentences to the Court of Appeal on the basis that he thinks they are too lenient. In involving a member of the Bar who is a Government Minister in a partisan approach to the exercise of a judicial discretion in this way, I would submit that this clause would seem to sanction political pressure upon the judiciary.
Have the judges or indeed the Bar been consulted? I ask that question of the Minister because, as has already been mentioned, the bulletin of the Judicial Studies Board reports that not, as has been stated, one sentencing seminar but two, covering no fewer than 150 judge attendances, strongly condemned this idea.
Are we now to have Crown prosecutors reporting centrally, up to the Director of Public Prosecutions and then to the Attorney-General, on the appropriateness of sentences passed by judges in cases where they are concerned? Are judges perceived, on their records, to be lenient or out of line in regard to some centrally-operated tariff to be taken to court to be publicly rapped on their judicial knuckles? As has already been asked, will the judge be permitted to defend himself in the Court of Appeal? Certainly, no self-respecting defence counsel would go there to defend him. Or are there to be private, unpublished communications between the judge in question and the Court of Appeal?
To give this power is to invite pressure by the media and in Parliament upon the independence of the judges. Indignation will be stoked up in sex cases, in political cases, in industrial relations cases—and anonymity in those cases would be a farce. Do we really want the judges to be looking over their shoulders, ever fearful of passing a sentence shorter or less severe than that which the Lord Chief Justice or some senior Lord Justice of Appeal might consider appropriate?
There is no parallel whatever with the Attorney-General's power to refer matters of law to the Court of Appeal, for the law can be established and a judge can be shown to be wrong. There is no parallel either with the appeal by a defendant to the Court of Appeal to suggest that his sentence is too severe—because we must of course have that safeguard where the liberty of the subject is involved.
Sentencing is a matter of discretion and of judgment. The Minister referred to the question of setting a precedent. No sentence by an individual judge in an individual case can set a precedent. In the future, there will be, if I may say so, Dennings in the criminal courts; judges of robust independence, judges who have studied penal development and who are in touch with social development, and judges whose sentences may be more radical and more informed than those in the remote Court of Appeal. Judicial confrontation and dispute in civil matters, as we know, has been of great advantage to the development of the law—but in the criminal courts such confrontation would be totally unacceptable.

1055
The Home Secretary threw a sop to his political hard-liners and gravely injured the delicate and highly successful mechanism of parole. Here, if I may say so, he seeks to throw a further sop in the same direction—which will do equal damage to the equally delicate mechanism of the sentencing process. This clause should not remain a part of the Bill.
6.27 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House, I support the establishment of a Crown prosecution service for England and Wales, but it is with sadness and regret that I find no mention is made in this Bill of special needs and special facilities for children and young persons—except for a passing reference in Clause 27. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Lord Ewlyn-Jones, and to my noble friend Lady Macleod, who has such long and distinguished service as a magistrate, for mentioning the special needs and position of children and young persons.
Like other Members of your Lordships' House, I feel that there is cause for concern over this matter. The objective of the Bill is that the independent prosecutor should proceed in all cases in which a successful prosecution is likely to succeed. This is out of line with the policy of Her Majesty's Government for prevention and diversion carried out by the Department of Health and Social Security and by the police—and, at local level, by social service departments and the police, assisted where practicable by education departments, probation, and youth services.
I ask my noble friend the Minister whether it would be wise either to introduce a figure similar to the reporter in the Scottish system for children's hearings—and I am delighted to see in his place the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, because he will be able to put me right if I am mistaken about the Scottish system—or to defer the independent prosecutor in cases of children and young persons, until such time as Her Majesty's Government can remould the juvenile justice system or adapt the family court system.
I ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House in referring to the mounting climate of opinion throughout the country towards a change in the juvenile justice system. The basic principle behind this call for change lies in the belief that, so far as possible and practicable, children and young persons should be kept out of the penal system by constructive and positive preventive work. This is dependent on close liaison between the police, social services, education, probation and youth services. Many local authoities and police authorities have already formed a liaison group; notably Northamptonshire, Devon, and other local authorities. Such diversionary schemes have resulted in a higher rate of cautioning and fewer young people appearing before the courts. The second basic principle is to involve parents in court proceedings so that they are accorded a sense of responsibility and involvement for their children and young people.
This rising climate of opinion can be seen in four reports. There is the working party of the Association of County Councils. I shall not read out all those who
1056
have served on this notable working party. The chairman, Mrs. Phillips, is chairman of the Association of County Councils' social services committees. There were representatives from the Law Society, from the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society, the police, the probation, education and social services. In fact, there was a very wide range of people serving on that committee. There is also the production of a discussion document by the British Association of Social Workers. There has been a working group of the Association of Directors of Social Services and one from the Residential and Family Care Association. There is of course also the notable report of the House of Commons Select Committee on children in care. The chairman of that committee was Mrs. Renée Short.
Finally, there is a professional committee of both statutory and voluntary agencies called New Approaches to Juvenile Crime. The strange thing is that the conclusions and recommendations of all those reports calls for a change in the juvenile justice system; recommending the setting up of family courts to deal with all family matters, including the welfare aspect of juvenile offenders and the method and way by which they should be helped. The juvenile courts, it is suggested, should retain their criminal jurisdiction. It must be said that the thinking in England and Wales has been greatly influenced by the children's hearing system set up in Scotland following the recommendation made by the Kilbrandon report.
The committee, New Approaches to Juvenile Crime, commissioned a report called Juvenile Justice—the United Kingdom: Comparisons and Suggestions for Change. This report was written by Mrs. McCabe and Mrs. Treitel, both criminologists. In this report the Scottish system recognised the need for a type of person with knowledge of young people, known as the reporter, to deal with juveniles. The police refer such cases where children are alleged to have committed a crime both to the reporter and to the sheriffs chambers. In many instances, cases are handed back to the reporter, except in serious cases of robbery, arson, murder and rape. Such cases go to the sheriffs court.
When this was first instigated, fearing that perhaps there would be difficulties, the police referred all their cases to the procurator fiscal. Now, the majority of the cases go from the police to the reporter. The point I am making is that a special kind of person is needed to deal with juveniles. May I also say that, from the point of view of a central service or a local service, where juveniles are concerned I support a local service. Either we in England and Wales need to introduce a figure similar to the reporter, as in the Scottish system, or, as I said at the beginning, to defer the independent prosecutor in cases of children and young persons until such time as Her Majesty's Government can remould the juvenile court system or adopt the family court system.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, will forgive me if I do not follow her on the extremely important issue that she has raised. May I say that I totally agree with her,

1057
as I do with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones, who raised the matter earlier. I am sure that the House will pay very considerable attention to the matters that have been raised when we reach the appropriate stage on this most important issue.
This is truly a non-political Bill. Therefore, if I have anything harsh or unkind to say to the Minister in the course of my address I am sure that he will accept it in a spirit wholly different from that in which such remarks are normally made. The campaign for an independent prosecution service is one that has been conducted with great assiduity and for a very long time by many distinguished persons and bodies. I am sure that the whole House wishes tonight to pay tribute to those who have associated themselves in what has been a very dedicated campaign. I think it right, too, that the Government should be congratulated on having taken action upon the Royal Commission's recommendations. The Government have acted within less than four years and I think that, on the whole, that is rather par for the course so far as the actions of governments on law reforms proposed by Royal Commissions are concerned.
We have had a full and extremely informative debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, referred to the decision to set up a prosecuting service as a wise decision. Indeed, that has been the refrain that has appeared in the speech of every Member of this House who has contributed to this debate. The need for a truly independent prosecution service is an unanswerable case. I am sure that in this House and, I trust, in another place it will never be suggested that the case for it is in any way based upon any lack of integrity on the part of the police, or lack of competence on the part of police forces. It reflects adversely in no way whatsoever upon them.
Secondly, in my submission, there is not the slightest danger that if this broad proposal is carried it will bring about any diminution in the efficiency of the police. It is well worth everybody who is interested in the matter looking carefully at the Royal Commission evidence. The commission has studied the matter with great care and considerable balance. It looked very carefully at the situation in Scotland, California and Ontario, and came to the conclusion that there was not the slightest evidence that there would be any falling off in efficiency were such a system to be brought about.
The Royal Commission then reminded itself that, after all, those places had enjoyed such a system for a very long time, and so it looked at places where the system had been brought in over the past decade or two. It looked at Northern Ireland and found that since 1972 there was certainly no evidence of that there. But it fairly said that that should not be regarded as a general precedent because of the miserable condition of that territory. It then looked at the situation in British Columbia, which has had the system for the past 10 years. It examined it in detail. Again it was seen that no substantial difficulty was faced by the police in initiating such a system.
Progress towards a prosecution service has not exactly been made in indecent haste over the years. It took the Metropolitan Police just over 100 years before the first prosecution branch was established in
1058
1935. The Roche Committee on justices' clerks in 1944 strongly recommended that there should be a prosecution service. That was even more strongly enunciated in the 1962 Royal Commission report on the police. There are strong and compelling grounds for having one.
The aims are ones that we all share: first, that there should be greater fairness; secondly, that there should be greater efficiency, and thirdly, that justice should manifestly be seen to be done. With regard to fairness, it is essential that cases which are not really justified should never begin their course of being brought before the courts.
With regard to efficiency, in, I believe, 1980, 43 per cent. of acquittals in the Crown Court were by direction of the learned judge. That statistic is not exactly what it seems. It does not reflect as badly on prosecuting authorities as it would seem. Very often only in the course of a trial will it be seen that the prosecution's star witness, to use the slang of the courts, is going bent. Certain witnesses who were up to the very last minute expected to present themselves at court may for some reason—sometimes there is a perfectly proper reason such as illness or old age—not be there. Again, there may be matters which simply could not have been foreseen. But in many cases a reading of the papers by a person who is able to bring a fresh and independent mind to the situation will make it clear beyond peradventure that the case should never have been proceeded with. There will be a great saving not only in money but, far more importantly, in serving the interests of justice.
Thirdly, the question of justice being seen to be done, in my submission, is closely linked with the question of consistency. Under many headings of criminal prosecution there is little consistency in the policies of one chief constable and another in the 43 police authorities of England and Wales. It was said in the 15th century of the Lord Chancellor that equity varied as did the length of his foot. One could almost say that in certain areas—prosecutions in relation to obscene publications perhaps form the most notorious category—the situation varied as capriciously as did the length or breadth of the chief constable's foot.
Ideally and logically it would be right to draw the line between the police and the prosecutor immediately before a charge is laid, but I appreciate that that is something which many people have thought about deeply. My noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones says that he has had doubts about that. Indeed, speaking personally, I think that that is the situation of many of us. Nevertheless, it seems to me that if an independant prosecutor is to be brought in at a much earlier stage than envisaged by the Bill, he will be part of the investigative process. His function will be running parallel with that of the police. In itself that parallel factor would compromise the independence that he should otherwise enjoy. In my submission it would be totally self-defeating. It is a point that is put forward succinctly at paragraph 7.10 of the Royal Commission report.
May I make one point in relation to private prosecutions? I believe with my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones in his second thoughts on the matter, that there is a justification for maintaining

1059
ordinary private prosecutions. As we have heard, they represent about only 1 per cent. of the totality of prosecutions. They are confined almost to two exclusive categories: those shops and stores which for some reason wish to bring their own prosecutions for shoplifting rather than have the police do it; and quarrels between neighbours where is is felt that it would not be right for a public service to bring the prosecution.
But that does not dispose of the exclusions to the Bill. As we know, many other agencies prosecute—the Inland Revenue, the trades description departments, and so on. On reading the Royal Commission report I was astonished to find that about one-quarter of all crime committed by persons over the age of 17 is dealt with by way of such prosecutions. A substantial area of crime—I would calculate probably of the order of 18 per cent. to 20 per cent.—will not be covered by the provisions of the Bill. That is something which the House may wish to reflect on deeply at a later stage.
Clause 6, it seems to me, is strangely worded. There may well be a reason for that. It does not refer to the various public agencies as such. It says:
"Subject to subsection (2) below, nothing in this Part shall preclude any person from instituting any criminal proceedings".
Presumably the term "person" there includes a vast galaxy of bodies which at the moment enjoy and exercise the right of prosecution.
May I now come to what I regard as the real issue in relation to prosecutions. The question that will be paramount in people's minds years hence when they look back at the fortunes of this Bill in Parliament will be whether Parliament has chosen the right option. I am not at all sure that the options were quite as clear cut as they are set forward either in the Royal Commission's Report or indeed in the White Paper. They are three: totally local; totally national or a hybrid between the local and the national. I suspect that various compromises which do not fit exactly into any one of those fairly narrow channels are perfectly possible and indeed probably desirable.
With regard to the option that was chosen by the Government, I very much regret the fact that they chose this particular one. It seemed to me to be the weakest of all three. Indeed, as my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones has already pointed out, in their report they completely demolish the case for it. This House should always remember that there is no precedent for a national prosecution service in any country that is under a common law system.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, raises some very proper and real issues in relation to the problem of certain matters—and I am sure that the House totally agrees with him—of a delicate but nevertheless public nature, involving some very wide and complicated issues which should only be decided by the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General. However, with the greatest respect to the noble and learned Lord, I think that is only one side of the coin.
First, if it be that the House says, very well, it accepts those cases and they are cases which could only be decided at that level—accepting that they must be decided, so to speak, at a London level—then does it
1060
follow by any logic that all cases that are decidable either by the Director of Public Prosecutions or by the Attorney-General should necessarily be decided in the same way? In my submission, it certainly does not follow.
I understand from the research of the Royal Commission—and certainly not from my own knowledge or researches—that there are will over 100 cases in our statutes where such powers are exercisable. In my submission, in many, many cases it would be right and proper that that decision should be made at a local level. In other cases, of course, such as the instances cited by the noble and learned Lord, it will be at London level. It is not beyond the wit of this House or, surely, of the other place to write into the Bill a provision that there should be full consultation or indeed—probably more proper—that there should be a complete transfer of the authority to decide to the Director of Public Prosecutions in that particular case. I urge the House not to think that it is a choice between total London control and total local control as far as such decisions are concerned.
In my submission, the effect of the choice made by the Government is totally to destroy the independence of the Crown prosecutor locally. On the one hand they bestow upon him a very considerable independence—he is independent of the chief constable. At least that is the clear intention. I think that that intention could be greatly frustrated if they make the area, the terrain, the bailiwick of the Crown prosecutor co-terminous with that of the police authority. Have those two boundaries coincide and there is then the certainty that you bring those two bodies closer and closer together. The closer they are together in that physical sense, the less independent will one be of the other. But, even accepting that there is independence from the chief constable, what value has that independence if, at the end of the day, there is greater dependence upon the Director of Public Prosecutions? To use the language of the Royal Commission and the White Paper, the Crown prosecutor would be in direct line management in relation to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
There is very great disquiet felt and expressed by the Association of Prosecuting Solicitors for England and Wales. I have had the opportunity of discussing the matter with their President, Mr. Timmons. It is clear that they feel totally shattered about the decision made by the Government in this regard. They were assured that their status would be elevated, that their independence would be preserved. They envisaged that they would be on a par with procurators fiscal in Scotland but now they see their independence totally destroyed by the Bill as it now stands.
In the few more minutes that I intend to take of your Lordships' time—and I am sorry to have spoken for so long—may I now suggest how the Government might consider how this could be done without destroying in any way any of the main purposes of the Bill? First I think there should be specific authority in the Bill for there to be an office of Crown prosecutor at a local level; not something that is left to the whim or caprice of the Director of Public Prosecutions of the day but something that is a legal necessity.
Secondly,—and I have already touched upon this—I suggest that the areas should be different from, and in

1061
practice of course larger than, the police areas themselves. I envisage that it would not be impractical to think in terms of an area equivalent to two or three police areas. However, again, different circumstances will apply to different parts of England and Wales.
Thirdly, I suggest that the Crown prosecutor should be housed in buildings that are totally separate from police premises. In many cases now they share the same premises. That is fatal to any prospect of independence. Therefore, if no calculation has been made of the capital cost of such severance, I think it is high time that it should be done.
Fourthly, there should be protection given against any pressure in relation to dismissal that can be brought at local level. I shudder from quoting verses, as it were, in the presence of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate, but I understand that the procurator fiscal in Scotland is protected by the fact that he cannot be dismissed without the decision of high judicial officers. Would it not be right to give the Crown prosecutor in England and Wales the same right, protected, let us say, by the Lord Chancellor? Would it not be right to aim for a status for the Crown prosecutor roughly comparable with that of a circuit judge? After all, the authority that one bestows upon him is broadly comparable—although of course very different in many respects.
Lastly, may I make this suggestion? Is it not possible to set up an inspectorate that would provide an insulative layer of independence between the Director of Public Prosecutions, at the very apex of the pyramid, and the Crown prosecutors? In my days as a very junior Minister at the Home Office I was greatly impressed by the way in which the police inspectorate worked. I thought of it first, in all naivety and innocence, as being a link between the Home Office and the police and chief constables. It was not. It really was something that broke that link. I believe that such an inspectorate in relation to Crown prosecutors could achieve the same. The White Paper says that one could set up such an inspectorate for a sum between £260,000 and £340,000 per annum.
There are many other matters that I simply cannot refer to, but perhaps I may just mention Clause 22. That is a clause that has not had one good word spoken about it except by the noble Lord the Minister. As my noble and learned friend has said, the present Lord Chief Justice has, more than any of his predecessors, gone out of his way to lay down guidelines of policy in relation to sentencing in the context of many headings of various offences.
Secondly, the Judicial Studies Board has worked extremely hard over the last five or 10 years to see to it that judges at every level, including recorders, are well versed in the sentencing policy, so as to bring about, not uniformity—God forbid!—but a broad measure of sentencing consistency. In my submission, there has never been a period in relation to the administration of our criminal system when there was less need of the power that is given in this clause for the Attorney-General to bring such a matter before the Court of Appeal. It demeans the judiciary. It is totally unnecessary.
7 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I chiefly envy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is, of course, his lucidity and conciseness of expression. But on an occasion such as this I also envy, with rather greater fervour, his ability to summarise long and conflicting arguments that have gone before without having to marshal rather conflicting pieces of paper with which I, at least, inevitably become confused. I shall do my best to use these props to give a resonable performance. I did not take the encouragement which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, intended me to take from the pronouncement that this is not a political Bill. I have noticed over the years that that pronouncement is made in the most seductive tones on those occasions when noble Lords opposite hope that they can most regularly seduce the loyalty of those who sit behind me on the Benches on this side of the House.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: Unworthy, my Lords!
Lord Elton: However, we are dealing, are we not, my Lords, with what are strictly non-political matters. There has been general welcome for the separation of the powers to investigate and arrest, on the one hand, and the power to prosecute, on the other. That, I think, was a common starting point from which noble Lords radiated at different points in our journey. Many of your Lordships felt that local interest must be preserved. The Government agree with that. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was anxious that the status of the local man should be enshrined in statute. He was not alone in that. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, quoted his valuable experience in the homeland of separated powers, the United States of America. His advice is that both control and accountability should rest with the local authority. In case I should misbehave myself in his absence, he has left the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to supervise me, which, as we have seen on another Bill, he is well able to do.
Your Lordships have been at pains to emphasise that our discussions on these matters are non-political and that the matters themselves are very strictly non-political. Indeed, it must be a prime concern, must it not, of all of us to keep politics out of the operation of the law. There can be no doubt about that. We have no extant example of a prosecution service accountable to a local authority in this country. Questions of prosecution are for chief constables. In this, they are not answerable to the police authorities. But the police authority is the nearest that we have to the sort of body that we would have to create if we were to have local accountability to the local authority, or in which the local authority was involved.
I really pause, with a certain amount of wonder and apprehension, at the enthusiasm of noble Lords who say that all this is a sacredly non-political matter and that we must keep politics out of it, when I consider what police authorities have done, and in particular, for instance, what the South Yorkshire police authority have recently done in the conduct of their responsibilities in another area that is supposed to be strictly non-political and which has had to be brought to the attention not only of my right honourable friend

1063
but also of the courts. That seems to me to show that that sort of authority need not forever be a bastion of apolitical justice.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, looking at the alternatives, said that no government Minister should have a hand in the decision whether or not to prosecute. The structure of responsibility for policy will, with modest adjustments, remain the same as it now is for cases taken up by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He is already responsible to the same person as is proposed in the Bill, a Law Officer of the Crown, the Attorney-General. The difference will be that under the new system his report will be laid before Parliament.
So I do not think that I can safely encourage your Lordships to disregard both what I have said in this matter and the powerful arguments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and retreat to the local strongholds in which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, would like us to consign these matters and where, as he points out, they have safely resided for 500 years. Nor could we contemplate leaving the prosecuting solicitors under an obligation to accept instructions from the police, which is something that it would be difficult to avoid if we rested on a local system. For me, therefore, the local authority control does not seem appropriate. If, as the Royal Commission advise—and we wholeheartedly agree with them in this—responsibility for policy and for resources must be kept together, this points towards central authority. Our concern must therefore be to secure, nonetheless, a proper reflection of local needs.
That brings us to the question of the status and degree of independence of local Crown prosecutors. For much of your Lordships' reassurance I must ask you to wait for the White Paper, which many of your Lordships have rightly said will be of great importance in informing the House on this matter. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said that the need for liaison between the local prosecutor and the police is essential, and he referred to the experience of the district attorney system in the United States. He argued that this militates against a centralised national system. I can tell the noble and learned Lord, through his monitor, that with the degree of devolution proposed by the Government there is nothing to prevent close and, if necessary, instant liaison between the police and the local Crown prosecutor. Local officers of the new service will deal with the vast majority of cases and will be located close to the courts and the police with whom they will work.
Let me therefore reassure the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, that a national service does not mean a centralised one. It is, as I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech, our firm intention to devolve decision-taking to the local level to the maximum extent possible. We propose that the Attorney-General will lay down guidelines on the policy, but their application to individual cases will be left to officers who will be based locally.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the guidelines from the Attorney-General be published, or will they be interdepartmental and private?
Lord Elton: My Lords. I shall endeavour to come to that in my concluding remarks. My right honourable friend's White Paper will, I hope, take care of much of this.
I pass, then, to the areas to which the Crown prosecutors will be appointed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. asked me about this. The local organisation of the service is one of the matters being considered by the management consultants. Account will be taken of their recommendations when we decide this. Subject to what they advise, the general intention is to appoint a Crown prosecutor for each of the 43 police areas of England and Wales. There may be opportunity to combine smaller areas, but that is our intention in principle. The Bill allows flexibility for the future, but there is no intention at present of moving to any different basis of organisation, such as circuits.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked why, in Clause 3(2)(a), it is foreseen that the police will continue to institute proceedings. It was the Royal Commission which recommended that the initial discretion whether to prosecute should remain with the police. The Government's proposals follow that recommendation. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on reflection, agrees that this should remain in the Bill, if I have understood him aright. This requires the continuing responsibility of the police for law enforcement, and represents the clearest point at which the dividing line can be drawn between the responsibility for prosecution, on the one hand, and for investigation, on the other.
As to the status of the people running the system, generally speaking Crown servant status is suitable for staff who do not form part of a service which is subject to guidance on questions of legality or merits from anyone at the centre. But the Royal Commission specifically criticised the prosecution arrangements we have now because they did not secure accountability. The commission were also concerned that there should be no separation between responsibility for resources and for policy. This would be the case if, as Crown servants, officers of the new service were to be, say, accountable to a local authority for resources but subject to the Attorney-General's guidelines on prosecution policy.
To continue with matters concerning the staff, the Working Party on Prosecution Arrangements, whose report is annexed to the White Paper of October 1983—by Committee I hope we shall have a shorter name for this august body—held discussions with the Prosecuting Solicitors' Society, with the National Association of Prosecuting Solicitors' Staff, with NALGO and with the Council of Civil Service Unions. The Home Office has since kept in touch with these bodies, and the Government's proposals for conditions of transfer to the new service have been discussed with them. This will continue in the future. This is necessarily a continuing process and it is natural that the staff concerned are disappointed not to have been presented with a complete package of proposals at the outset; but I am afraid that that would not be possible.
My noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve asked whether pay levels would be the same in the new

1065
service as are currently enjoyed by staff in prosecuting solicitors' departments. Pay levels in the new service will depend on decisions yet to be taken, such as the grading structure of the new service, in the light of the advice we expect to get from the management consultancy. In making those decisions Ministers will have very much in mind the need for an adequate number of staff of sufficiently high calibre to enable the service to fulfil its statutory duties. Because staff in the new service will be civil servants with a unified pay and career structure some change from the present variety of local authority pay levels will be inevitable, but there will be consultation with the staff concerned about how the transition from current to future arrangements is to be achieved fairly and consistently.
Still on matters of staff as I understood him, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked for reassurance that the total period of employment of a member of staff would aggregate among different periods of previous employment. It is the intention that periods of previous employment with local authorities should be aggregated for the purposes of the subsection—that is, subsection 5(b) of Clause 10—and we shall be looking closely at the drafting to ensure that that result is secured.
Your Lordships were concerned about certain aspects of our proposals for dealing with costs under the new system. This is a matter which will be dealt with, with much greater familiarity and authority, by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he joins us in Committee, than I can offer your Lordships now. I should not mislead your Lordships. I do not mean the matter of costs in the Bill, but the cost of the system. I jumped the lines, as it were, as a railway train, in my speech. There are two sorts of costs. The cost of running the service that we have proposed I believe flows naturally from what we propose for the Crown Prosecution Service, but it does require some peripheral advantages to the system at the same time. As to the matter of costs in Part II of the Bill, that will be dealt with by my noble and learned friend.
I shall also be very eager for his support in the matter of referral of over-lenient sentences, for reasons which became increasingly obvious during this debate. As a layman (and I can claim to be no more) I can say that to laymen—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was kind enough to say that this was a matter in which laymen should be concerned—this does seem an eminently sensible provision. It will provide an opportunity for the law, as the layman broadly generalises all the institutions of criminal justice in the country, either to allay his fears that it is inadequate to its purposes if they are falsely aroused, or to assure him that the inadequacy, if it does exist, is recognised and will not therefore be repeated. That seems to laymen—indeed, to Her Majesty's Government—a wholesome and desirable thing.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, asked who would speak for the defendant the judge. The defendant will be entitled to have, if he wishes, legal representation at public expense, as provided for in subsections (2)(b) and 3. That is the same as when his case is referred to the Court of Appeal after acquittal, on a point of law; so we are
1066
following that precedent there. He also asked about the role of prosecuting counsel in relation to references to the Court of Appeal, given the Bar's code of conduct which precludes advocacy on sentencing matters. The Government do not expect that Clause 22 will make any difference to the role of prosecuting counsel at the trial, which is what the relevant part of the Bar's code of conduct relates to. When a case comes before the Court of Appeal on a reference, counsel appearing on behalf of the Attorney-General will need to state the facts of the case and to refer the court to the general sentencing principles established in previous judgments. It is the view of my right honourable friend that this involves no improper extension of counsels' role in relation to sentencing.
The same noble and learned Lord asked about anonymity. That will be a matter for rules of court, as it now is for reference of points of law under Section 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972. The intention is to safeguard it where that is feasible, but that may not be feasible or sensible in cases which have already received publicity. The best course may well be to leave it to the discretion of the court.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, asked whether, if the Court of Appeal took the view that a sentence of two years should have been six, the Parole Board should take account of this. Our view is that the outcome of the reference to the Court of Appeal should in itself make no difference, although the Parole Board should take account, as they now do, of the gravity of the offence to the same extent as they would had that pronouncement not been made. All this refers to the referral of over-lenient sentences. There is, I suppose, one modest paradox in the position of those who do not like what we propose to do, because a good deal of the objection seems to rest upon the undesirability of exposing a decision of a judge with which senior judges disagree and which may or may not have alarmed the public. That sounds to a layman very much like saying, "If it's a mistake, it's an embarrassing one and it should be left alone". But I put that remark with the humility of a layman, and if it is offensive to noble and learned Lords they will remember that it was I who made it and not my noble and learned friend who will take this cause from my hands shortly.
In conclusion on that subject, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave an example from his vast experience of a sentence which he gave which appeared to the gallery and to the media to be too short. He suggested that the gallery and the media did not know what they were talking about because they did not know what the noble and learned Lord knew when he passed the sentence. In what we propose the review will not be by an ignorant gallery and a clamorous media; it will be by the Court of Appeal, who will know the facts of the case. That satisfies me as a layman, and it will, as I say, take my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is very far from being a layman, to convince noble and learned Members of your Lordships' House otherwise.
I now move fairly quickly and appropriately to time limits. I think that our discussions on those parts of the Bill had a certain air of familiarity which was nicely picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, fresh from long discussions your Lordships had on the

1067
time limits in custody, access at what point in time to legal advice, for how long incommunicado, and the issue of codes of practice; so there is a certain similarity between the topics. But I hope that familiarity with the nature of the issues will not lead us to feel that the issues themselves are entirely similar. I am certain that all of us start from the common ground that scrutiny to curtail avoidable delays imposed on the progress of cases by the prosecution is indeed desirable.
The noble Lord asked for the intention behind regulations which may apply only in specified areas and which make different provision in relation to different areas. It is simply to allow for the maximum of flexibility so that the statutory scheme can take full account of the practical lessons which will be learnt from the field trials. As is well known, Crown Court delays in London are now much longer than elsewhere. Time limits which allowed for London problems could be too lax to be effective elsewhere. So there must be power to differentiate between, for instance, London and the provinces. This is the main example illustrating the need for differentiation, but it may indeed not be the only one.
In response to a pertinent inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, may I also say that the Home Secretary intends to make rules under Section 48 of the Criminal Law Act 1977 which, with effect from May 1985, will require the prosecution case to be disclosed before the trial of an offence in a magistrates' court, which could, if the defendant wished, be tried on indictment. We agree with the noble Lord that this should encourage defendants and thus advisers to go for trial by magistrates.
With a few exceptions, I have dealt with as many of the points that your Lordships have raised as I think can be contained within the scope of this speech from this Box. I shall try to deal with the remainder by correspondence and leave the correspondence on the record in the Library of the House, as is now becoming our established practice.
I cannot leave the Box, however, without referring to three matters which your Lordships have raised. One was foreshadowed, if I may so put it, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, who had obviously taken tea with my noble friend Lady Faithfull at a prudent time before these exchanges. The point was then elaborated by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and echoed by my noble friend Lady Macleod. It touches on juveniles. I am glad that my noble friend and her allies drew the attention of the House to the important implications of the creation of the new service for cases involving juveniles. She was kind enough to send my colleague at the Home Office an interesting memorandum on the matter, to which I understand he has recently replied; it may be so recently that my noble friend has not yet received it. I must say that the Government do not see the Bill as an occasion for more far-reaching changes in the arrangements for dealing with juvenile offenders as would be implied, for example, by a move towards the Scottish system of children's hearings, which I know that my noble friend finds attractive.
However, I can assure her that both we and the Director of Public Prosecutions are very much seized
1068
of the special considerations affecting cases involving juveniles and the need to bear them in mind. The diversion of juveniles from the criminal justice system altogether, where possible, remains an important feature of our approach. Under the new arrangements the police will have the same discretion as now to administer a caution rather than initiate proceedings, and before long we shall be issuing guidelines designed to bring about more consistent practice in this area. Where the police do decide to refer a case to the prosecutor, he will act as an additional filter. The setting up of the new service may not represent the radical change which my noble friend would seek, but I hope that she will accept that it should lead to more consistent practice in this area, and is to be welcomed on that account.
Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in particular asked on what principle is the right of private prosecution founded.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I asked on what principle it was impaired. I know what principle on which it is founded, which is a fundamental constitutional principle of individual liberty based on the rule of law. I wanted to know on what principle it had been impaired.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has—temporarily at least—the advantage over me because in my present state of knowledge I cannot tell him. I was about to tell him why it was important to preserve it, but I gladly understand that that is a work of supererogation. If I am better able to say something useful in a moment, I shall do; otherwise, blushing, I move on to the next fragment of knowledge that I have before me.
The only remaining matter—and I want to sit down in a moment—is that of security of tenure. The new service is to be an integrated national one accountable through the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Attorney-General. Although in practice staff in the new service will have a great deal of local autonomy, they will be in the same position as other civil servants—accountable through their Minister to Parliament. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to accord them special status as regards security of tenure. This has never been thought necessary in relation to the director himself.
The arrangements for the procurators fiscal in Scotland are of course the product of a different historical tradition and represent a different form of service from the integrated one that we propose in England and Wales. I should remind your Lordships that not all who prosecute in Scotland are procurators fiscal. Many are deputies and assistants and they also do not have the same security of tenure. I can tell the noble and learned Lord in a late addition that it is not the Attorney-General's present intention to publish the guidelines to which he referred, but aspects of prosecution policy are an appropriate matter for my right honourable friend's accountability to Parliament, including the annual report.
I hope that I have been able to reassure your Lordships on some of the points that have been raised. I shall forgo my great peroration. I shall merely say that we have a Bill which is designed to bring about

1069
three reassuring and useful reforms to our system of justice in this country. I think that your Lordships are all agreed that the direction of the Bill is right. In most respects it is only questions of how the direction is achieved about which your Lordships have reservations. The principal reservation about direction itself of course is the matter of the referral of apparently over-lenient cases to the appeal court. That most difficult of points will be taken on by a more skilful, powerful and persuasive figure than myself. My job is simply to ask your Lordships to give the Bill, which is a sensible and reassuring Bill, a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down—and I know that he wants to sit down—may I ask him whether there is any prospect of getting the White Paper at any stage during the consideration of the Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, if my noble friend will permit me to answer the question, which I have already put on the record, it is our intention to have it before your Lordships before the Committee stage.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am very much obliged to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Commission's Powers of Investigation and Inspection: ECC Report
7.29 p.m.
Lord Scarman Lord Scarman rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Commission's Powers of Investigation and Inspection (18th Report, 1983–84, H.L. 220).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the House takes note of the European Communities Committee report on the powers of investigation and inspection vested in the European Commission. This is a substantial report. With its two supplements, its three annexes and its minutes of evidence, it constitutes a comprehensive review—perhaps the very first comprehensive review—of the existing and proposed powers of the European Commission to investigate and inspect undertakings in the member states of the European Community with a view to the enforcement and application of the policies and rules of the Common Market.
The report not only reviews those powers: it examines the safeguards against their abuse which are to be found, or indeed ought to be found, in Community law and in the law of the United Kindom, and it makes proposals for maintaining and strengthening safeguards against abuse of these extensive powers. The proposals, which are to be found at the end of the report, are some of them addressed not to the Government of the United Kingdom but to the authorities of the European Communities, and particularly to the European Commission. Those proposals, with which I shall deal shortly in the course
1070
of presenting the report, have been put informally by my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and by myself on a visit to the Commission in Brussels. We understand—of course, informally—that those proposals, by and large, are accepted by the Commission as reasonable. That is a satisfactory situation.
The report also contains proposals which are directed both to the authorities of the European Community and to Her Majesty's Government. These proposals are concerned with the enforcement of Community law relating to these powers of investigation and inspection inside the United Kingdom. My noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and I have also discussed these powers informally with officers of the Commission in Brussels. We understand that, if it appears satisfactory to the Government of the United Kingdom, the Commission, though they have some misgivings about these proposals, are prepared to give them a try. Therefore, one purpose of this debate will be to see whether Her Majesty's Government are prepared to indicate that they support the proposals contained in this report which deal with the enforcement of Community law inside the United Kingdom.
Before I come to the matters with which the report deals, it is my pleasure, as the then chairman of the legal sub-committee of the Select Committee on the European Communities, to express the gratitude of the Select Committee and its appreciation to all those who assisted the sub-committee in the considerable effort involved in the preparation of this report. I should like the House to know that the report could not have been prepared without the help of those who gave evidence or of our dedicated legal and administrative staff, and without the indispensable assistance of those officers of the European Commission who assisted us in our deliberations.
When one comes to the matter for debate, one starts with this position. The committee has accepted the need for these powers of investigation and inspection, and the need is this. The European Commission is the executive arm of the European Community. Its task is to ensure that the policies and the rules of the Common Market are applied throughout the Common Market; that is to say, inside all the member states.
These policies and rules are essential to the development of the Common Market. They consist of such things as the development of the agricultural policy; freedom of competition within the Common Market; the collection of the revenues called "own resources" of the Community inside the member states—that is to say, revenue arising from customs duties, agricultural levies, and VAT. It is plain that if the Common Market is to develop and is to remain sufficiently established to be effective, then these major policies and rules of law to be found in the treaties and in the regulations made under the treaties must be applied, and it is the Commission's task (and I quote the Treaty):
"to ensure that the provisions of the Treaty, and the measures taken by the institutions of the Common Market, are applied throughout the member states".
Your Lordships will appreciate that the Commission cannot possibly satisfy itself that the

1071
policies and rules of the Common Market are being applied without powers of investigation and inspection. It is for that reason that the committee tackled its task by first of all accepting as a matter of principle that such powers are necessary. The committee also accepted, after due study, that there are certain rules of Community law. Of course, your Lordships will appreciate that Community law is, by the European Communities Act 1972, part of the law of the United Kingdom, and it is accepted that there are certain principles of Community law which have to be observed.
There are two principles which are relevant to a consideration of the Commission's powers of investigation and inspection. The first is that the lawfulness or otherwise of the regulations and decisions made by the European Commission are a matter, not ultimately for the courts of the member states but for the European Court of Justice. That is to say, whether the power is necessary for the purposes of the regulation is a question of law for the European Court of Justice, not for our courts. Our courts may have to rule on it, but they themselves are bound to accept the ruling of the European Court of Justice as to whether the powers are necessary. It is the duty of the European Court of Justice under the Treaty to interpret and apply Community law.
The second principle—and this is the principle which is critical to the matters discussed in the report—is that, although the European Court of Justice has the duty of safeguarding the law in the European treaties, the enforcement of Community law within the member states is to be governed by the law of each member state. So one has this position: the European Court of Justice, if there be a challenge, decides whether a specific power of investigation or inspection of the records of commercial undertakings or Government departments is necessary. When the power is exercised it has to be exercised inside a member state, whether the power be exercised against a commercial undertaking or, in theory, against a government department. At that moment the exercise is controlled by the national law.
This report is essentially concerned with the problems of the exercise and enforcement of the powers of investigation and inspection for the various purposes of the Community within one member state, the United Kingdom. I emphasise that the report is not concerned with other aspects of Community law relating to powers of investigation and inspection. In particular, the report is not concerned with the difficulty—at any rate the difficulty very apparent to common law eyes—that the Commission has to carry the roles of legislator, prosecutor and judge in respect of many matters concerned with the exercise of these powers. Of course, those three roles, which it seems to us quite impossible to vest in one body, are vested in one body, subject always to review by the European Court of Justice.
We are not concerned with that. That difficulty has indeed been considered by the Select Committee in the past. Your Lordships will find it in the Eighth Report of the Select Committee of the 1981–82 Session of Parliament under the title Competition Practice. We made then certain proposals and I shall not further refer to them.
So I come to the exercise of the powers of investigation and inspection in the United Kingdom. The first finding which the sub-committee made, and which the Select Committee has endorsed in its report, is that upon the evidence given to the sub-committee the exercise of the various powers of investigation and inspection vested in the European Commission, exercised in this country, creates no problems of principle at all. The powers are necessary. They are exercised reasonably and upon proper notice to Government departments and to other persons affected. The great majority of the powers are based not on compulsion but on consent and co-operation.
Problems only arise where there are grounds for believing that a commercial undertaking may be in breach of its obligations under Community law: for example, in competition law when an undertaking is suspected of entering into an agreement or participating in a concerted practice the object of which is to restrict competition in the Common Market, or in the anti-dumping law, where dumping is suspected. Of course, the Commission can only get at the truth in such cases if it has a power to investigate the commercial undertaking and to inspect its records.
Two powers are essential if the Commission is able to carry out a proper inspection in the cases that I have mentioned: first, the power to make an unannounced or surprise investigation into the undertaking; and, secondly, the power to effect entry into the premises of the undertaking if the investigation is obstructed. Of course, the surprise investigation will take place in the United Kindom, and of course if entry is to be effected by compulsion, that also will be taking place in the United Kingdom.
I will take the surprise or unannounced investigation first. Every investigation under the competition laws of the Community has to be authorised by the Commission itself. But authorisation of the investigation is not binding upon the commercial undertaking to be investigated unless the authorisation itself is made by a formal decision taken by the Commission under Article 189 of the Treaty.
In practice the Commission invariably authorises surprise or unannounced investigations of commercial undertakings by a formal decision. A formal decision is an act contemplated and provided for in the Treaty of Rome. Appeal lies against that decision to the European Court of Justice, but, under European Community law, the decision remains operative until the European Court has pronounced upon it. This is absolutely useless for the protection of a commercial undertaking against whom the power is being execised.
The Select Committee reached the conclusion that, while we have to accept that this is sound Community law binding in this country, yet we can propose, and we have proposed, certain improvements in the Community law. If there be a decision (so far as I know there never yet has been a decision) to investigate residential as contrasted with commercial premises—as everyone in the Inland Revenue knows, commercial documents do have a way of finding a pleasant hiding place in madame's boudoir—the Select Committee thinks that this should be authorised by a collective decision of the whole Commission.
But, secondly, and of more immediate and practical

1073
importance, we think that the authorisations embodied in the decision, a copy of which has to be shown to the commercial undertaking, should be much more informative than at present they are. It should indicate to the commercial undertaking the purpose of the investigation, the range of documents which it is desired to inspect, and so on. We think that if those two proposals are accepted—and, as I have indicated we have reason to believe that the Commission will accept them—then the surprise or unannounced investigation becomes acceptable, bearing in mind the necessity for such types of investigation.
The next problem is where there is obstruction by the undertaking to the investigation. Here, the Community law is quite clear. Member states are required to afford the Commission's officials the necessary assistance. Of course, the Commission may fine an undertaking which resists the investigation, and that fine is subject to appeal to the European Court of Justice. But the fining power is of no value to the Commission if it has grounds for believing that it must investigate the undertaking and inspect its documents. How, then, is the Commission to overcome, inside the member state, the resistance of the undertaking to its investigation?
The duty imposed upon the United Kingdom by Community law is that the United Kingdom is to assist the Commission to carry out its investigation. In some member states such assistance is provided upon the say-so of the Commission given to the police; and, without any more ado, the police force an entry for the officials of the Commission into the premises of the undertaking. But this, of course, is not our way of doing things. In the United Kingdom we require the intervention of a court before a forcible entry or search or seizure can be permitted.
It is here that in the preparation of this report the sub-committee had considerable discussions with officers of the European Commission. At the outset of the preparation of this report the officers of the Commission were disposed to take the view that United Kingdom courts had no business to decide whether or not there should be a compulsory entry into the premises of a resisting undertaking. They thought that that was entirely a matter for the Commission and for the administrative authorities of the United Kingdom acting consistently with the duty imposed upon them (as they saw it) by Community law. But my noble and learned friend Lord Templeman and myself did manage to persuade the officers of the Commission that our system of warrants and injunctions works well and speedily, and, strangely enough, secretly up to the point of entry. Of course, the commercial undertaking has its rights to oppose it, but an ex parte injunction can be obtained and the argument can go on later as to whether it was lawfully or unlawfully granted.
In the result, the Commission, or the officers of the Commission, were disposed to accept that the United Kingdom system of judicial authorisation for the exercise of compulsory powers of entry and search would probably work. But it was not just an argument that we had about whether it would work. We represented to the Commission as a matter of
1074
Community law that the Commission had to accept, inside the member state, the member state's accepted methods of enforcement. Therefore, there is a very strong position here which the United Kingdom, I would suggest to Her Majesty's Government, must not abandon: that in matters of this sort we do it upon the authority of a judge, and that is the way we enforce these powers. If one sticks to that line, there is no legal answer that can be given, as I understand Community law, to our practice of requiring judicial intervention before compulsory powers can be exercised.
That really is the most important matter dealt with in the report. At the end of the report we make a number of proposals. They will be found in the Summary of Conclusions beginning at paragraph 50, and, although I have already been on my feet for a very long time, I make no apology because these matters require explanation. Otherwise, the House has no opportunity of forming a view. I will deal shortly with some of the proposals there to be found which I have not dealt with in the body of my speech.
We have said in paragraph 57 that advance notice should be the normal requirement before the exercise of a power of investigation. Certainly, advance notice is usually given by the Commission both to the appropriate Government department and to the undertaking to be investigated. We say that it should become a firm practice save in those cases where the unannounced or surprise investigation is necessary. We say that officials of the Commission should not exercise inside the United Kingdom powers of investigation and inspection save with the assistance of officers of the appropriate British Government department. We have found in evidence that it is a very great satisfaction to commercial undertakings faced with a notice of the exercise of such a power that there is present during the inspection, and so forth, an officer of the appropriate British Government department—and, of course, it means that there will be co-operation between Government departments of the United Kingdom and the Commission in the application of these powers in the United Kingdom. We make a specific recommendation in regard to residential premises. I have mentioned it. It is very important in the long term, but the problem has not yet arisen in practice.
The report deals in considerable detail with those documents which must be disclosed to the Commission's inspectors and those for which a claim of privilege or confidentiality can be met. I am glad to say that community law now recognises the existence of legal professional privilege and will give effect to it. The European Court decision on that is perhaps not all that we would want, but the hour is late and it is only a matter of detail.
Finally, one proposal which I have not discussed is as follows.
A grievence which is stongly felt by commercial undertakings in the United Kingdom about these investigations and inspections where there is a suspicion in the Commission's mind of a breach of the competition rules is that the inspectors descend upon them, the investigation takes place, the inspectors go away and the undertakings never hear what the result is. This of course is not merely a maddening irritation: it can be a frustration of genuine commercial

1075
enterprise because the undertakings wish to know whether their agreements and whether their concerted practices—if there are such—or their other activities are a breach of the competition rules. They are left in a state of uncertainly for a very considerable time. I think that our proposal that there should be a notification as soon as possible and not less than a year after the investigation is the very minumum required to get rid of a very dangerous commercial uncertainty.
My Lords, that is the report. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to say that they accept the substance of these proposals and will protect the United Kingdom enforcement procedures in the Common Market. Finally, as a lawyer, I can say that it will be a tremendous wrench from all our common law principles if judicial intervention before the exercise of compulsory power is discarded. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on the Commission's Powers of Investigation and Inspection. (18th Report, 1983–84, HL 220.)—(Lord Scarman.)
8.2 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his colleagues for their careful and comprehensive study and for their substantial recommendations. I wish also to thank the noble and learned chairman for his explanation this evening in a notable speech, as one would expect.
In reviewing the extensive powers of investigation and inspection available to the Commission officers and in examining the safeguards, the Committee was reviewing a highly sensitive area on the borderline of public enforcement of Community legislation—regulations, directives, decisions—and private confidentiality. There is much ignorance among the general public—and indeed if I may say so among legal traditions—as to the existence, let alone the precise extent, of the powers of the Commission, which enable it to obtain information on the spot in our country in order to satisfy itself that Commission policies are being implemented in this country.
I am sure that it will come as a surprise to many people, if they have forgotten the Opposition speeches of 1972 when the European Communities Bill was before Parliament, to read that the Commission's decision to exercise its power of investigation and inspection cannot be challenged in the courts of the land. Neither can the powers of investigation be challenged, as I understand it, as being a possible breach of the European Convention on Human Rights because the European Community is not a contracting party to the convention, and the treaties establishing the Community contain no fundamental rights or safeguards to protect the individual citizen or commercial undertaking in the face of the official power of the Commission.
As I understand it, no code of such rights or safeguards was provided because the treaties were seen primarily as being instruments of economic integration between states. But experience has shown that the European Court of Justice has had from the outset to
1076
deal with cases in which individual citizens claimed that some Community legislation had violated a fundamental right previously guaranteed by the constitution, the legislation or the courts of the member state.
However, I must return to the subject matter of the report: the powers of investigation and inspection of the Commission. In the light of the Committee's report, and having regard to the evidence of our own ears from time to time, it appears to me that there are three main questions. First, does the average commercial undertaking or the citizen know what are the investigatory powers of the Commission which can be exercised in this country? I fear that the answer is no. The citizen cannot find in his local public library the legislation, the regulations and the decisions which confer these powers on the Commission. He will probably fare no better if he calls on his local solicitor. So there should be a clear text in clear language available in the public library and available in most solicitors' offices, of the powers which the Commission can exercise and which can affect our basic rights.
The Committee have now placed before us in a single document—and I think this is for the first time—a list of all the existing and proposed Community legislation which contains powers of investigation and inspection. Indeed, I counted about 30 pieces of legislation, current or proposed. It is rather interesting that of the 30 pieces, about one-third are proposals. That gives us an indication of the rate of growth of Community legislation and its likely impact on member states.
As I say, we now have in this report a list of all the current powers and the proposed powers which are available to the Commission. Should not the Commission arrange for this list, which is to be found in Annexe II, to be published in the official journal of the Community? Could it be circulated to the Law Society, which, in turn, could publish the list in the Law Gazette, and should it not be distributed in the public libraries? It can be argued that exact knowledge of the extent of the Commission's powers, put in readable guidance material, would be one of the best safeguards against the abuse of these powers.
I now come to my second question. Is there in this country dissatisfaction with the Commission's powers of investigation? The Government departments in the United Kingdom which gave evidence to the committee do not voice any criticism of the way in which the Commission's officers have exercised their powers of investigation, which is reassuring, and the Community officers who gave evidence to the committee were frank and helpful. The Commission itself has no complaints to make about the inspections which it has so far conducted in the United Kingdom, but it acknowledged that it is aware of the criticism voiced about the exercise of the power contained in Article 14 of Regulation 17/62.
But it is when we read the evidence of the CBI and of the joint working party of lawyers, particularly in the competition field, that we pick up the whiff of criticism or complaint. Indeed, the written evidence of the CBI gives concrete examples of difficulties which have arisen in the competition field. After 12 years of membership of the Community, the CBI complained that the full extent of the Commission's investigatory

1077
powers was still not clear to them and they argued that the powers were sometimes too vague and imprecise. They said that they should be clarified and made more precise. The joint working party of the Law Society, and the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar, go along with this criticism and they ask that the relevant provisions should be brought together and spelled out in one specific regulation. So there is evidence of some dissatisfaction and of complaints in the competition field.
I now turn to my third question which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has really answered: what improvements are called for? The committee, in addressing itself to the complaints which it had heard, made about a dozen main recommendations. I have read and reread the report and it appears to me that the main recommendations meet the edge of all the criticism of which the Committee became aware. It has recommended in very clear language that, in general, there should be no right of entry by force in the United Kingdom, unless that is authorised by judicial authority in the member state. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has underlined this evening that this is a fundamental principle which must be respected by the Community. The document authorising the investigation is obviously a key document, which cannot be challenged or examined by the national authorities or the national courts, and it is strongly recommended that it should not be issued unless at least one commissioner has examined personally the material upon which the proposal is based.
We read in the evidence of, in particular, the CBI that there is a strongly held view that the Commission document authorising the investigation is in itself incomplete. It is not clear from reading the authorisation document what falls within and what without the bounds of the investigation. We have heard that the committee has accepted this criticism and that it has recommended that the maximum possible information about the scope and objectives of the investigation should be included in the authorisation document and, where possible, that the documents which are to be produced should also be clearly specified. Again, the committee has recommended that advance notice of the investigation should always be given to the member state, and should, wherever possible, be given to the commercial undertaking, while acknowledging that there must be cases where an unannounced visit is essential.
At the end of his speech this evening, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, came to the question of the long wait, and there is grievance over the long delay in notifying a company which has been investigated of the outcome of the investigation—delay which leads to uncertainty, frustration and possibly to damage, although there is no known evidence of damage. I noticed in the evidence that the noble and learned Chairman pressed the Brussels officer about the delay and the officer candidly replied that the point had some merit and went on to promise, "I shall give careful consideration to it". The committee must have considered this to be one of the large issues before it, because it called for a major reform of the Commission's practice in this respect. It said that the Commission should report as soon as
1078
possible and not later than within one year after the investigation.
There is considerable dissatisfaction among businessmen and lawyers about the Commission's attitude towards the ancient doctrine of legal professional privilege—a principle unstated in the treaties or in Regulation 17/62. I remember reading in 1978 a written reply by the Commission to the European Parliament, when the Commission stated that the Community did not provide for any protection for legal papers. We know that in 1982 the European Court of Justice recognised within narrow confines the principle of protection of written communications between lawyer and client, and the committee accepts that the court's interpretation is too narrow and is more restricted than United Kingdom law.
The obligation of confidentiality is another important matter to which the committee has attached importance. The commercial undertaking which is under scrutiny must be assured that the information which becomes available to the Community's inspector will not be used for a purpose unrelated to the investigation. The Committee asks that this safeguard should be specifically recognised in all Community instruments conferring powers of investigation, and emphasises that energetic steps should also be taken to ensure that this safeguard is implemented. We were gratified to learn that the committee has found no evidence that residential premises have been searched by a Brussels official, but we have been told this evening that the position could change in the long term. I am sure that there would be deep resentment in this country if a Brussels officer knocked on the door of a private house and insisted upon entry. The committee has given very wise advice to the Commission; to consider with great care how, and under what conditions, its inspectors should seek to enter homes in our country, and has said that such an inspection should be undertaken only exceptionally, and then with the collective authority of the whole Commission.
The committee's proposals and recommendations are now on record. We would say to the Commission, in no spirit of hostility, that we hope they will adopt them. We have heard this evening from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that the response in Brussels has been favourable. We hope that the Government will press these proposals upon the Commission and take whatever steps the Government should take in order to protect our citizens.
We are grateful to the committee for having examined carefully this sensitive area and for having produced substantial recommendations which will go a long way towards safeguarding our citizens.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his committee for their important work. At the end of their report they say:
"The Commission's powers of investigation and inspection raise important questions of policy and principle".
They recommended this report to the House for debate. It is right that it should be debated. It should

1079
be made known that Community law takes precedence over our own law. If our own law is inconsistent with it, Community law prevails. There have already been cases in which our trade union laws were held to be contrary to Community law. Certain of our statutes were held to be inconsistent with Community law and they were overruled. Community law is supreme over our own law.
It is all very well to say that the Community law should be placed in our libraries so that solicitors may have access to it. It is no good putting it there. The treaties, regulations, directives, precedents and decisions of the European Court fill volumes. No ordinary person can find out what Community law is. Nor can ordinary solicitors or counsel find out what it is. A specialist in Community law is required, yet Community law is superior to our own law.
What is this Community law? Much of it is unknown to us. If a British company is accused of being in a dominant position and therefore of exercising unfair competition, it can be brought before the Commission, and eventually before the European Court, and the law of the Community must be enforced. The same applies to quotas: Community law must be enforced. If the Commission say that one of our large companies—ICI, for example—is guilty of unfair competition or is abusing its dominant position, they can say that they want to be provided with all the documents of ICI in order to find out whether the company has launched an undercutting programme. The Commission has authority to require all the papers to be produced. The Commission is not obliged to hear an application by the company which is being investigated before it makes an order for an investigation or inspection. If a company should object, the Commission have the right of entry in order to enforce their decision. That is contrary to all our procedures.
My noble and learned friend Lord Scarman told your Lordships that the method of enforcing Community law is left to the courts of this country. I believe that my noble and learned friend said the Commission wanted the Board of Trade, or whoever it might be, to enforce Community law but the Commission were persuaded that enforcement must be through the machinery of the laws of this country. I would suggest that it must be sanctioned only by the courts of law, not through any administrative agency or through the Board of Trade.
I make no distinction between a law which is opposed and a law which is unopposed. Advance information is required before a charge is made. I suggest that there must be safeguards in our English law regarding the powers of investigation. Before any complaint is brought there must be authorisation to investigate the books and go through them. There must be a safeguard before the Commission exercise any of their powers of investigation and inspection. They should be required to go before a judge of the High Court and satisfy him about what Community law is on the matter. It should not be left to an individual to go to his solicitor to find out what the law is. The Commission must go before a judge of our High Court, produce their Community laws and satisfy the judge that there is a genuine need for an urgent
1080
investigation to be made. In other words, the investigation must be carried out according to the proper judicial authority of this land.
According to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, a search warrant must be obtained. I believe that such an application ought to be made before a circuit judge when excluded material has to be taken into account. There will be a great deal of excluded material in these cases. Therefore it is essential for a High Court judge to be satisfied that it is reasonable, necessary and fair for an investigation to be carried out in all the circumstances of the case and for those concerned to be given an opportunity to object. And the result of the investigation must be made known to those concerned.
I welcome the report for the important questions it has raised. I go one step further and say that enforcement of Community law through our English courts must be preceded by an application to a judge of the High Court. The relevant Community law on the matter must be explained to him, and also the reasons for the investigation. The affected party must be given an opportunity to object. That is the only proper way in which to safeguard our ordinary' English folk.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, is to be congratulated not only on his chairmanship of this committee and on the presentation of his report tonight but also on having been able to reach an informal situation with the Commission where they are prepared to try out these negotiations. Anyone who, like myself, has had negotiations with the Commission—professionally or otherwise—will realise the measure of the noble and learned Lord's achievement. And anyone who has not had negotiations with the Commission will not realise the measure of his achievement.
This is yet another of the contributions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, to policing powers; well-balanced between the need for the power and the safeguards against abuse. It is always finely set—but this, in a Community context. In particular, the enforcement procedure which the noble and learned Lord was able to negotiate with the Commission can only and truly be described as a major achievement. It is a vast breakthrough in thinking. It is a major achievement which can never be underrated. It is referred to in paragrah 48 of the report.
As to the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies (and I say this with great respect), I am afraid that it is part of the system of supra-national law that the decisions of the Commission cannot be challenged in our courts. There is no surprise element in this; it is endemic and part of the Treaty. It is the surrender. This was the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and there it is.
But, by and large, I would say—again, with respect and deference to the noble Lord—solicitors are (as I know from my own professional knowledge) fairly well apprised of the powers of the Commission in this regard. Many solicitors have specialist partners. We also have a higly competent specialist Bar who render their services not only to this country but also to America and to countries in Europe and all over the world which have problems with the EEC.

1081
If the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, would care to look in the law section to be found in most public libraries—and which, frankly, is rather dull unless one happens to be a lawyer—he will find text books on this subject. This subject is taught, and well taught, in our universities. The noble Lord observed that there is an element of dissatisfaction. There is; that is true. It is inevitable. I agree with the noble Lord that the Commission simply must improve upon the period of delay and reduce it below the one year referred to in paragraph 49 of the report. It appears that the Commission are alive to this difficulty. There may well be problems of staffing or whatever, but I agree with the noble Lord that those problems must be overcome.
I was anxious to make this contribution—even in the company of so many more learned and distinguished speakers—because I have had a special interest in the subject of investigation and inspection since before its inception in the form of Regulation 17. This was when I was an unofficial United Kingdom observer on the old Brussels Committee, long before the United Kingdom acceded to the European Economic Community. I very seldom discuss in your Lordships' House what I have done in the past, and I very seldom use the word "I". I only do it on this occasion for this reason: I know the measure of the achievement and of the breakthrough that has been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I know it from my own experience. I regard this report as being a very significant and constructive contribution to the future shape of the European Community's anti-trust and anti-dumping jurisprudence.
The report is not only a comprehensive review—of course it is, and very useful to keep on the shelf in one's chambers—but, more than that, it grasps all the nettles of the investigative process. If it does not entirely remove the sting, at all events it renders the degree of pain tolerable. The questioning of the evidence of the Law Society and of the Bar, the evidence of the Commission and the evidence of the CBI is greatly illuminating; I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, in that. This reflects constructively in the conclusions of the report.
Paragraph 51 of the report emphasises that the difficulties are really confined to the realm of the antitrust sphere. Paragraph 53 deals with a review of the Court of Justice and the decisions of the Commission. But, as is apparent from paragraph 64, and is indeed obvious, the revisory jurisdiction of the Court of Justice is absolutely no use on a snap search. Then there is paragraph 48 which, as I see it, is the major achievement. Paragraph 55 concerns the separate authorisation and the collective authority of the Commission—a very important development by way of a safeguard.
I come to paragraph 56, and here I question whether the report goes far enough. If one examines the examples of authorisation documents, past and current, which are set out on pages 129 to 131, one finds that they are not nearly detailed enough. I feel that they leave industry far too wide open. This is a matter that does need looking at, and I have no reason to believe that the Commission would not seek, so far as it is possible, to entertain constructive proposals with a view to improving that aspect.
1082
Before concluding, I wish to say, in deference and, of course, respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that his suggestion about the Commission having to apply to a High Court judge is a wonderful suggestion. It is something we should all want. It is something we should all love. But it is something which, when the chips are down, we are never going to get. It is absolutely no use when one is dealing with the Commission being unrealistic to the degree of seeking to bargain on the basis of something one will never get. Sad, yes, but part of the surrender, part of the system, and there it is.
I could not let that go without at least giving my own personal view that, in negotiations on these subjects which I have had with the Commission, and the sense that I pick up, it is just not on. Therefore, it is no use proposing it. Of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when he replies may, for all I know, say he has tried this one on. He may be able to tell your Lordships—I know not—what my suspicions are worth or even if they are well founded.
In conclusion, surely this report is very much to be welcomed as seeking to ensure not only a reasonable enforcement procedure in the United Kingdom but also throughout the whole of the Common Market. As a Common Market man, although my prime allegiance is to my country my secondary allegiance is to the Common Market. It will have an important and salutary effect on the development of Community law, having particular regard to the goodwill and the measure of respect and trust which exists between the Commission and this Select Committee of your Lordships' House, which is no mean achievement and no unimportant thing.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the moment has now come in the course of this debate when the laymen are given an opportunity to intervene. I wish to intervene having been, in a corporate capacity, on the receiving end of these competition rules. The name of DG IV, I will not say is something with which to frighten the children, but nonetheless it has a significance which is not fully reflected in the evidence of the CBI.
I should first like to say that although the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was one of the longest I have heard in the House of Lords, we could have had another half-hour—and I hope we will have it in some way—to complete the picture. It was a most brilliant exposition. He and his committee, and his noble and learned friend, who went to visit the Commission, not only, I would have said, exceeded their responsibilities as an investigating Select Committee but actually succeeded in already advancing and enforcing some of the recommendations of the committee. That is a very considerable achievement.
Having, as I said, in a corporate capacity, been on the receiving end, I must first of all agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning (there is always a certain satisfaction in finding that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is conceivably wrong), is wasting his time in thinking that there is any likelihood of a reference to an English court in a matter where

1083
Community law is very clear and where we have accepted it as members of the Community. No doubt the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Scarman, will comment on this. Nor, if I may say so—and this helps to illustrate some of my anxieties—does reference to a British court give all that amount of protection.
In an earlier case in which the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Denning, had instructed me, as a director of a company, to give evidence—in the famous Westinghouse case and on a matter, I may say, which I knew nothing about—I was saved only by the House of Lords, which overruled the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Denning, and more or less dismissed the whole matter as a fishing exercise. But it is exceedingly expensive, and one must realise that the development of this sort of law does add to the expenses. Certainly my company in the Westinghouse case was probably spending up to £500,000 a year on something which was quite outrageous. I should add that I am concerned at the extension of the infection of the glories of the anti-competition procedures into the satisfactory workings of industry. Nonetheless, we have to live with it.
I think the recommendations of this committee and the application of those recommendations are something for which we should be exceedingly grateful. There is no doubt, if we look at what is happening—and I am with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, to some extent on this matter—that the rules are still not clear. This leads to further refinement, but there needs to be more. If a small company is involved and is confronted with a knock on the door and someone saying, "We want to see your books and you cannot speak to your lawyer straightaway; you must produce them", that must lead to a degree of anxiety and may have the effect of companies getting so frightened that they put either their reports or their minutes, or their computer tapes, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said, in their wife's boudoir in order to protect them. Of course, defensive measures are apt to be taken in such circumstances.
One must realise that this sort of approach without warning in a competition case—which I accept, as the committee has—is probably necessary in certain instances, although it is desirable that there should be advance notice. I hope that in most cases people will be advised by their lawyers that they ought not to indulge in what could be regarded as improper practices in burying or withholding information. Nevertheless, the temptation is very strong. For the small companies it must be a great anxiety.
Part of the rules to be developed—and there has been reference to this to some extent in the CBI evidence—is that there should be courtesy and kindness. In all my experiences the officials have shown great courtesy. Reference has already been made by the noble Lord who has just spoken to the view that some of the delays are quite intolerable. I know of one case where there has been a delay of over five years. I am not sure what is the equivalent of the Statute of Limitations in the European courts, but there must be a limit beyond which an investigation, once begun, should not drag on. Some speed is only humane.
1084
I am still concerned—I would like the noble Lord to comment on this, if possible, when he replies—about the danger that such an investigation under rules drawn up, not necessarily by lawyers but by administrators, could lead to what can only be described as a fishing expedition. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will be able to comment on that.
There is one major point which shows the complete inability of the Community to understand what is a professional lawyer.
I happen to have been responsible as an administrator for making the rules of many departments, including those of a legal department. It did not have to tell me. It reported to me for pay and rations, and in no way for policy or interpretation. It behaved professionally. That is the essence of the professional standing of a lawyer acting as a lawyer within a company. The moment he ceases to act as a lawyer and becomes an executive, in that sense he is no longer a legal adviser.
What does DG IV say on this subject? On page 114, at Question 340, in talking about in-house lawyers, he says:
"I would say that certainly in a number of instances this might be a problem if the undertaking would try to abuse the privilege. When the in-house lawyer is deeply involved in the day-to-day business, when he participates in meetings, where agreements are prepared which later on become the object of the procedures, when all this happens, to distinguish clearly between the activity of the in-house lawyer as an adviser and his activity as a part of the machinery to make the commercial policy of the company becomes an almost impossible task".
The in-house professional lawyer does not make the commercial policy of the company. I have no doubt that the rules for the professional behaviour of lawyers in this country are not understood. I hope that this matter will be pursued. In-house lawyers will also be most likely to stop an executive, so to speak, fiddling the evidence away because they are in their professional role.
Once again I would just say that, although the Select Committee did not take all the advice that was given to it, nonetheless it represents further progress. I think that this is a continuing operation. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, will be in a position to chair—but perhaps he would prefer not to—the next foray into this subject.
8.52 p.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I too, should like to express my gratitude and that of my noble friends to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, for having so clearly explained the Select Committee's conclusions on the evidence presented to it concerning the Commission's powers to investigate and inspect. Like my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I have the honour to address your Lordships as a quasi-layman. I am well conscious of the fact that as a mere chartered accountant I have no authority to interpret the law or its practice with anything like the felicity and extensive knowledge that the noble and learned Lord undoubtedly has. Indeed, it is with diffidence, bearing in mind the array of legal talent in your Lordships' House, not omitting that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that I venture to address your Lordships at all upon this subject. I offer my apology in advance to all noble and learned Lords if I should

1085
make mistakes in my interpretation. I assure them in advance that I shall not take it amiss if at any stage I am corrected in the interpretation that I venture to give to it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, towards the conclusion of his speech, was careful to remind us of the unique nature of the Commission. As he says, and as I now venture to repeat, it not only has powers to investigate: it has powers to prosecute, to try and to sentence. Those are formidable powers. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that that was all part of Community law about which we all ought to know and which we accepted under the Treaty of Accession in 1972, when we agreed to subordinate British law to Community law. But when one goes through the inspection powers which are carefully outlined in the report, and particularly those applicable to the United Kingdom, we should imagine what may go through the mind of the ordinary British citizen when he thinks of the powers given or taken by the Commission.
The powers of entry that we have in this country under our legislation for Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue in certain limited circumstances have already been dealt with by the Keith Report, and there are other powers of inspection. But in this country we have the final assurance that if action is brought in court as a result of such an inspection, of course, British law applies; and British law should not be undervalued in that respect.
In the first place, our courts are presided over by people well skilled and trained in the law over very many years. Perhaps one would agree that the performance of certain judges may occasionally be open to question. Some, indeed, have been known to have eccentricities. But in the final analysis the body of law is there and it is administered by people who know very well the whole process of law, and in particular the law in regard to the admissibility of evidence.
I shall defer to the noble and learned Lord, who knows far more about this than I do, but I can talk from my personal experience. I should say to the House that in my professional life over the past 30 years I have been largely engaged in the investigation of alleged fraud. My understanding of the law in the United Kingdom is that if evidence is brought against an individual, that evidence must be tested in court. If a person makes an accusation, the accused and his counsel have the right of cross-examination. I have sat in many courts—including, I am happy to say. as an observer in courts over which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has presided—and I know the deadly efficiency with which cross-examination of witnesses can be carried out in order to elicit the truth.
It does not always do so. I think that I have watched most members of the Bar, eminent in their fields, in certain branches of the civil law. It is my experience that cross-examination, combined, of course, with initial examination, re-examination and then further cross-examination on any new matters that may arise, is one of the most infallible ways to arrive at the truth. We have a judge sitting on the bench—or three judges in the appeal courts—whose whole life and experience in a variety of fields have involved arriving at the truth, and who has to be persuaded after hearing a conflict of
1086
views, in both statute and case law, as to what the legal position is. This is one of the bastions that we have in the United Kingdom.
I can quite understand the strictures of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning—perhaps I should not say strictures, but the noble and learned Lord's insistence that in the United Kingdom there should be no powers of entry and investigation without the authority of a judge. It is all very well for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, to say, "You won't get it", or, "Never, never"—and he did say that.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am not learned; certainly not in this company.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Lord?
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, certainly.
Lord Bruce of Donington: But it is always a great pleasure to compliment the noble Lord. He said, "Never; you will never get it". "Never" is a word that should very rarely be used. The laws that are devised by individuals, whether they be laws passed in the United Kingdom through its sovereign Parliament or whether they be in the European Community, are not fixed and immutable for all time. It may well be that we shall have to amend some of the provisions of the Treaty if we find them completely objectionable.
The existing inspection powers being discussed relate, as the noble and learned Lord has said, to matters of agriculture, to the collection of Community dues and to other matters, but more particularly in the realm of competition, enshrined originally in Articles 85 and 86 of the Treaty. Those of your Lordships who have not had the pleasure of reading Articles 85 and 86 would be well advised to do so. They are expressed in the most general terms. It is almost impossible to erect an edifice of law upon them unless one is highly imaginative and, I must say—applicable to the Commission—legally ignorant. They are very wide indeed. There would not be so much difficulty with them if they were evenly applied.
One of the basic requirements of a tribunal of any kind, whether it be in the United Kingdom or in the Community, is that it should act and should be seen to act with fairness and justice. This is the whole essence of the rule of law—fairness and justice. One therefore has to strike a slight note of query over the Commission when, for example, in the realms of civil aviation, where the most blatant collaboration and the most blatant conspiracy against the public interest arises under our very eyes, day after day in the cartel fixing of fares, one finds that the Commission does not touch that. Oh, no; the Commission does not touch the really difficult ones.
I want to come back to the Commission, which, as I have said, has all these powers. We find that, when it acts, it acts in the most extraordinary way. I stand to be corrected by any noble and learned Lord, but, for example, it is not bound by the rules of evidence in its judicial acts—not at all. It is possible for the Commission to act on evidence coming into its

1087
possession, sometimes libellous in nature, not originating from either party to the action, and to use it and not permit any interrogation or cross-examination of its authors.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would the noble Lord give way? I am grateful to him. They cannot act on it unless they have given the accused person the opportunity of being heard and of making representations on it. If they do so act, the Court of Justice will quash it. That is the position.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am very glad I have drawn the noble Lord on that point, because I now propose to prove what I have said. As in so many cases when one is considering learned documents of this kind, of such a comprehensive nature, it is very frequently useful to see how it actually works out in practice. So, with your Lordships' permission, I am going to give the history of an individual case which I can document and which I can prove. I ought perhaps to disclose to the House that I notified the noble Lord opposite of the broad lines upon which I was going to conduct this part of my speech, in order that he could prepare himself for reply. I think that is much better, rather than these things being sprung on one.
There is a small company in the north-west of London called Hasselblad G.B. Limited. It operated, and still operates, under a distributor agreement with Hasselblad, the firm in Scandinavia which is probably quite well known to your Lordships. A complaint was made against it by one of the persons to whom it sold cameras. In all, half a dozen or, at the most, two dozen cameras were involved. I ask your Lordships to bear that in mind in view of the fact that the case cost this particular little company £110,000.
This is the start. They had a letter from the Commission in August 1979 notifying them of the complaint. In December of that year, following correspondence, this company's lawyer visited the Commission, ascertained what the complaint was and what further information the Commission required and gave an undertaking about the particular conduct complained of—that Hasselblad GB was trying to supply a particular retail firm in this country which did not meet its advertising standards and which did not meet the general standards of what they considered to be appropriate to the distribution of a camera of this eminence. As your Lordships probably know, it is one of the finest cameras in the world. So the lawyer went to see the Commission, was informed exactly what the law was, gave an undertaking that the practice complained of—we are talking of between six and possibly two dozen cameras—would, of course, be dicontinued and that there would be no problem whatever.
When he left, he had the firm impression from the Commission that everything was quite satisfactory and that they need not bother about it any more. I repeat, there was no breach of any kind. And the Commission themselves do not say that there was after that day.
In June 1980, one morning, the Commission descended on the office and works of this little firm—two members of the Commission, one member of the Office of Fair Trading. The managing director
1088
was not there and did not know anything about it. Suddenly these people appeared. They were aggressive. They demanded this; they demanded that; they demanded the other. Their whole attitude suggested to those who were there at the time that they were determined to find something anyway, that they had already made up their minds that breaches had occurred.
Eventually, this particular firm's lawyer arrived and had conversations with the three investigators. Things went quite pleasantly. They were quite urbane until the point arrived when the investigators sought to take away privileged communications between the company and its solicitors. The solicitors protested that this should not occur. The commissioner—I can give his name if necessary, but such details will take time—gave an undertaking that, although they wanted to see the privileged communications, they would not in fact be used in the formulation of the judgment itself. The undertaking was dishonourably broken. In fact, the privileged correspondence was used at paragraph 34 of the decision itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, says that trust has to be the element of our relationship with the Commission. The noble Lord appeared to trust the assurances that were given by the Commission representatives to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. I would not trust them after that, as far as I could fling them. My own considered judgment on this—I have had an opportunity of reading all through the transcripts of this case and through all the judgments and the documents—is that it is in my professional life one of the grossest breaches of faith that I have so far encountered.
At any rate, in October 1980, there came the statement of objections. Hasselblad GB were invited to reply. And so the process went on, the proceedings entirely in writing. Eventually, there was a hearing in February 1981 of the whole matter in Brussels. It was not a hearing before a court of justice. It was a hearing before a body of people who investigate, who prosescute, who judge, and who sentence. I am told, and I believe it—I believe it within the context of the transcript of the proceedings that I have seen—that the proceedings by this body presuming to administer justice were a disgrace, an absolute disgrace.
I would say further that, precisely because there was no question of being able to cross-examine witnesses, being able to arrive at the truth, it was left to the hearing, a hearing in which a phalanx of Commission people sat on one side and Hasselblad GB representatives on the other, and largely consisting of a series of questioning, cross-questioning and haranguing argument. It was a complete charade of any process of justice that we would understand in this country. Remember, my Lords, the amount involved.
That was in February 1981. In December 1981 the decision was handed down by the Commission. The Commission fined this company £93,000—more than the entire net worth of this little company. That fine might be compared with some of the actions taken by this Commission in regard to rather larger and more powerful bodies. For example, Fordwerke had a case brought against them by the Commision. On an undertaking not to repeat the practices complained of

1089
they were let off with a caution; there was no fine at all. That was hardly comparable with this particular instance.
On 8th March 1982 an appeal was made to the Court of Justice. On 2nd June 1982 there was a hearing. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, paid touching tribute to the Court of Justice and I should not wish to say anything in disrespect to them. I myself have appeared before them in connection with a taxation matter referred to them by the special commissioners of income tax, with whom I was in some temporary disagreement. I am bound to say—and here I must be a trifle subjective—that I was very pleased indeed that the European Court of Justice decided in my favour and against the Commissioners of Inland Revenue; this was delightful. But there was a difference. The Court of Justice there had the law to decide on. The commissioners did not have to submit any questions of fact at all because, mercifully enough, whatever opinions the Commission put in regard to the law—and some were put in by the French Government and some were put in by the British Government—they were all legal interpretations. If I had thought that the Commission were going to present the facts to the European Court of Justice I should have been very afraid indeed on the basis of the case I cite.
There was, however, a mishap at the hearing, which shows that even in the European Court of Justice there can be mishaps. Before the case, counsel appearing on behalf of this little company was invited to communicate how much time it was thought the case would take; and so, in advance, counsel told the registrar's staff that he thought the case would take a whole day. He had himself intended—and communicated his intention—to address the court for an hour and a half.
I must be slightly personal here, because I have had the privilege of sitting behind the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, before his elevation to the Bench, when he was a QC in a case brought under the Moneylenders Act 1927. Far be it from me to suggest, because I was there at the time, that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, was in any way too long in his opening address to the court. But he took an hour and a half, and this was a case involving a comparatively small sum of money but a very large question of principle. I listened to the noble and learned Lord with the utmost fascination. I am very happy to say that the instructing solicitor for the party for whom he was appearing was acting on behalf of a client of mine; and we won.
Nevertheless, an hour and a half is what counsel before the European Court of Justice asked for. When he arrived with his client, he was suddenly told that only half an hour had been allowed. Apparently there had been an error and instead of one and half hours the message which was passed through the secretarial department to the registrar's department omitted the figure " 1 ". So instead of taking the whole day, the case was constricted to a morning.
That would not happen in the United Kingdom. Whatever its imperfections may be, the pursuit of justice in the courts of the United Kingdom is such
1090
that the time taken to arrive at a judgment in a case is the time that the judges consider it necessary to take, even though it is inconvenient for lunch and even though it might conceivably be inconvenient for golf, or such other pursuits as activate noble and learned Lords after 4.30 or 5 o'clock in the afternoon.
Therefore, by a misfortune the case was never really fully deployed in oral evidence before the European Court, which, as your Lordships know, operates on the basis of written documents, opinions that are delivered to it by the Commission, and a summation of the case containing the views of the Advocate-General, which is laid before the various judges. Undoubtedly this system results in an economy of time, but in this case that did not happen.
Eventually the European Court reduced the fine to £45,000 on grounds that were not connected with the main part of the case but which concerned a certain injunction and other proceedings which are still the subject of litigation and therefore upon which I cannot touch. There we are; the fine was reduced to £45,000. That judgment was made on 21st February 1984. The Commission knew perfectly the financial circumstances of the company. They and they alone knew the triviality of the alleged offence to begin with. They would not even give time to pay and it nearly ruined the directors and shareholders of the company. In total it cost them £110,000 for an incident that, from the beginning, never ought to have gone beyond the stage of having received the assurance, after the initial error—if indeed there was an error, and I am not persuaded that there was—in 1979. Therefore, when we are considering the conditions of investigation, let us consider the end result and judge these investigatory powers within the context not only of what might happen but of what has in fact happened.
I have a question or two to ask the Government. On this occasion I am happy not to be in an adversarial posture so far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned. I know—because the procedure provides for it—that when the Commission are reaching a decision they prepare a draft for submission to what is called an advisory committee which comprises representatives of various member states. Before they finalise the document, they are bound to take it to the advisory committee. The first question that I have to ask—and it is the only detailed one—is what advice did the British representative on the advisory committee tender to the Commission on the basis of the case that was presented to the advisory committee?
The other question that I have to ask is a purely general one. I must apologise to your Lordships for having brought to you a case of this kind and in such detail. I do so because, like your Lordships, I seek always, wherever possible, fairness and justice. It is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to protect, wherever possible, the interests of what we will term the little man; the small business. In that desire to protect them we, on this side of the House, firmly agree.
Representations to the commission to refund the money as an amende honorable in such a shocking case as this have so far met with no response. A final question that I have to ask the noble Lord is what do Her Majesty's Government propose to do about this

1091
gross and scandalous injustice done to a small and reputable firm seeking to make its way modestly in the United Kingdom?
9.27 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, may I start by echoing what other noble Lords and noble and learned Lords have said in their remarks this evening and congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and his committee on the preparation of this report. The noble and learned Lord introduced the report clearly to your Lordships' House today.
The Government welcome the report, which provides a helpful analysis of the Commission's current powers of inspection and those new powers which are proposed in new measures which are under discussion in Brussels. The report draws attention to a number of particular areas of interest, as have other noble Lords in their contributions this evening.
Before responding to those remarks, may I make a few general observations? First, I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Government are in general accord with the conclusions of the report of your Lordships' committee. I listened most particularly to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in his account of the informal discussion that he and his learned colleague, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Templeman, had with the Commission about the committee's recommendations. As the noble and learned Lord said, responsibility for the procedures discussed by the committee rest not with the Government but with the Commission, but I can assure the noble and learned Lord that we shall bring the report to the attention of the Commission as and when we have the opportunity.
I took particular note of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, had to say on the subject of the new powers. So far as these are proposed in measures before the Council of Ministers we shall take into account the committee's recommendations and the views that have been expressed this evening.
The main part of the report, and much of the debate, has focused on investigations under the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. The Government support the aims of the competition rules, and we therefore believe that they need to be enforced effectively. The competition powers, and some of the others, already existed at the time we joined the Community. Other powers are newer but have all been supported by the Government as being in the national interest. For example, we benefit greatly from the Commission's inspectors being able to verify that the common fisheries policy is being implemented in an even-handed way.
However, the Government, like your Lordships, also recognise that the powers to enter a firm's premises and to examine its books should only be available when absolutely necessary and should be circumscribed by appropriate safeguards. I am, therefore, pleased that the committee has found that the Commission's power is necessary and that its existence is of benefit to our citizens and companies as a whole—even if a particular firm under investigation may not welcome the investigation at that time.
1092
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, spoke at some length on the entry of premises issue, as did a number of other Lords. Power to enter private premises is always sensitive matter, and even more so if such powers are used to enter a person's home. The Select Committee noted that no inspections of residential premises have taken place, but the report raises the possibility that such inspections might take place in the future. The Government think that this is very unlikely; for example, under the competition rules it is only premises or land of undertakings that can be inspected. This would certainly not give a right, for example, to enter the home of a director of a company to look at his papers. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had to say with regard to people perhaps infringing, or alleged to have infringed, regulations, hiding behind that rule.
Having said that, my attention was drawn to paragraph 14 on page 25, where the committee reported on the proposed powers relating to battery hens. The report draws attention to the possibility of visits to private dwellings. It is of course the conditions of the hens' housing which would be inspected, and not the homes of their owners. However, we are certainly willing to emphasise to the Commission that we would expect such powers to be exercised only exceptionally, if at all. That authorisation would need very careful consideration by the commissioners.
Turning to the question of advance notice of inspections—again the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. spoke specifically on this issue—I note that although your Lordships' committee recognises that notice should be and normally is given to a firm, it accepts that unannounced visits are sometimes necessary. I should like to emphasise that such visits under the competition rules have, in practice, been very few. The figures are in the report and show that there have been an average of only two such visits a year in the United Kingdom.
On the question of legal professional privilege, the Government agree with your Lordships' committee that there is a strong case for extending such privilege to communications with in-house lawyers and with lawyers of non-Community countries. This was probably the principal question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and indeed I think it was his main point. We regret that the Commission has not felt able to include in-house lawyers either by administrative action or by proposing a change to Regulation 17. The Commission is more sympathetic in the case of independent lawyers of certain non-Community countries, and has now put proposals to the Council for the negotiation of reciprocal rights with the governments of those countries.
I hope that the legal profession will continue to seek changes. Certainly the Government will take any opportunities that are available to them to support those changes. However, I am afraid that change does not seem very likely in the short term, not least because some other member states whose traditions are different do not share our concerns on this issue. I think that I tend to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, that perhaps there is some degree of misunderstanding about the position of in-house lawyers, particularly in this country. As well as seeking

1093
improved safeguards in existing powers of inspection, we shall also seek to ensure that similar safeguards are incorporated, as appropriate, in any new powers that may be granted.
I think that in the little time that is available to me I ought to turn to some of the more pertinent points and questions that have been addressed to me this evening. May I start with the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington? I am grateful to the noble Lord for his having given me notice that he was intending to raise the Hasselblad case, but I have to say this to him. Certainly, I am not here to defend any party to that matter, neither the Commission nor the lawyers; and neither am I accepting the role which I thought the noble Lord took, that of friend of the accused. Nor do I particularly wish the Hasselblad case to overshadow the main purpose of our debate this evening.
But the noble Lord was kind enough to tell me he was going to raise a number of points. He asked me very specifically, towards the end of his description of the Hasselblad case, what the United Kingdom representative did on the Advisory Committee. He knows very well that I cannot tell him that because, in accordance with Council Regulation 17, I am not at liberty to divulge details of the proceedings of the Advisory Committee and neither would I wish to do so.
The noble Lord made a number of points about what is—and it is his own description—a complex case. These matters have been the subject of correspondence over some years between Hasselblad's lawyers and both the United Kingdom Government and the Commission. Some of the facts are disputed. The noble Lord referred to the alleged seizure of privileged documents from Hasselblad by Commission officials. I can only say that the recollections of the United Kingdom Government and Commission officials who were present differ markedly from Hasselblad's version of the event.
The whole issue was fully aired before the European Court of Justice, which has specific powers to review the appropriateness of fines. The court, while annulling part of the Commission's decision, concluded that there had been a serious breach of the Community's rules of competition and they set a fine taking into account both the size of the undertaking and the seriousness of the infringement.
In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the Government to take further the question of the fine. Having said that the Commission imposed a fine of around £90,000, we do not know at all how that relates to the size of the company's assets; but perhaps I should remind your Lordships that it is usual for the Commission to impose fines of no more than 4 per cent. of turnover, though they are also required to take into account the seriousness and duration of the infringement.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? Do transcripts exist of the proceedings of the court? Are they available for people to see, to read and to judge upon?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my understanding is that they are. But the proceedings of the Advisory Committee are not. We have no specific knowledge of the way that Hasselblad's particular hearing was administered by the European Court other than what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has told us. But again he knows this, he knows that the court's deliberations are based mainly on written pleadings. The oral hearing can only amplify evidence already given in writing.
Having said that, as to whether there are some questionable features, as the noble Lord suggests, about the Commission's handling of the competition case involving Hasselblad, we are considering whether to make representations to them. I do not think that on this occasion there is any great purpose in my going further into this matter under the subject of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman's, Motion——
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but may I ask why is the noble Lord not prepared to go further into it? After the consideration the Government are giving, will he then make a statement as to their reaction to the situation?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have answered the specific questions which the noble Lord has addressed to me. He also spent some 25 minutes describing to your Lordships how he saw the case and the proceedings. Although he told me that he was going to bring this matter up, I certainly do not think it is my function to stand on the opposite side of the Chamber and make detailed comments on what he was told, and on what papers were put before him that have not been before me. I am not a lawyer, and I do not feel that your Lordships' House tonight, debating a Motion to accept a report of a Select Committee, is the vehicle in which the Hasselblad case should be discussed. If the noble Lord will just let me finish, I shall be happy to give way—I do not think that this is either the time or the place. I do not think that in this debate we should discuss Hasselblad, the Commission and the European Court within the context of this Motion. If the noble Lord will permit—and I say this with great deference—and if he is desirous of having a full-scale debate on how he sees the Hasselblad case, there are avenues open to him of which he is very fully aware.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I think he will agree that I did not ask him to comment specifically on the matters that I raised. I asked him only two questions; and I do ask the noble Lord to bear in mind that one of the most cherished functions of your Lordships' House is, in one sense, to act as a last resort on behalf of a citizen or citizens of this country in securing what they regard, and what they are entitled to regard, as their due measure of fairness and justice. I did not ask the noble Lord to comment any further than he has commented. With his permission, I will give him the assurance that I am prepared to repeat outside this House (where I am privileged) what I have said inside tonight, because I have seen the documents and I speak on my own responsibility and on my own honour.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. Let me say straight away that I would be the last to suggest that anybody should have the right to speak in your Lordships' House removed, other than, of course, for a breach of our conventions. I made my remarks within the context of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who asked me: "Why not?"—and I gave him the reasons why I was not prepared—
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt again but the noble Lord said that the Government were investigating. I am not suggesting that he need say it now, but presumably they will come to some conclusion at some stage: that is all. I was not saying that he need answer now.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I did not in fact say that. What I did say was that, as to whether there were some questionable features about the Commission's handling of the competition case, we are considering whether to make representations to them. That is what I said.
If I may return to the subject matter of our debate and turn to a point which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. raised, he stressed the importance of the committee's proposals concerning enforcement inside the United Kingdom. I believe that the noble and learned Lord was referring in particular to the committee's recommendations in paragraph 65. The Government fully agree with this recommendation.
On the question of the means of overcoming obstruction, which was specifically raised by him, the Government fully agree with the committee. The procedures should be those normally adopted in the member states, and in the United Kingdom the normal procedure is to go to the courts. We believe that it is the right procedure for the enforcement of the Commission's powers, as it is for powers of entry granted under national laws. The Government fully agree that it is a matter of important principle that in the United Kingdom enforcement should be by means of judicial processes.
He also raised the question of a United Kingdom official always being present at inspections, and I can tell him that the Government recognise the value of the Select Committee's recommendations with regard to that point. Therefore, I am glad to be able to confirm, as the noble and learned Lord observed, that this is very much the normal practice in the United Kingdom. He also raised, as did the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, the point that undertakings should be informed of progress on their cases within one year of an inspection. Again, the Government agree with this recommendation. We have felt for a long time that the Commission's decisions take too long and should be speeded up.
I do not believe that there will be any difficulty in finding out the current progress of a case, since my understanding is that it is already normally possible for a firm to find out at any stage by asking the Commission. In practice, however, I suspect that many firms are ony too happy to let sleeping dogs lie. Having said that, it does not make the position any better and I take the point which was raised.
1096
He also asked about a publicly available guide. I can tell him that the Commission have published a guide to the competition rules, which are specifically designed to meet the needs of small and medium-sized companies. But I noted again what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, said about the volume and complexity of Community law; and certainly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway underlined that in his remarks.
The question of overcoming obstruction was specifically raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. Again, the Government fully agree with the committee. The procedures should be those normally adopted in the member states, and of course in the United Kingdom the normal procedure is to go to court. I think that in a rather convoluted way that point was also underlined by my noble friend Lord Campbell.
I think that those are the major points and questions that have arisen out of our very interesting debate this evening, but I should not like to finish the debate without saying this. In recent years, we have not found the Commission unreceptive to proposals for meeting criticism of their procedures in competition cases. Since your Lordships' House debated the Select Committee's earlier report on competition practice in 1982, in a debate that was also initiated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, a number of improvements have been introduced. They have been directed both towards reducing delays in competition cases and towards ensuring the fairness of procedures. Although it is too early to assess the effectiveness of all the improvements, it is clear that the Commission recognise the need to carry out their duties speedily and in a way which is seen to be fair.
Finally, I am not a lawyer. I am not even in the quasi position by which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, described himself. But I have very much enjoyed listening to all the contributions emanating from the opening remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and I hope that I have been able to do justice to the questions and points which have arisen.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Scarman: My Lords, I welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, outlining the Government's general agreement with the recommendations and proposals contained in the report. Towards the end of the noble Lord's speech it was clear that the specific recommendations to which the committee attached enormous importance—those concerned with the enforcement of powers of investigation and inspection inside the United Kingdom—were specifically accepted by the Government. I have no doubt that the acceptance by Her Majesty's Government of those proposals will mean that very serious attention indeed will be paid by the Commission to the recommendations contained in this report and to the arguments adduced in support of them.
I noted what was said during the course of the debate about the limitation under Community law of legal professional privilege to outside lawyers and the refusal to extend that privilege to in-house lawyers. I

1097
certainly hope that this debate, together with some comments in the report, will ultimately lead to a European Court of Justice decision extending privilege to cover in-house lawyers. There is not the slightest doubt that sufficient arguments have now been adduced as to the position and integrity of in-house lawyers to enable the European Court of Justice to make that extension to its ruling, if it sees fit. I am by no means pessimistic about the prospects of that extension. I have some experience, as does the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, of the extension of legal principle by judicial decision, case by case. That is what English law is all about, and that is what I hope the European Court of Justice may be learning from this member state.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, will appreciate that I am in no position to comment on the matter which occupied a great amount of his speech: the investigation of a certain company and the results of that investigation. It would be quite improper for me to make any comment, since I am in no position to do anything about it, anyway. But it occurred to me that the difficulties which arose for the company, and perhaps for the officials and for the Commission in that case, could have been ameliorated if the proposals for procedure in the handling of competition cases, which are to be found in the Select Committee's report on competition practice to which reference has been made, had been implemented.
I was encouraged to hear, towards the end of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that steps have been taken along the lines of those recommendations. But I would direct the attention of the Government and, perhaps indirectly, of the Commission to the recommendations contained in paragraph 42 of that report under the sub-heading Procedural reforms not needing a change in the law. Those reforms were designed to let in some sort of independent examination, at various stages, of a competition case as it passes through the hands of the Commission. We had discussed in the report the appointment of an independent person to conduct the investigation. We appreciated that that was impossible without a change of Treaty law. We made this specific recommendation:
"The committee suggest that the creation of an additional post of director in DG IV should be considered. The director so appointed would enter the case at the stage of the preliminary meeting, over which he would preside. He would also preside over the oral hearing and would assume within Directorate-General IV responsibility for the subsequent conduct of the case".
I do not know whether that has been done. I rather fear that it has not. I am pleased to give way to the Minister.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, perhaps it would be helpful to the House if I said that that recommendation has not been fully implemented, although a hearing officer is now required to hear all oral evidence in cases. That will ensure that the rights of defendants—if I may use that expression—are properly heard. It does not go all the way to the recommendation but certainly it is a move in the right direction.
Lord Scarman: I am pleased to hear that, my Lords. However, I remain incorrigible in my view that difficulties of the kind to which the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, referred will occur if some independent element at a fairly high level in the administration of DG IV is not let in. I will say no more about that matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, referred—I thought with perfect justification—to the dangers of an investigation or inspection deteriorating into a fishing expedition. This is not an easy problem about which to make proposals but the committee did attempt a beginning—but it is certainly not a conclusion—to solving the problem outlined by the noble Lord. That beginning will be found in the Summary of Conclusions, in paragraphs 55 and 56. The committee recommended that the document authorising an investigation—that is, the document that has to be given to the commercial undertaking before the investigation takes place—should contain,
"information about the scope and objectives of the investigation with the maximum possible particulars. Where possible it should identify documents and other evidence sought, contain information about the inspector's powers, point out that he must treat as confidential any information obtained, and set out any rights of non-disclosure or appeal available to those inspected".
That would be a beginning.
The other important safeguard to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, also helpfully referred, is that a proper opportunity should be given to the undertaking to get its lawyer there before the inspection or investigation begins. If one then had the combination of that with a fully-detailed and helpful document of authorisation which could be shown to the lawyer, then it may be that the fishing expedition character of any such investigation, if it showed signs of developing, could be stopped.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, absolutely rightly, referred to the supremacy of Community law. This, we have to accept. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, pointed out, the inevitable conclusion of that supremacy is that our courts—that is to say, the courts of the United Kingdom and of other member states—cannot question the necessity for the investigation. That would be to call in issue in the courts of a member state the validity of the decision; the decision being the formal Treaty Act which authorises the investigation. Decisions can be reviewed by the European Court of Justice, not by national courts. We have to live with it. But we can live with it and it may well be that under our judicial procedures there will be certain safeguards before entry into premises against the will of the occupier of those premises.
I should like to conclude, dealing with the points raised in this debate, with a reference to paragraph 46 in the report and to the way an English judge would probably go about the question of whether or not to authorise an entry. Please forgive me for quoting it, but it will probably be quicker at this time of night than if I try to paraphrase it. It reads:
"When giving effect to a Commission Decision, the judge would be precluded by the paramount and directly applicable effect of that Decision in Community law from examining the reasons or justification for the inspection".

1099
That was the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I respectfully agree with him.
"That is a matter for the determination of the Commission which can only be challenged before and reviewed by the European Court".
Now comes the sentence which is interesting:
"The judge in the United Kindon would need to be satisfied of the authenticity of the Decision and of any facts regarding the actual or likely conduct of the undertaking which would justify granting an injunction".
I leave this debate which has been interesting, and strangely enough in the latter stages quite exciting, with a general comment. I am no longer, unfortunately—time will take its toll—a member of the Select Committee or chairman of its legal subcommittee. This therefore is almost certainly the last time on which I shall be introducing one of the Select Committee's reports. I know now from personal experience the very high reputation enjoyed by the reports of this committee throughout the member states of the Common Market and in the institutions of the Common Market. I think we are the only Parliament which produces regular reports of scrutiny, review and recommendation such as are produced by the Select Committee of this House. It is yet another illustration of the value to the United Kingdom and to the Common Market of the activities, the energy and the devotion of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
The Examiners' certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned at four minutes past ten o'clock.

  NEGLIGENCE: LAW REFORM REPORT
  NEGLIGENCE: LAW REFORM REPORT
  HM PRISON, MAGHABERRY
  HM PRISON, MAGHABERRY
  GRAIN SURPLUS
  GRAIN SURPLUS
  ECGD CREDIT INSURANCE
  ECGD CREDIT INSURANCE
  NCB (ENTERPRISE) LTD.
  NCB (ENTERPRISE) LTD.