Sitting of 23 April 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
The Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence, through illness, of MR. SPEAKER from this day's sitting.
Whereupon MR. HAROLD WALKER, THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, proceeded to the Table and, after Prayers, took the Chair, as DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to the Standing Order.

PRIVATE BUSINESS
  KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [Lords]
  LUTON BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] Read a Second time and committed.
Oral Answers to Questions
  EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

    Truancy
    Mr. Hayesasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he expects to announce the details of his renewed effort to tackle truancy, as promised in the White Paper "Better Schools".
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): As my right hon. Friend said in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) on 22 March, at column 626, a draft circular on school attendance and education welfare services was sent on 21 March to local authority and teacher associations and to other relevant organisations. Comments on the document have been sought by the end of June and it is hoped that the final version of the circular will be issued soon after that date.
    Mr. Hayes: Does my hon. Friend agree that the problem of truancy is particularly worrying in the fourth and fifth years, especially in the light of a recent report that in Salford schools 20 per cent. non-attendance occurs every day? Does my hon. Friend regret the shocking fact that today's truant is very often tomorrow's unemployed, and, worse still, tomorrow's unemployable?
    Mr. Dunn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing to my attention and that of the House the report on the school in the city of Salford. I undertake that inquiries will be made. I am sure that the House will accept his other observation as well. There are a number of reasons why young people play truant from school, and we are grappling with the causes in many ways. I hope that, in future, many people who encourage children to play truant, whether parents, employers or others, will think long and wisely about their action in taking young people out of the classroom, which can only be to the detriment of the young people concerned.
    Mr. Flannery: Is it not clear that the lack of motivation for many young people in schools, which stems from the knowledge that they will be thrown on the scrapheap as soon as they leave school, with no job to go to, is one of the main causes of truancy? Is it not also clear that a better pupil-teacher ratio, so that children can be better taught, particularly at that age, would be helpful? When the Minister has handled that problem, will he deal with the truancy in this place, which is enormous compared with that in schools?
    Mr. Dunn: My responsibilities do not extend to the House. The hon Gentleman's interpretation is, as usual, far too simplistic and therefore unhelpful. There are a variety of reasons why young people play truant, and we should address our minds to those matters rather than make party political points.
    Mr. Favell: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to combat truancy is to improve the quality, and not the quantity, of teachers, as the better the teacher the easier it is to maintain the interest of a pupil?
    Mr. Dunn: I agree, and we are attempting to make the curriculum broader and more relevant and attractive to young people who are, to use the vernacular, turned off by what happens in schools today. My hon. Friend is right in his interpretation of what is needed.
    Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that since the end of the war the level of truancy in shire county schools has hardly changed, by and large, taking into account areas such as that covered by the Derbyshire education authority? Will he bear in mind that I agree with my hon. Friend the member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) that it is bordering on hypocrisy for Tory Members to talk about absenteeism when some hon. Members turn up for less than 30 per cent. of the time —[Interruption] like the leader of the SDP, who voted in only 30 per cent. of all the Divisions in the last parliamentary Session?
    Mr. Dunn: There was an Opposition debate yesterday on the social services, during which the Opposition Benches were empty. If the proportions had remained the same as they were in 1945, far too many young people would still be playing truant from school.

    Universities (Jarratt Report)
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Jarratt report about efficiency in universities.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Peter Brooke): Sir Alexander Jarratt's steering committee for efficiency studies in the universities, which was set up by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, has produced recommendations which merit serious and early consideration by those to whom they are addressed. My right hon. Friend will be considering with the CVCP and the University Grants Committee how the report can best be pursued.
    Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister not agree that the Jarratt report indicted the Government for the way in which they had imposed the 1981 cuts, which led not to greater efficiency within the universities, but to short-term

    727
    inefficiency, and took the view that if the Government continue to insist that university resources should be cut by 1 or 2 per cent. each year the situation will become even worse? Was not the strongest recommendation of the report the suggestion that we should return to a quinquennial review system so that the universities could have a continual re-assessment of funding, on level terms at least?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government accept that they must give the best possible indication of longer-term policies for higher education. However, the difficulties of providing precise funding indications are the same for higher education as for other public expenditure programmes. Planning requires the management of resources in circumstances of uncertainty. The Green Paper on higher education policy, which the Government hope to publish shortly, and the subsequent discussions, will help to set the scene for the development of higher education policy into the next decade.
    Mr. Jim Callaghan: After the publication of the study of efficiency in the universities, is it the Minister's intention to produce a Green Paper on scientific research in the universities? If so, when does he propose to introduce it?
    Mr. Brooke: The Green Paper which my right hon. Friend proposes to publish on higher education, which will be issued shortly, will certainly cover that subject.
    Mr. Pawsey: How much funding is reaching the universities from industry? Is my hon. Friend aware of what has taken place at Warwick university, especially at the business school and the science park there? Does my hon. Friend appreciate how much funding is reaching our universities from private sources?
    Mr. Brooke: I can give my hon. Friend the encouraging news that since 1979 contributions to universities from private sources of one sort or another have risen by 18 per cent. in real terms.

    Education Needs (Bradford)
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make additional resources available to meet education needs in Bradford.
    Mr. Dunn: It is for Bradford to provide for education within the total resources available to the authority.
    Mr. Madden: Does the Minister appreciate that the education crisis in Bradford does not flow from the parents, from a headmaster who has insulted many of his pupils' parents and caused them to lose confidence in him, or from teachers and pupils who are trying to work together in schools, many of which are old, dilapidated, overcrowded, under-staffed and seriously under-equipped? When will the Government give Bradford the money to combat its education crisis and enable it to give the young people there a decent start in life and provide the education which parents are fully entitled to expect for their children?
    Mr. Dunn: I am fully aware of the problems at Bradford, but it is for the authority to balance its judgment of the need to spend on services against the interests of the local ratepayer.
    Mr. Galley: My hon. Friend is fully aware of the difficulties of multi-racial education in Bradford and other
    728
    parts of west Yorkshire, and the issues raised by the disgraceful hounding of Mr. Honeyford. In a number of instances in west Yorkshire and Bradford there are racial minorities within a school with a large ethnic majority. Will my hon. Friend issue guidance to local education authorities to ensure that they adopt an even-handed approach and give the educationally disadvantaged special attention, whether they are brown, black, yellow or white?
    Mr. Dunn: We are concerned about disadvantaged children, irrespective of their background. The House ought to know that the Department of Education and Science is currently investigating Mr. Honeyford's case under section 68 of the Education Act 1944. In view of my right hon. Friend's quasi-judicial role in that matter, I cannot comment further.
    Mr. Torney: Is the Minister aware that Bradford has many Asian and other immigrant people? Does he agree that the Honeyford case is a red herring, brought up by the Tory representatives on the council to cover up the colossal shortage of the amount of money that is needed to provide the type of pupil-teacher ratio required in Bradford's schools because they have so many immigrant children? Will he take account of the fact that rate capping has an effect on the education of our children? These are the real issues, not the Honeyford case. Will the Minister pay attention to them?
    Mr. Dunn: Bradford's primary and secondary school pupil-teacher ratios were at their lowest ever level, at 20 and 17·4 respectively, at January 1984. Both ratios have fallen significantly since 1982, when they were 20·9 and 18·9 respectively. Those figures do not suggest a decline in provision.

    Drug Abuse (Teacher Training)
    Mr. Sackvilleasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he plans to provide central funding for specialised in-service courses for teachers in the problems of drug abuse.
    The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Sir Keith Joseph): Under the Department's programme for supporting regional in-service training courses, regional courses concerned with drug misuse, and arranged in consultation with the Department, will be eligible for central funding.
    Mr. Sackville: Does my right hon. Friend feel that to have one key teacher who understands something about drugs in each school is the minimum that we need to tackle the problem? Does he feel that his Department has done enough to achieve that end?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with the purpose of my hon. Friend's question. The Government are now addressing themselves to ensuring that more information is available on which crucial groups such as teachers can rest with self-confidence in their detection of and advice to those concerned.
    Mr. Boyes: Is the Secretary of State aware that after only one shot of heroin some youngsters are on a short journey to death? Has he had an opportunity to read in today's Daily Mirror the tragic story of Fiona Marshall, aged only 17? Does he acknowledge the tremendous campaign being run by the Daily Mirror against drug abuse, and does he agree that that campaign, calling for

    729
    advice, co-ordination and treatment on drug addiction and for drug addicts, is vital? Does he further agree that the Govermnent's suggestion of providing £2 million is insufficient and that there should be a massive injection of cash into schools so that people can be caught early and given treatment?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not want in any way to minimise the importance which the hon. Gentleman rightly wishes to give the subject or to the efforts of the Daily Mirror, but we are advised that there is a danger of being counterproductive and of glamourising the subject. That is why we are taking care to put together constructive advice for those immediately concerned.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Although shock tactics might not always be the right answer for drug misuse by young children, does my right hon. Friend agree that we cannot start too early to warn young children of the dangers involved? Will he take seriously the suggestion of our hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville)? Is he contemplating issuing any directive to local education authorities on the subject? He must surely be aware that the problem is serious, and growing.
    Sir Keith Joseph: My right hon. Friend has a fine record in trying to mobilise solutions to a parallel social problem — alcoholism — and I take what he says extremely seriously. He mentioned the key element—the danger of giving the wrong impression and of steering children in the wrong direction. There is also danger in trying to bring the truth to children at too early an age, as is might do more harm than good. Nevertheless, I take the subject extremely seriously.

    Teacher Training
    Mr. Sedgemoreasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the future number of teacher training places.
    Mr. Dunn: Provisional decisions on intakes to initial teacher training in England and Wales from 1986 were announced last month. We propose that intakes to primary training should increase from 8,620 in 1985 to 10,950 by 1989 and that intakes to secondary training over the same period should increase from 9,032 to 9,850.
    Mr. Sedgemore: Will the Minister confirm that the number of graduates seeking teacher training places has fallen by 16 per cent.? Does he agree that if we are to raise numbers and standards we must pay teachers adequately?
    Mr. Dunn: I undertake to look into the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and to write to him. I think he shares our concern that the quality of the teacher is important in the life of the school and in the educaton that a child receives. When CATE, the Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education, has finished its work, we shall be somewhat further forward in that goal.
    Mr. Forman: Adequate teacher training numbers are obviously important, but is my hon. Friend satisfied with the efforts of his Department and others to improve the curriculum of teacher training colleges so that the element of teacher training practice is given suitable prominence?
    Mr. Dunn: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend's supplementary question. As he will know, last September
    730
    we appointed to CATE a number of people who will have a great deal of work to do in that regard in the assessment of courses. He will share my concern that that work is done as soon as possible so that we may bring the results to bear in the classroom, where they are needed.
    Mr. Haynes: Is the hon. Gentleman not ashamed of himself? [Interruption.] I hope that the Minister can hear me. He should be, and the Secretary of State should also be ashamed. They have every reason to be ashamed of the teacher training figures, when many of those with the necessary qualifications are sweeping the streets when they should be teaching the children. When will Ministers wake up and do the job for which they have been elected?
    Mr. Dunn: I had some difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman. Unemployment among teachers rose early in the 1980s largely as a result of the fall in pupil numbers, which has now ended, in primary schools. The number of vacancies for primary school teachers is expected to rise for a number of years, and training intakes have been adjusted accordingly.
    Mr. Radice: Is not the real reason why the number of teacher training applicants is reported to be down this year the fact that the message is getting through that teaching is a badly paid job? Does that not provide a further powerful argument for the Government to respond positively to the call from the management side of Burnham for extra resources from the Government to help solve the teachers' dispute?
    Mr. Dunn: That supplementary question would be best directed to a group of questions which will be answered together later. There are still a far greater number of applicants for places at teacher training institutions than there are vacancies at those institutions.

    Teachers (Pay)
    6. Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what recent representations he has received concerning the level of teachers' pay.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have received about 1,300 letters, including some 300 from hon. and right hon. Members, about all aspects of the current pay dispute.
    Mr. Cohen: Is it not a fact that under the pressure of the county council elections the employers are beginning to see the light and are adopting a new negotiating position? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time for the Government to be more forthright and to improve the funds which they are making available so that a proper settlement, which recognises the excellent worth of the teachers to the community, can be reached?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is not quoting the employers' statement. The employers, in a carefully drafted statement, say that they want to discuss with me
    "the basis upon which additional resources can be sought."
    I think they mean by that statement that they want to discuss with me, and with the teachers, the offer that I have made, namely, that if the teachers and employers can make a bargain which I judge to be to the educational benefit of the children and to be affordable, I shall at once take it to my Cabinet colleagues to see whether I can obtain from them — I cannot guarantee the answer — extra finance. That is what the employers were referring to.
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the current teachers' dispute.
    Mr. Freudasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the effect of the teachers' strike.
    Mr. Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Mr. Easthamasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the teachers' pay dispute.
    Sir Keith Joseph: Management's offers of a 4 per cent. increase, arbitration and further discussion of pay structure reform remain on the table. All three have been rejected. The two largest teacher unions are set on a course of intensified industrial action, causing deliberate harm to children's education, in support of their claim for an extra £1,200 for all teachers. That claim is wholly unrealistic and no amount of industrial action will change the fact that increases of that order are not remotely affordable.
    Mr. Proctor: Is my right hon. Friend aware that last week the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) advocated the expenditure of £50 million to employ 14,000 more teachers, which works out at £3,500 per teacher? Is that not totally unrealistic? Is not the real solution to the teachers' dispute to be found through negotiations, rather than through disruption or unrealistic claims?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend that negotiations on one of the three options open to the teachers is the way forward. I think that before the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice) says anything about the current teachers' dispute, he should explain to the House how he justifies his view, which seems to emerge from his press statement, that £50 million will buy 14,000 extra teachers; that is to say, £3,500 per teacher.
    Mr. Freud: Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that appraisal will not be linked to the quality of teaching—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"]—and does he accept that the introduction of merit awards in a low-pay sector would have disastrous consequences?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I shall make no such pledge. I ask the hon. Member to bear in mind that promotion, which carries with it higher pay, is, of course, already based on an informal system of assessment or appraisal, and that what the Government seek is that that system of appraisal should be made formal with the agreement and with the help of teachers through discussions. I am saying, not that appraisal has to be connected with merit pay, but that the whole subject should be discussed and tried out in pilot schemes for which money from the taxpayer has been set aside. The one inexcusable thing is to refuse even to discuss it, which is what the teachers' unions are doing.
    Mr. Adley: Will my right hon. Friend try to answer a question which was put to me by a constituent at the weekend and which I found difficult? Why, he asked me, did the teachers last year go on strike because they could
    732
    not get arbitration, and why are they taking strike action this year even though they have been offered arbitration? As my constituent also said, is it not emerging from some of the teachers' leaders that their ambition is to try to embarrass Her Majesty's Government by organising a strike in this way?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I think that the apparent contradiction to which my hon. Friend refers must be explained by the fact that last year the teachers obtained from arbitration only 0·6 of 1 per cent. more than they had already been offered. The idea that an arbitrator can, as it were, find free and floating in the air extra resources is part of the Utopian approach of many Opposition Members.
    Mr. Flannery: Is the Secretary of State aware that during the conference over Easter of the two major teachers' unions, embracing the vast majority of all teachers, the most determined unity emerged? Does he not realise that it is useless for him to say that he does not decide the wages of teachers, but that the employers do? He knows that he has 15 votes on the Burnham committee and that he decides the teachers' wages. Does he accept that the unity of the teachers is so massive that unless new money is put on the table, separate from the negotiations on reappraisal, this strike and industrial dispute will go on indefinitely and will be the longest teachers' action of all time?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I pay tribute to those teachers' unions, and to the members of other teachers' unions, which have decided not to disrupt children's education. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's view that the teachers' unions are unanimous. In fact, I seem to detect among them a great deal of disagreement about what they should or should not be seeking to do. Indeed, some unions disagree with the whole idea of causing disruption.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Teachers, in encouraging strike action, thereby disrupting children's education, is doing immense damage to the professional standing of teachers? Does he further agree that the only way to settle their pay claim is either by returning to the restructuring talks on teachers' salaries or by going to arbitration? Will he confirm that any award made by arbitration under section 3 of the Remuneration of Teachers Act 1965 is binding and can be turned down only by a vote of both Houses of Parliament, on the basis that the economic conditions of the country do not allow it to be implemented?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with all that my right hon. and learned Friend says. I believe, in addition, that the leadership of the NUT was guilty of grossly misleading its members in the expectations that it aroused last year—witness the arbitration award—and is doing so again this year.
    I should like to take the opportunity of my right hon. and learned Friend's question to say that, while an arbitration award would be binding, except in the circumstances that he described, the Government still stand by their refusal to find any extra money for the honouring of an arbitration award which, over the level of the offer already made by the employers, would have to come out of local authority funds.
    Mr. Fatchett: Given the Secretary of State's obstinate refusal to play a constructive part in looking for a solution to the dispute, how far does he personally feel responsible for the disruption of the education of children in his own constituency and in the city of Leeds? Is that not really an indictment of his own period in office as Secretary of State?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The hon. Gentleman is guilty of thinking that it is constructive to spend taxpayers' money regardless of the consequences. We have been through that period under both Labour and Conservative Governments, and the result has been rocketing inflation and rocketing unemployment. That would be no service to the teachers, to the children or to their parents.
    Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend join me in saying firmly and fairly that schools are, first and foremost, for children and their education? Further, will he join me in saying that it was excellent that the teachers' conference decided not to disrupt examination invigilation? However, is it not deplorable that some examination teaching may be disrupted? Is it not also important to say that all education, not just examinations, is important and that the teachers should call off their strike straight away?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree with my hon. Friend. I think that the Opposition, by accepting the dogma of more spending regardless of the consequences, are espousing a thoroughly perverse set of policies. The hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Opposition spokesman, must explain how he can offer, as he did in his press conference last week, hundreds of millions of pounds—indeed, over £1,000 million — of extra spending. He gave no explanation at the time. The hon. Gentleman has evidently not costed in the £200 million the implications of what he was pleased to pledge—the phasing out of private schools. Presumably he does not take that seriously, as he did not cost it at all.
    The hon. Gentleman has also failed to cost the implications in hundreds of millions of pounds of the pledge which he has made, and will reinforce tomorrow, I understand, to provide nursery education for all. He has grossly underestimated the cost and has priced teachers at a salary of £3,500 each. The hon. Gentleman really must explain the cost of what he has left out and how any Labour Government, which I pray are unlikely to be returned, would find the money.
    Mr. Radice: I thank the Secretary of State for devoting at least most of his answer to the Labour party programme. I must say that it is a bit rich for him to talk about costs when his own White Paper is not costed at all. He knows perfectly well that his own White Paper would cost £1 billion to implement. He has not come clean with the House. Is he aware that the Conservative Central Office has not understood that £50 million was a net figure? The right hon. Gentleman intends to cut the number of teachers by over 6,000 in the coming year. Finally — [Interruption.] —and let us get back to the teachers' dispute, which he started—is he now saying that he will respond positively—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Questions from the Front Bench should be brief—all questions should be brief—and should be listened to with courtesy and attention.
    Mr. Radice: Is the Secretary of State going to respond positively to the request from the management side of Burnham for extra resources — and that is in the statement—to help solve the teachers' dispute?
    Sir Keith Joseph: The question is whether the Labour Opposition intend, if given the chance, to phase out independent education. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is riot the question."] If so, why did they not include the cost of it in the budget in the Labour party programme?

    Adult Education
    Mr. Dormandasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will convene a conference of organisations concerned with adult and continuing education to discuss the future of this part of the education service.
    Sir Keith Joseph: I have no plans to do so. I spoke last week at the annual conference of the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education and, during questions, offered to meet some of those present on specific aspects.
    Mr. Dormand: Is the Secretary of State aware of the universal dissatisfaction with Government policies of all interested organisations because of the constant cutting of resources in adult continuing education? I challenge the right hon. Gentleman not only to meet the body, which is not fully representative, as he knows, but to meet all representatives to answer the criticisms which some of us receive virtually every week. In particular, in the case of an adult who is capable of taking and wishes to take a university degree, will he say that there will be no obstacles to that adult doing so, not only for his personal fulfilment, but for the good of the country?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I share with the hon. Gentleman a great respect for all those who work in adult education. I will gladly meet, as I have offered, various groups from those concerned. But I think that the hon. Gentleman is doing injustice to Government policy. He is probably accepting the figures contained in the White Paper on public expenditure without taking account of the unallocated margin, and he forgets that the Government, to their credit, have four new initiatives in adult education, for which they have provided extra money.
    Mr. Squire: As my right hon. Friend takes direct responsibility for adult education, will he apply his considerable intellect to breaking the cycle of poorly educated parents producing poorly education children, and recognise that one of the most effective ways of doing that is through an expansion of the adult education programme?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I agree about the importance of breaking that cycle to the extent that that is humanly possible. I also accept that the adult education work done through "Outreach" can do much to help. I respect that, and will try to encourage it.
    Mr. Sheerman: The Secretary of State challenged teachers at last week's conference to explain their role in motivating the disadvantaged, but they could tell him that, as professionals, they know how to do that if they are given the resources to carry out the work. Is it not true that this Government do not believe in further and continuing education, as illustrated by the cuts in local authority

    735
    provision, in extramural departments, and in the Open University, as well as by the savage cuts in aid to the Workers Education Association?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I repeat that to the extent that adult education can help to break that cycle, I shall seek to encourage it to do so. The hon. Gentleman's story of cuts is not accurate. The unallocated margin explains that adult education spending by local authorities may not be cut at all.

    Teachers (Pay)
    Mr. Macleanasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will introduce legislation to replace the present negotiating machinery for teachers' pay with a system which directly links pay with performance.
    Sir Keith Joseph: The current pay structure for school teachers, as negotiated by the Burnham primary and secondary committee, allows employers some discretion, through scale promotions, to relate pay to performance. I am not persuaded that the replacement of the negotiating machinery is the key to bringing about a structure in which pay is more directly linked to performance.
    Mr. Maclean: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that those who take so-called industrial action should abide by the other rules by which those involved in industry have to live, where pay is directly linked to performance? Is it not time that my right hon. Friend introduced legislation to sweep away the present machinery and impose a system of pay related to performance?
    Sir Keith Joseph: I do not accept that it is the machinery that prevents a move in the direction that my hon. Friend seeks. The experience before our eyes in Scotland shows that even when the machinery is reformed in the way that he now seeks the results are not as had been hoped for.
    Mr. Canavan: Does the Secretary of State accept that the vast majority of teachers are dedicated, overworked and underpaid, and that if a system were introduced to link ministerial pay to performance he would be sent home with an empty pay packet?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Underneath the banter, there is a certain amount of common ground between us — [interruption]—I stress "a certain amount." I accept that most teachers are dedicated and hardworking. I also believe that most of them would welcome a system of appraisal in the preparation of which they had had some say.
    Mr. Madel: As the important salary restructuring talks need to proceed, will my right hon. Friend remind those involved in the negotiations that the Government's aim is to reward the effective classroom teacher with improved pay and promotion prospects?
    Sir Keith Joseph: Yes, Sir. The Government have declared their intention to introduce legislation and extra finance to expand in-service training so that an appraisal system can back up improved professional and career prospects, as well as perhaps having an influence on pay.

    Engineering and Science (Undergraduates)
    Mr. Iain Millsasked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement about the recently announced increase in places for undergraduates in engineering and science.
    Mr. Brooke: My right hon. Friend announced on 3 April the 20 institutions which should participate in the first phase of the programme and gave details of the relevant departments and the proposed intakes. The second phase of the engineering and technology programme will be announced later.
    Mr. Mills: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Given the increasing shortage of engineering and science graduates and technicians, can he reassure me that this switch is not really a switch, and that the increase in places for engineering and science is not simply a substitution for places in other disciplines?
    Mr. Brooke: The Government have been urged frequently by industry in the past year that the number of students in engineering and technology, and particularly in information technology subjects, should be increased. The programme which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has announced is in response to that.
    Dr. Bray: Is the Minister aware that only a very temporary glut in the supply of micro circuits has prevented the demand for electronic engineers going through the roof this year? Is he further aware that the proposed increase in the production of engineers is totally inadequate, given the demands of industry?
    Mr. Brooke: We are confident that the industry can certainly absorb more graduates with appropriate qualifications. The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share his faith in manpower planning, but he will be glad to know that an IMS study is being conducted on demand for and supply of information technology manpower.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. David Marshallasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Rene of the Seychelles.
    Mr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister confirm her cynical policy to reform the rating system before the next general election? In view of the disastrous situation now facing Scottish ratepayers, will she immediately authorise an emergency allocation of £100 million—only 1 per cent. of the cost of Trident—to ease their burden? Instead of visiting Singapore and Bali, will she visit Shettleston and Baillieston to see the consequences of her policy, or is she afraid to leave London and visit other parts of Britain?
    The Prime Minister: I shall, of course, be going up to Scotland in May, as is customary. I cannot agree to the allocation of £100 million. As the hon. Gentleman is

    737
    aware, we have made a special allocation to help the domestic ratepayer, who is particularly hard hit. I am aware that a number of commercial ratepayers are also particularly hard hit. If local authorities were to spend less, that would be a great help to ratepayers.
    Mr. Steel: As the Secretary of State for Employment has given a cautious welcome to the setting up of the Employment Institute, and the chairman of the Conservative party has sought to belittle it, will the right hon. Lady say which of her colleagues' views she supports?
    The Prime Minister: Everyone who can help to solve the problem in practical terms, as distinct from talking about it, is welcome. I hope that some of them will be able to create new businesses which, in practice, will create new jobs. In the meantime, I recognise that two of the suggestions which it has proposed which would help have already been put in hand by this Government. For example, it has proposed a cut in the employers' national insurance contribution, and that has already occurred. It has proposed an increase in the community programme, and that has already occurred. It would seem that we have a number of things in common.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern felt by some of us at the remark made by the Prime Minister of Malaysia during her recent visit that the Commonwealth is now just a sentimental attachment? Does she agree that it is a unique grouping of nations which, given the will, have the potential to play a major part in world development and peace?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I believe that the Commonwealth still has a role. It is a unique group of nations which girdle the world. We meet alternate years in conference, and there are regional conferences. I believe that that is valuable both politcally and economically and for technical co-operation. I believe that Malaysia, too, will find it valuable.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Prime Minister tell us why, after seven Conservative Budgets, workers on average earnings and half average earnings are paying a higher proportion of those earnings in tax and national insurance than under the previous Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman tells only half the story. Were the rates of income tax and the structure as in 1979 when we took them over, people would be paying £6 billion more in income tax. The Conservative Government put up thresholds—that is, tax-free allowances—in real terms by 16 per cent., whereas the Labour Government put down tax-free allowances in real terms.
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Adley: Following the question from the leader of the Liberal party, will my right hon. Friend make it quite clear that she is prepared to welcome any groups of new people who may have time to spare and be willing to put themselves forward for the study of a possible solution to the problem of unemployment? Will she endorse the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment concerning a group which may come up
    738
    with new ideas and which, even if it does not, certainly at the beginning of its life should be given some sort of welcome?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that I have indicated my view. We need new business, and anything that will assist in the formation of new business will be helpful. We are already considering a number of measures, including tax incentives. In particular, we are reducing the considerable number of regulations and examining planning permission. Anything that is conductive to the development of new business will certainly be very helpful.
    Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is now considering the report and recommendations of the review body on nurses' pay. Will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking that, as a matter of policy, she will support an award that at least will begin the return to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980? Will she also give an undertaking that in no circumstances will she finance any part of any award by taking money from the rest of the NHS?
    The Prime Minister: Three reports arrived yesterday, including the report on nurses. We shall consider these reports together. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman undertakings in advance of proper consideration. He will be aware that he will be the first to accuse me of increasing public expenditure if we do so. He knows that the Labour party wants increased public expenditure, but he will be the first to accuse us if it results in increased interest rates or increased taxation. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the levels of real pay received by nurses in 1980. He will therefore be very much aware that this Government have done much better by the nurses than the previous Labour Government.
    Mr. Kinnock: The right hon. Lady, the country and the nurses will recall that that level was achieved because of the Clegg award, which the right hon. Lady opposed at the time but which had to be introduced because of the way in which she undertook during the general election campaign to take action. Can the right hon. Lady now tell me, without evasion, whether she agrees that public expenditure should be used to give justice and proper rewards to those who obviously deserve such rewards? Does the right hon. Lady think that the nurses are properly paid in 1985?
    The Prime Minister: I noted what the right hon. Gentleman said about Clegg. This Government honoured the Clegg award. The previous Labour Government, not having the resources, made empty promises which they left us to honour. This Government honoured the nurses' award and reduced their working week from 40 hours to 37½ hours. This Government have found the resources for 57,000 extra nurses and midwives. The right hon. Gentleman has a nerve even to ask that question.
    Mr. Richard Page: Is my right hon. Friend aware that her visit two weeks ago to the far east has been very much welcomed by British exporters? Would my right hon. Friend care to build on that by examining our overseas aid budget to ensure that it will generate the maximum activity at home, especially to create jobs? In particular, will my right hon. Friend consider increasing the overseas aid and trade provision?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is correct. Exporters very much welcomed the visit. The visit to those

    739
    regions was necessary. I cannot give an undertaking to increase the overseas aid budget or the overseas aid and trade provision. We must examine carefully the distribution of that aid to maximise the number of jobs that we can secure in this country from the expenditure of that money.
    Mr. Terry Fieldsasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 23 April.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Fields: Will the Prime Minister admit that, despite her boast during her visit to semi-dictatorships in the far east that she saw off the miners, the miners' magnificent struggle for jobs has been the source of inspiration for those who are prepared to stand up and fight against unemployment, especially the young people and students who, supported by parents and teachers, will take strike action on Thursday against industrial conscription? In view of the fact that the right hon. Lady is prepared to introduce compulsory industrial conscription for 16-yearolds, is she prepared to give youth the vote at 16?
    The Prime Minister: Although I tried to follow the hon. Gentleman's meanderings, what is painfully clear is that he supports strikes. In doing so, he defeats the prospects for getting export jobs for this country. Then he will assuredly complain about unemployment. I doubt whether he really wants to solve the unemployment problem. If he did, he would not support strikes; he would support action to prevent strikes.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: In view of the emphasis placed upon education by the Labour party during the current county council elections, will my right hon. Friend take time today to look at that party's recent education proposals? Will she note that the Labour party's commitment to additional resources is equalled by its commitment and pledge to do away with independent schools? Therefore, despite all that the Labour party says about the shortage of resources, it is planning for no increase in expenditure on state education.
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for so cogently making that point. As he will be aware, expenditure per pupil and the proportion of teachers to pupils in the state education system is at an all-time record under the Conservative Government. It is we who deliver the goods; it is the Labour party which does the talking.
    Mr. Litherland: Does the Prime Minister agree that the increase in inflation, on top of the appalling level of unemployment, confirms that the Government's monetarist policies are not working and are bringing only misery and deprivation to this country, especially in the inner city areas?
    The Prime MinisterNo. I think that many of us would be quite glad to have had the level of inflation that we now have for a longer period. The hon. Gentleman will recall that under the Labour Government inflation went up to 27 per cent. and that it fundamentally undermined the social as well as the financial fabric of this country.
    As for unemployment, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have achieved record output, a record standard of living and record investment. We have a very considerable unemployment problem, but the answer to it
    740
    lies not in the direction which the hon. Gentleman would go, but in the formation of new small businesses, which will grow and create genuine jobs.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Following the question put by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields), does my right hon. Friend agree that the leadership of the National Union of Mineworkers would greatly enhance its reputation if it condemned the intolerable treatment by the miners who went on strike of those who chose not to go on strike? Does she further agree that the treatment of those who did not go on strike is an intolerable blot upon the reputation of the trade union movement?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. I wholly agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the whole world knows that the miners' strike lasted for a year, that it was perpetuated through violence and intimidation, that it was supported by the Labour party, and that it was the Government, the working miners and the mass of the trade union movement that stood out against it and saw it off. I hope that my hon. Friend's advice will be taken in the quarters where it should be taken.
    Mr. Home Robertson: May we have a little less humbug from the Prime Minister about rates in Scotland? Is she aware that in a written reply to me last week the Secretary of State for Scotland confirmed that, as a result of revaluation and successive cuts in rate support grant, domestic and commercial ratepayers in Scotland are bearing a 50 per cent. greater share of the burden of the costs of local services than they were when this Government came to power. So let us have a little less humbug. Will the Prime Minister admit that it is the Conservative Government who are responsible for the miseries of Scottish ratepayers?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman refers to proportions. If the total expenditure were less, the burden on the domestic ratepayer would be less. Although comparatively few Scottish electors pay rates, Labour local authorities unfortunately do not hesitate to place an intolerable burden upon them.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Has my right hon. Friend noticed today that Dr. Sidney Gee has been awarded libel damages amounting to £75,000 against the "That's Life" programme? Does she agree that the time has come for the lawyers' profession to be investigated, just as every other profession is investigated, since the actual costs in that case, in order to obtain justice, amounted to £1.2 million? Has not the time come when those who are libelled should at least obtain a fairer share of the costs, instead of £1.2 million going to the lawyers?
    The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend feels strongly about that matter. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the appropriate Law Officers.
    Mr. O'Brien: Having advised the House that she has now received the report on nurses' pay, will the Prime Minister assure the House and the nurses that she will not sit on the report, as she did last year? Will she implement the decision as quickly as possible, given the full implications?
    The Prime Minister: We have still more reports to receive. The one from the Top Salaries Review Body will be some time, and therefore we shall probably not wait for it. It has a number of matters to consider. I hope that we

    741
    shall be able to consider the rest before that one. There is still, of course, the doctors' and dentists' review body report to come. I am sure the hon. Gentleman understands that we must consider carefully how to find all the money that we decide must be found across the board, bearing in mind that it comes not from the Government but from taxpayers.
    Later—
    Mr. Heddle: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. During education questions, the hon. Member for
    742
    Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) caught your eye in order to ask a question about truancy. Was it not a gross abuse of Question Time for the hon. Gentleman to raise such a subject when 90 per cent. of the parliamentary Labour party were not in the Chamber, only one member of the Liberal party was present, and the Social Democratic party Member—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If there was an abuse, it is being repeated now. I do not propose to let it continue.

Soviet Diplomats (Expulsion)
3.30 pm
Mr. Denis Healey(Leeds, East) (by private notice) asked the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the expulsion of Soviet diplomats from London and the Soviet response.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): Our policy towards the Soviet Union is consistent and clear, and has been made clear to the Russians on numerous occasions including most recently when informing them of the expulsions. We wish to improve relations with the Soviet Union. We have made considerable efforts in that direction which will be maintained, but they have been hampered by the unacceptable activities of certain Soviet officials in this country. In the circumstances, and in accordance with our long-established policy, we had no choice but to expel the officials concerned.
We deeply regret the retaliatory action taken against three members of the staff of our Moscow embassy. That was wholly unwarranted, and the accusations made against them without substance. We have protested strongly to the Soviet authorities.
There can be no relaxation of our policy where national security is concerned, but we shall continue our policy of seeking improved relations with the Soviet Union, and better relations between East and West.
Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary will recognise that the Opposition approve his attempt to improve relations with the Soviet Union and welcome the progress that he has made in recent weeks. That makes it all the more difficult to understand why he mishandled the case of the behaviour of Soviet diplomats. As I understand it, the Foreign Office made it clear last night that it was prepared to ask three of the Soviet diplomats engaged in illegitimate activities to leave without publicity, on condition that the Soviets did not expel British diplomats in retaliation. In that case, why did he not approach all five diplomats in the same way, when he might have received an acceptable response? He must recognise now that the way in which he mishandled the case—the fact that he has made a distinction between two expelled with publicity and three expelled with the promise of no publicity—is difficult not just for the Opposition but for foreign diplomatists in Moscow to understand.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman can sustain that charge. When the Soviet ambassador was informed last Thursday, he was told that Captain Los, the assistant naval attache, who had been found to have engaged in activities incompatible with his status, should leave the country within seven days. He was further informed that Mr. Grigorov, a member of the staff of the Soviet airline Aeroflot, was also found to have engaged in unacceptable activities and that, if he were still in the country in seven days, measures would be taken against him.
The ambassador was informed at the same time that we wished the Soviet authorities to withdraw a further three officials within one month for activities again incompatible with their status and presence in this country. The Soviet ambassador was also told that if, in response to the expulsion of Captain Los and Mr. Grigorov, the Soviet
744
authorities expelled any member of the British community in Moscow, we would then publicly expel the three named officials and reduce the Soviet embassy's ceiling accordingly. The Soviet authorities chose to disregard that warning and informed us last night of their requirement that three members of our embassy staff in Moscow should leave. It was in those circumstances that we informed the Soviet chargé d'affaires that three further named officials — Captain Zaikin, assistant naval attache, Colonel Cherkasov, assistant military attache, and Mr. Belaventsev, the third secretary, must also leave this country within seven days and that the appropriate embassy ceiling had been reduced.
In those circumstances, the way in which we handled the matter was consistent with our overall objective of wishing to diminish the impact of this incident on our search to improve East-West relations. We had also to take into account our intention to protect, as far as we could, the position of the British community in Moscow. It was on that basis that we gave the original information. It was as a result of the Soviet response that we found it necessary and right to follow through the original warning.
I must emphasise that this sort of incident arises because of unacceptable conduct by Soviet officials in this country. It is necessary to respond appropriately to such conduct and at the same time to underline the fact that we remain committed to improving relations between East and West. That fact was emphasised in each of the conversations with the Soviet ambassador and Soviet authorities during the past three days.
Mr. Healey: The Foreign Secretary has confirmed my suggestion that he mishandled the affair. He still has not explained why he drew a distinction between announcing the expulsion of two of the offending diplomats and being prepared to keep secret the expulsion of the other three. Is it not the case that his hand was forced by a quite impermissible leak in a British national newspaper of his intention to expel the first two diplomats?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The right hon. Gentleman has failed to understand the position. We made it plain to the Soviet ambassador that we were requiring the withdrawal of five Soviet officials from this country. We intended to publicise the fact that two of them were required to withdraw within seven days, and we said that if the Soviet Union expelled any member of the British community in Moscow we would give publicity to the other three Soviet officials who were also required to withdraw.
It was handled in that way to give the Soviet Union the opportunity to avoid doing damage to the British community in Moscow and to give it the opportunity to withdraw five people, as we required, without publicity. It is because of the Soviet response that it has become undoubtedly necessary and right to give publicity, as we promised, to the three other people involved. The matter was handled throughout in a fashion entirely calculated to do the least damage to Anglo-Soviet relationships. The responsibility for what has happened rests upon the shoulders of those who have committed unacceptable activities in this country.
Sir Anthony Kershaw: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the years of creeping and crawling by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Healey), to the Soviets—when the right hon. Gentleman had influence—were as barren as they were

745
humiliating to this country? Is it not the position that Russia knew the rules, it broke them, it was caught, and it should now stop whining?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: My hon. Friend puts the matter very clearly. It is because of the activities of Soviet citizens that these actions have been necessary. They have been carefully judged to make them as consistent as possible with our long-term desire to see a continued improvement in our relations with the Soviet Union.
Mr. James Callaghan: If the Foreign Secretary's intention was to safeguard the security of the country, to minimise damage to our relations with the Soviet Union and to protect the British community in Moscow, why did he give any publicity at all to the incident?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Because if one is securing withdrawals in that way, accompanied by a reduction in ceilings, that inevitably leads to speculation about why that has happened. In addition, and in a wider sense, it is necessary in the case of conduct that threatens national security to demonstrate to all concerned, and not only the Soviet Union, that such activities cannot be tolerated.
Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his action. Is there any truth in the report that at least one of those expelled was trying to obtain information about British laser technology? Are any proceedings likely against a United Kingdom citizen as a result of investigations by the security services?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: Action is taken in cases of this kind on the basis of irrefutable evidence, but the House would not expect me to give details about the background of this operation.
Mr. Russell Johnston: Is there any reason why the Secretary of State should not at least give us some idea what these diplomats were doing, which might help the House?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman ignores the necessary, regular and prudent practice. It is not appropriate in places such as this to give any further details than I have given. I can assure him that the actions were based on irrefutable evidence.
Mr. David Winnick: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman recognise that it would be disastrous if these expulsions prevented the continuing improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations? While I recognise the need at all times to protect our national security against any country, would it not be right for the Foreign Secretary to make it clear to the Soviet authorities at the highest level that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to see a continued improvement in Anglo-Soviet relations? Should that not be made clear at the first opportunity?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The position is entirely clear. We have to remain serious and vigilant in our protection of national security. We have to remain serious and realistic in our search for improved relations with the Soviet Union, and both those matters have to be considered alongside each other. I have made it plain, through the Soviet ambassador on Thursday, through the Soviet chargé d'affaires last night and through our ambassador to Moscow, that we intend to sustain our policy of searching for improvement in East-West relations, and with the
746
Soviet Union. I shall take an early opportunity, I expect when I meet Mr. Gromyko in Vienna early next month, to make the same point to him.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his handling of the affair. Does he agree that what is required in the handling of East-West relations is consistency? By undertaking this act, he has shown the Soviet Union that, unless it obeys the rules and behaves according to diplomatic circumstances, we shall not be prepared to forward our friendship with it, except on a proper basis?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I agree. We have always made it clear to the Soviet Union that our search for improved relations would have to be conducted on the basis of realism and proper reconciliation of the interests of both sides, and that includes continuing to take proper account of national security.
Mr. Gavin Strang: Presumably, the alleged offences of the three officials were less serious than those of the first two officials about whom we heard. Why did the Foreign Secretary think that restricting publicity to the first two would influence the Soviet response?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: It is customary in these cases to make a judgment of how far one publicises the action that one has taken, as has been pointed out. In this case, we judged that it was right to require the withdrawal of two Russians with publicity at the outset, to make it plain:hat such conduct would not be tolerated, while the withdrawal of the other three would not be accompanied by such publicity. We did so to try to limit the damage to the British community in Moscow. That was the intention and it is a matter of great regret that the Soviet Union chose not to respond to our suggestion in the way that we hoped.
Mr. Jonathan Aitken: Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed the interesting contrast between the noisy if unconvincing protest of the Soviet embassy spokesmen in London on this issue on the one hand, and on the other the uncharacteristic silence of the state-controlled media in Moscow on the subject? Does my right hon. and learned Friend conclude from this, as I do, that this may be a case of the Soviet authorities knowing that they are in the wrong and hoping that this incident will not damage our long-term relations?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I certainly hope that the Soviet Union will draw that conclusion, and will recognise that such activities are bound to impair the process of improving relations. I hope that the Soviet Union recognises that we are serious in our intention to secure such an improvement.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have to protect the remainder of the day's business. I intend to take only two more questions from each side of the House.
Mr. David Crouch: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the great majority of hon. Members and of the people of this country appreciate his realistic and determined approach to improved relations with the Soviet Union and the eastern bloc countries, and

747
thank him for it? They also appreciate his determined, even gentle, approach to matters concerning our security, which are of equal importance, and thank him for that, too.
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does this case have further ramifications? Will any British citizens be arrested under the Official Secrets Act? Is it true that, as has been rumoured, a spy network has been uncovered?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am not in a position to add to what I have said about the background to the case. In this as in every other case, the prosecuting authority will investigate the matter fully.
Mr. Bill Walker: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that Soviet diplomats in the United Kingdom are given freedoms that British diplomats in the Soviet Union do not enjoy? If so, are there any plans to advise the Soviet Union that we shall restrict the movement of Soviet diplomats to the level of that of our diplomats in the Soviet Union?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I do not propose, at this time, in this case, to outline any of the steps that I may have in mind.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: Has not the Foreign Secretary bungled it? Could not all five Soviet diplomats have been expelled without publicity, in private, as was done in previous cases by Labour Governments? Were not the first two expulsions publicised simply because the Government wanted to do some Commie-bashing?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman's question could not more clearly illustrate how completely he fails to understand the policy of Her Majesty's Government. We are not interested in Commie-bashing, as the hon.
748
Gentleman so crudely puts it. We are interested, and have been engaged on a sustained basis, in improving relations between East and West and between this country and the Soviet Union.
However, we must make it clear that that pursuit cannot be conducted at the expense of national security. In this case, it was necessary to give publicity to the initial expulsions to make it clear to all those who might be concerned in such activities that they will not be tolerated.
Mr. Healey: May I assure the Foreign Secretary that we share his suffering at the pompous congratulations that he has received from Conservative Members whose aim is to make relations between Britain and the Soviet Union more difficult, rather than less?
May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to bear in mind the damage that he has done to his major objective through his mishandling of this issue?
Sir Geoffrey Howe: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the greater cause for dismay—not suffering—is the patronising inaccuracy of his own question.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: By leave of the House, I will put together the motions relating to draft Statutory Instruments.
Ordered,
That the Building (Fourth Amendment) Regulations 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 488) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Housing (Limits of Rateable Value for Improvement Grants and Repairs Grants) (Scotland) Order 1985 (S.I., 1985, No. 297) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the Protected Tenancies and Part VII Contracts (Rateable Value Limits) (Scotland) Order 1985 (S.1., 1985, No. 314) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Lancashire
3.48 pm
Mr. Jack Straw: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make further provision regarding local government services in Lancashire.
In the 1930s, the urban areas of Lancashire were deeply scarred. More than 50 per cent. of the insured population of many towns, including Blackburn, Preston and Burnley were without work. That devastation was wanton and unnecessary. It was caused by blind and doctrinaire policies. The people of Lancashire resolved that it should never happen again. They fought for policies of full employment, they voted for policies of full employment and, for 35 years, they got full employment. [Interruption.] From the end of the second world war until 1980, Lancashire had virtually full employment. Unemployment rarely went above 6 per cent. People could find work—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it extremely difficult to follow what he is saying because of all the background conversations. I hope that the House will give the hon. Gentleman the courtesy and attention that he deserves.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, unemployment rarely went above 6 per cent. and people were able to find work. New towns were created and prosperity was established, not least as a result of the successful policies of regional aid and assistance pioneered by a Labour Government, but broadly maintained by previous Conservative Administrations.
Since 1980, disaster has struck our county. Since then, 60,000 jobs have been lost across the county and one in four young people are without work. Many of them have never had a proper job in their lives. One half of the men in many Asian areas are without jobs, and hundreds of men and women over 50 might never work again.
The despair spreads across the county. From Morecambe and Lancaster in the north, to Blackpool and Fylde in the west, to Skelmersdale and Ormskirk in the south, to Preston, Leyland and Chorley in the centre, to Blackburn, Hyndburn, Darwen, Burnley, Nelson, Colne and the Rossendale valley to the east, the story has been the same—closure and cuts.
Many people remain in work, but there is not one family in the county of Lancashire which is not now affected by the scourge of unemployment. There is not a family which does not have a member without work or in which the parents, even in prosperous areas, are not worried sick about their children's future.
The Government have washed their hands of responsibility for all this and deliberately made a bad situation worse. Regional assistance for the county was all but abolished between 1975 and 1982. Housing investment has been halved during the past six years. It was £95 million in 1979 at today's prices and is now £39 million. Grants to Lancashire county council and district councils have been slashed. Lancashire county council estimates that, since 1980–81, £180 million has been cut from Government assistance to the county—equivalent to £130 per head of population.
750
In those circumstances, the work of the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council and Labour-controlled district councils has shone like a beacon. They have stepped in to create jobs—1,200 new jobs have been created directly by the county council in the front line, not in bureaucracy. Lancashire Enterprises Limited has been established. It has protected and promoted 2,200 jobs, created 800 training opportunities and made a £300,000 profit for the ratepayers. Its cost per job created, at £4,000, is less than the Government pay to keep people on the dole.
The county has pioneered cheap travel for the elderly, improved rail and bus services, and opened 17 nursery schools and classes—and there are another 12 on the way. It has expanded the number of home helps and services to the elderly, especially in Blackpool, the Fylde and Morecambe areas—to which many people retire. It has done all that with one of the best financial records in the country.
In national terms, ratepayers in Labour shire counties pay 50p a week less than ratepayers in Conservative shires —£5.31 is paid each in week in Conservative shires and £4.83 is paid in Labour shires. In Lancashire, the record is even better. Average rate bills are £3.99 a week. No fewer than 33 counties have higher rate bills than Lancashire.
Despite Lancashire's excellent record, we are still spending £16.6 million less than the Government's assessment of the needs of the area, thanks to the target system. Because of that record, Labour's majority in Lancashire will increase on 2 May. But to meet the massive needs of the area, created by the reckless economic policies of the Conservatives, Lancashire needs assistance from central Government, not the hindrance that we have had from them in the last six years.
The Bill sets out a new framework for a real partnership between Whitehall, Westminster and the county to provide positive assistance to restore prosperity, jobs and services to the county. Clause 1 provides that within three months the Secretary of State for the Environment shall present a report to Parliament estimating the loss of rate support grant that has been suffered by the county in the last six years and the effect that that has had on business and domestic ratepayers. Most rate increases have occurred as a direct result of cuts in rate support grant.
Clause 2 provides for the Secretary of State to make a report to Parliament on the social and economic needs of the county of Lancashire and on plans, drawn up in consultation with the county, as to what the Government propose to meet those social and economic needs.
Clause 3 provides that the Secretary of State shall present proposals to Parliament to meet the pressing housing needs of Lancashire, which have got so much worse in the last six years. Clause 4 provides for extensive consultation with the districts and the county so that plans and proposals are not imposed on the county but are presented in collaboration with the districts.
Because private Members cannot move money Bills, the measure proposes no plans for increases in public expenditure. However, it is the first stage in a new partnership with the county. I hope that it will enjoy support from Conservative as well as Labour Members in the House.
Tory Members know that unemployment in the county of Lancashire would be even higher without the fine work of the county council. They know that many Conservative

751
business men have been knocking on the doors of Lancashire Enterprises Limited seeking help for their firms, which have been ravaged by the present Government. They know of the hundreds of jobs that have been created and of the damage that has been done to the county by the Government. I hope that they also know that if they fail to support the Bill, bearing in mind the hope for the county that it holds out, the people of Lancashire will never forgive them.
3.57 pm
Mr. Kenneth Hind rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?
Mr. Hind: I do, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I rise to comment on what must be considered one of the most cynical abuses of the House that we have witnessed for a long time. The county council is facing elections on 2 May and it is not without significance—[Interruption.]—that, although this Bill could have been introduced on any day this Session, it has been introduced today, nine days before those elections.
As the only hon. Member whose constituency includes the name "Lancashire", I feel qualified to draw the attention of the House to some of the flaws in the Bill. All hon. Members who represent Lancashire constituencies — there are some on these Benches — want more resources spent on Lancashire as a whole — [Interruption.]—but we must see the whole of the national purse in the context of what the country can afford. We cannot ignore the interests of every other county.
I have no doubt that this measure will be followed by other cynical attempts at campaigning for the county council elections in the days to come, with similar Bills being brought, for example, on behalf of the counties of Avon, Kent and Northumberland. Such Bills will probably be brought only on behalf of counties where Opposition Members feel that they might have a chance of winning on 2 May. We shall not hear from Conservative-held shire counties where they do not stand a chance.
When we consider increasing the resources of local authorities, we must examine the way in which they spend their money. Have the authorities given good value for money? The record of Lancashire, to quote the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), stands out like a beacon; it has an appalling record in abuse and waste of public money. Lancashire Enterprises Limited has been referred to. It was set up by the Labour group on a supplementary rate of 18p about six weeks after Labour got into power, simply as a campaigning tool for the benefit of the Labour party.
Attached to that was Enterprise Associates Limited, a public relations consultancy. I am told that newspaper reporters were paid £15,000 a year and provided with a car to spread the message about what the Labour party was doing in Lancashire. This was nothing more than a publicity campaign for the Labour party in Lancashire at the ratepayers' expense. It is cynical and an abuse, but presumably the Labour party hopes that it will produce results. I am sure the ratepayers of Lancashire will not be convinced.
The rates in Lancashire have been increased because of Lancashire Enterprises Limited. In this electoral year they
752
may not have been increased as much as previously, because the Labour party knew that it was going to the polls. Those high rates since 1981 have done more damage to investment prospects in Lancashire than anything other than the recession itself.
The hon. Member for Blackburn talked about 1,200 jobs that were created. If the money taken by the Labour-controlled Lancashire county council for high rates had been left in the hands of ordinary manufacturers and industrialists, not only would 1,200 jobs have been preserved but more jobs would have been created through the investment of that money. May I say on behalf of my constituents in Lancashire, West that, although in parts of Skelmersdale there is 30 per cent. unemployment, we are still waiting for Lancashire Enterprises Limited to create one job in my constituency?
Another abuse is that £15,000 was given by Lancashire to the miners' welfare fund. The council has just spent £150,000 on attacking the Government's Transport Bill. I have a letter here from the chief executive of Lancashire county council who says, in a nutshell, that the council totally opposes the Bill and is not taking any part in providing advice for Conservative Members of Parliament who are sitting on the Transport Bill Committee. Rather than spend a train fare to come to the Committee, the council has spent £150,000 of ratepayers' money cynically to campaign in Lancashire against the Conservative Government.
We have received through our letter boxes the Lancashire Clarion, produced by Enterprise Associates Limited; it is supposed to be a news sheet for Lancashire county council. I challenge anyone reading that news sheet to hunt the Conservative, or find any mention of Conservatives. It is nothing more than a publicity sheet for the Labour campaign in Lancashire.
I am sure my hon. Friends will join me in supporting the provision of more money for the counties at a favourable opportunity, but it has to be seen within the context of total public expenditure and what the country can afford. Hon. Members should bear in mind the cynical abuse by Lancashire county council when they decide what they will do at the end of the debate. I am sure that they will vote against the Bill for one reason only: that it is a cynical abuse of the House, electioneering and nothing more. I therefore beg the House to reject the motion.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—
The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 155.

Division No. 190]

[4·4 pm

AYES

Anderson, Donald

Bruce, Malcolm

Ashdown, Paddy

Caborn, Richard

Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

Canavan, Dennis

Barnett, Guy

Cartwright, John

Barron, Kevin

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Beckett, Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Thomas

Beith, A. J.

Clay, Robert

Bell, Stuart

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

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

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Blair, Anthony

Cohen, Harry

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

Boyes, Roland

Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

Corbett, Robin

Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

Cowans, Harry

753

Craigen, J. M.

Meadowcroft, Michael

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Michie, William

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

Mikardo, Ian

Dewar, Donald

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Dixon, Donald

Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

Dormand, Jack

O'Brien, William

Dubs, Alfred

O'Neill, Martin

Duffy, A. E. P.

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Eadie, Alex

Park, George

Evans, John (St. Helens N)

Patchett, Terry

Fatchett, Derek

Pavitt, Laurie

Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

Pendry, Tom

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Penhaligon, David

Forrester, John

Pike, Peter

Freud, Clement

Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

Radice, Giles

Godman, Dr Norman

Randall, Stuart

Hamilton, James (M'well N)

Redmond, M.

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Richardson, Ms Jo

Hancock, Mr. Michael

Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Sedgemore, Brian

Haynes, Frank

Sheerman, Barry

Heffer, Eric S.

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

Howells, Geraint

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

Hoyle, Douglas

Skinner, Dennis

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Snape, Peter

Kennedy, Charles

Soley, Clive

Kirkwood, Archy

Spearing, Nigel

Lambie, David

Steel, Rt Hon David

Leadbitter, Ted

Stott, Roger

Leighton, Ronald

Strang, Gavin

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

Litherland, Robert

Thorne, Stan (Preston)

Loyden, Edward

Torney, Tom

McDonald. Dr Oonagh

Wallace, James

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Weetch, Ken

Maclennan, Robert

Williams, Rt Hon A.

McNamara, Kevin

Winnick, David

McTaggart, Robert

Wrigglesworth, Ian

McWilliam, John

Madden, Max

Tellers for the Ayes:

Marek, Dr John

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

and

Maxton, John

Mr. John Golding.

Maynard, Miss Joan

NOES

Adley, Robert

Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Bruinvels, Peter

Ancram, Michael

Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

Arnold, Tom

Budgen, Nick

Aspinwall, Jack

Bulmer, Esmond

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Burt, Alistair

Baldry, Tony

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Batiste, Spencer

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

Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Blackburn, John

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Cockeram, Eric

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Colvin, Michael

Bottomley, Peter

Coombs, Simon

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

Cope, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Critchley, Julian

754

Crouch, David

Mather, Carol

Dicks, Terry

Maude, Hon Francis

Dorrell, Stephen

Mawhinney, Dr Brian

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Mayhew, Sir Patrick

Durant, Tony

Mellor, David

Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

Merchant, Piers

Eggar, Tim

Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

Emery, Sir Peter

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Evennett, David

Moore, John

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

Favell, Anthony

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Forth, Eric

Nelson, Anthony

Fox, Marcus

Neubert, Michael

Franks, Cecil

Nicholls, Patrick

Gale, Roger

Onslow, Cranley

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Pawsey, James

Goodhart, Sir Philip

Portillo, Michael

Goodlad, Alastair

Powley, John

Gow, Ian

Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

Gower, Sir Raymond

Price, Sir David

Greenway, Harry

Proctor, K. Harvey

Gregory, Conal

Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

Grist, Ian

Renton, Tim

Grylls, Michael

Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

Hannam, John

Rost, Peter

Harris, David

Rowe, Andrew

Haselhurst, Alan

Rumbold, Mrs Angela

Hayes, J.

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Hayhoe, Barney

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Hayward, Robert

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Heddle, John

Silvester, Fred

Hickmet, Richard

Sims, Roger

Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

Skeet, T. H. H.

Hind, Kenneth

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Holt, Richard

Speed, Keith

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Squire, Robin

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Stanley, John

Jackson, Robert

Stern, Michael

Kershaw, Sir Anthony

Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Knowles, Michael

Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

Lamont, Norman

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Lang, Ian

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Lawler, Geoffrey

Thurnham, Peter

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Tracey, Richard

Lilley, Peter

Twinn, Dr Ian

Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

Waddington, David

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Lord, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Wheeler, John

Maclean, David John

Wiggin, Jerry

McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

Yeo, Tim

McQuarrie, Albert

Young, Sir George (Acton)

Major, John

Malone, Gerald

Tellers for the Noes:

Maples, John

Mr. Robert Atkins and

Marland, Paul

Mr. Ken Hargreaves.

Question accordingly negatived.

Opposition Day
[3RD ALLOTTED DAY]
[SECOND PART]

Opposition Day

  Trade Unions (Ballots)
  4.17 pm
  Mr. David Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is clear that there is going to be trouble in the House in that certain Opposition Members are trying to deny the leader of the Social Democratic party, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), his customary seat. In view of that, and in an attempt to be helpful and constructive, would it not be a good idea if the leader of the Liberal party, the right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) vacated his seat and his expensive microphone so that the leader of the Social Democratic party could speak there? That would avoid the occurrence of any unseemly scenes in the House.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): There is no point of order.
  Mr. Skinner rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There seems to be no point of order. What we have heard seems to have caused more trouble than it was suggested we might cure.
  Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will recall that the only provision for securing a seat in the House is if hon. Members come in for prayers, having put in their prayer cards. That is what some of my hon. Friends have done in this case—as they always do. In view of the fact that this matter is about trade unions and ballots, we thought that the leader of the Social Democratic party should sit on the Tory Benches to deliver his speech.
  Mr. Dennis Canavan rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I can see plenty of empty seats. I do not see any reason for any hon. Member to be unduly cramped. [Interruption.] Order. Perhaps the leader of the Social Democratic party will take one of the empty seats rather than occupy the Gangway.
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an ex-heavyweight politician like the leader of the SDP to be sitting on the floor on my right-hand side and for the Whip of the SDP to be sitting down on my left-hand side? I have noticed that both of them have been throwing threatening glances at my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) because he is occupying the seat that they have their eye on.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be sensible if hon. Gentlemen made best use of the seating that is available.
  Mr. Ron Leighton: Would it be helpful to suggest that, as the leader of the SDP is trying to outflank the Conservative party from the right, he should be offered a seat in the far right-hand corner which is empty?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: All the so-called helpful suggestions do not seem to be very helpful at all.
  Sir Kenneth Lewis: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I suggest in a purely neutral sense that the leader of the SDP, in view of his opinions on the political parties on both sides of the House, might take his seat up above the clock?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister and her right hon. Friends. Dr. Owen.
  Dr. David Owen rose—
  Mr. John Prescott rose—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must sit down.
  Mr. Prescott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It would appear that the Leader of the SDP has decided to speak from this Dispatch Box in order to move the Motion. Such a proposal is not normally dealt with in this way in the House. I wonder whether you would rule that the official Opposition spokesman speaking in the debate has the right to present the Opposition's case from this Dispatch Box.
  Mr. John Cartwright: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I refer you to a number of cases in which hon. Members have spoken from the Opposition Dispatch Box when they were not speaking on behalf of the official Opposition? I refer, for example, to an occasion on 4 August 1980 when my right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) spoke from the Opposition Front Bench and referred in his speech to the fact that he was speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. He said:
  "In speaking from the Opposition Dispatch Box, I am sticking to the long-standing tradition of the House under which any Privy Councillor may speak from the Dispatch Box." —[Official Report, 4 August 1980; Vol. 990, c. 352.1
  I refer also the occasion on 22 May 1984—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. At this stage, I do not think that it is necessary for the hon. Gentleman to go through that, because the question to which he is addressing himself has not been raised. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) asked me whether it was in order that the official Opposition spokesman address the House from the Dispatch Box. Of course that is the case. But I do not know—and he has not yet raised with me the question — whether that excludes the right of any other right hon. or hon. Member to address the House from the Dispatch Box —[Interruption.] I know of no responsibility or authority that I have to prevent any hon. Member from so doing.
  Dr. Owen rose—
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for any hon. Member to be called to speak who is not sitting in his or her place?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hesitate to suggest that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is sitting in his place—it is not a matter for me.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) will be patient a little longer, until we clear these points of order, we might have a more orderly start to the debate.
  Mr. Sedgemore: May I draw your attention, Sir, to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1959, under which you have a reserve power to call a psychiatrist to examine—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman has the wrong day. Dr. Owen.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the SDP clearly thinks that he is the Leader of the Opposition. In my respectful submission, he should be submitted to the psychiatrist's couch because, if he is mad, he is not allowed to sit in the House.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. We have an important debate before us. All this is taking time out of that debate.
  Mr. Harry Cohen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In ruling on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), you seemed to imply that hon. Members can speak from wherever they like in the House, including from the Dispatch Box. Are you then saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that all hon. Members can deliver their speeches from the Prime Minister's Dispatch Box if they so wish? If that is the case and all hon. Members proceeded to do so, I submit that there would be chaos in the House. Therefore, there is a long-established convention that hon. Members of the House do not speak from the Dispatch Box except those who by convention are allowed to do so—those on the Front Benches. As that is the convention of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that it is your duty to uphold that convention.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I said earlier that I knew of no authority that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member addressing the House from the Dispatch Boxes, but of course the hon. Gentleman is right to remind us of the long-standing conventions of the House. It is a universally recognised and observed convention that the Dispatch Boxes are used on the one hand for Ministers to address the House and on the other for the leaders and spokesmen of the official Opposition party to address the House. I can only ask the House to observe and sustain the convention, but I have no authority to prevent any hon. Member who decides that he will breach the convention.
  Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth rose—
  Mr. John Golding: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I see the point of order, but can I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it will be impossible for the Leader of the Social Democratic party to speak from behind the line if he speaks from the Dispatch Box without thrusting the Members who were already sitting on the Front Bench from their places. If right hon. and hon. Members are already occupying their places in front of the Dispatch Box and a right hon. Member comes to try to force them out of the way or speaks from beyond the red line, how can he be in order? It can hardly be in order for a right hon. Gentleman to push other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen out of their seats. It can hardly be in order to speak from beyond the red line.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order; it is a purely hypothetical matter.
  Mr. Wrigglesworth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not also the convention that right hon. and hon. Members should be allowed to speak in the Chamber from the Bench upon which they normally sit — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] — and that there is a deliberate attempt by the bully boys and thugs of the Labour party, as we saw in the miners' dispute, to stop free speech in the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When I am on my feet, hon. Members must resume their seats. We have debated the miners' dispute many times, but we are not going to have it re-run this afternoon.
  The hon. Member has raised a useful and constructive point of order. If it is suggested that all will be well and tranquillity restored if the leader of the Social Democratic party was allowed to resume his usual seat below the Gangway, then I would address an appeal to the hon. Gentlemen who are occupying that Bench to allow him to do so. [Interruption.] It is only an appeal.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am temporarily occupying the seat of the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, which is, incidentally, in the view of some people just another facet of the Conservative party. I am prepared to move out of this seat in order to allow the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) to address the House from here. I think that that is a very fair proposal.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. A joke is a joke, but is there anything in the rule book that says that this loutish and vulgar display by the Labour party should be permitted to prevent free speech in this House?
  Mr. Kevin Barron: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like you to advise me. When I came into the House at 2.30 pm to take prayers, there was a card on the Bench where my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) is sitting containing the name of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Obviously, he managed to come in earlier and put down the card but could not get to the Chamber for 2.30 pm for prayers. Perhaps this incident has been sparked off by the right hon. Gentleman's inability to attend the House regularly. It is now 4.30 pm on a Tuesday afternoon, and all hon. Members know that the right hon. Gentleman attends the House for about half an hour on Tuesday and Thursday afternoons and that normally he would have left by now.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.
  Mr. Max Madden: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The motion that we are supposed to be discussing was, according to the Order Paper, tabled by the Liberal party and the SDP. We were recently told that another microphone had been introduced in the Chamber in order to facilitate the leader of the Liberal party who normally sits in the seat beneath it. As the leader of the SDP is now occupying a seat under the microphone which was provided recently at considerable

  759
  expense for the Liberal and Social Democratic parties, most reasonable people would see no reason why he should not speak from where he is sitting.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter upon which I can rule. The House is doing itself no credit whatever by proceeding in this way. Hon. Members should realise that there is a very serious debate before us and that the time for it is being spent on largely bogus points of order. Hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have sat in this House for many years and I believe that the attack made by the hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) was unwarranted—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is helping neither the House nor himself.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not true that the Social Democratic and Liberal parties drew a place in the ballot, and that we are now seeing a lamentable attempt to destroy their right to free speech?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is no question of ballots. The dispute revolves around the question whether a right hon. or hon. Member should have a particular place from which to speak. I can see many empty places in the House. If there is space, right hon. and hon. Members should try to get on with the debate.
  Mr. Leighton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As the leader of the SDP is sitting, singularly appropriately, on top of the leader of the Liberal party, would it not be fitting to allow him to speak from the seat in which he has been quite comfortable for the past 10 minutes?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that that is neither a point of order for me nor a serious approach to what is becoming a serious matter. The right hon. Member for Devonport should be allowed to—
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I just want to know what your ruling is. Does it mean that any right hon. or hon. Member can speak from the Dispatch Boxes? If so, given the arrogance and political views of the leader of the SDP, would he not be far happier speaking from the Government's Dispatch Box?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: My ruling was that I knew of no power that I had to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I have reminded hon. Members of the long-standing and deeply held conventions of the House and appealed to the House to uphold them. I have no power to impose them, as is being suggested.
  Mr. Prescott: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will recognise that a serious point is involved concerning the conventions surrounding where right hon. and hon. Members speak from—[Interruption.] The issue involves not freedom of speech but the place from which a right hon. or hon. Member speaks. That is the only point at issue. Questions have been raised about prayer cards on seats as well as
  760
  about the conventions. Am I to understand from your ruling that it would be entirely proper for any right hon. or hon. Member to speak from either Dispatch Box at any stage during a debate? I understand that you are saying that this convention of the House does not have to be recognised, that it may be taken into account but that right hon. and hon. Members can speak at any time from any part of the House. Is that the point?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have said that I have no power to impose that convention. Questions of propriety are a different matter, and I have not said that it would be proper to act in that way. The question is whether I have any authority to prevent any right hon. or hon. Member from addressing the House from the Dispatch Box. I remind hon. Members again of the conventions, and hope that they will be observed.
  Mr. David Steel: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It should not be allowed to pass into the record that there has been a sudden outbreak of religious fervour on the Benches in front of me. The truth has nothing to do with prayer cards. It is well known to hon. Members that, ever since my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) became leader of the SDP, he has occupied a place on this Front Bench and has always spoken from there. You may not have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but we noticed that throughout the Division that Bench was deliberately occupied by a movable group of hon. Members to prevent him from taking his seat. What we are seeing is not the Militant Tendency but the yobbish tendency in this House. I believe that there are procedures and conventions in this House, and that one of them is that my right hon. Friend should be able to address the House from the Front Bench without there being a conspiracy to prevent him from doing so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for me and that no right hon. or hon. Member has a seat in the Chamber as of right, other than is provided for in our Standing Orders by the prayer card procedure.
  Mr. Guy Barnett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House is clearly in a difficult position, partly because you cannot rule upon the matter as it is one that involves convention. I wonder whether you would be prepared to accept a motion on this matter from me as to where the right hon. Member for Devonport should speak from.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the difficulty arises because of the determination of the leader of the SDP to disregard the long-standing convention. I have no power to prevent him from doing that. We should get on with the debate. Dr. Owen.
  Mr. Alan Williams: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a fact that it is the duty of any hon. Member who wants a particular seat in this House to make sure—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has heard me already deal with that point. I do not think that there is any need to go over it again. All these points of order, many of which are bogus, are only detracting from the fulfilment of our serious responsibilities and from the debate that we ought to have embarked upon quite some time ago.
  4.41 pm
  Dr. David Owen: I beg to move, That this House calls upon the Government—
  Mr. Roland Boyes rose—
  Mr. Derek Fatchett rose—
  Mr. Boyes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must address me from where he is standing. He must not move around the Chamber.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have this kind of nonsense. lion. Members must address the House and the Chair from the place where they rise.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must resume their seats when I am on my feet. It seems to me that a very large number of hon. Members are seeking to disregard conventions this afternoon. Will the hon. Gentleman who now wishes to raise a point of order please address it to me from the place which he is now occupying?
  Mr. Boyes: In view of the fact that we have been continuously harassed by Social Democratic Party members, did you notice that in order to get from the Front Bench and to speak from that Dispatch Box it was necessary for the leader of the Social Democrats physically to assault members of the Labour party? Did you further notice that the leader of the Social Democrats already had an established place?
  You have just insisted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that when I raised a point of order I had to speak from the place in which I was standing and that I had no right to go to the Dispatch Box. Why is it all right for the leader of the Social Democratic party to leave the place where he was sitting? He is only a Back Bencher, the same as I am, so why is it all right for him to move but not for me to move?
  Viscount Cranborne rose—
  Mr Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I had better deal with one point of order at a time. The difference is that the hon. Gentleman started to address me and raised his point of order from the position which he at present occupies. The leader of the Social Democratic party started to address the House from the Dispatch Box and, to the best of my recollection, had not spoken earlier.
  Mr. Williams: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I understood correctly, you gave a ruling a few moments ago that a Member must address the House from the place at which he is called. Will you confirm that when you called the leader of the Social Democratic party he was sitting in the second row below the Gangway, as we all saw? Should he not, therefore, in keeping with your ruling a moment ago, have to make his statement from that position?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have given my ruling and it seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman is now challenging it. That he must not do. I will read to the House the relevant passage from "Erskine May", which we take as our guide on these matters. We find on page 418, running over to page 419, the following:
  762
  "Upon a Member inquiring whether a private Member was acting within the conventions of the House in speaking from:he ministerial despatch box, the Chair declined to intervene and the Member concerned continued his speech from that place."
  It then goes on to say:
  "A Member should not move his place while speaking."
  To the best of my recollection, the right hon. Gentleman the leader of the Social Democratic party did not commence his speech until he put his notes on the Dispatch Box. The hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes), having raised a point of order, proceeded to move along the Gangway. It was on the basis of what is in "Erskine May" that I ruled as I did. I have ruled and I do not think that there is any need to go over that ground.
  Viscount Cranborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If hon. Members care to go along the corridor to another place, they will see an important debate being carried on by non-elected people in this Parliament. Any hon. Member who then returns to this more important Chamber will see that a debate on an important subject upon which many of us on this side of the House feel extremely strongly is being deliberately resisted in an undemocratic manner by democratically elected Members. [Interruption.] May I finish?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman may not, because quite clearly he is delivering a speech which is expressing his opinion. I do not question the strength of feeling or the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman holds his views, but the matters which he is raising are not matters for me.
  Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is quite clear that the situation in the House at the moment is reaching an impasse, and it has to be resolved. It can be resolved on the basis of common sense if the right hon. Gentleman who speaks for the Social Democratic party is prepared to occupy another seat. Obviously he is not. Have you no powers at all, as a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, to make a ruling? It seems to me to be very strange that if you were the chairman of the Labour or Conservative party you would have such powers and could make a ruling, but that the chairman of the House of Commons—that is what the Speaker is—has no power to make a ruling. Surely the time has come for you to make a ruling to resolve this impasse.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The task of Mr. Speaker and his Deputies is to interpret and apply the Standing Orders and to seek to ensure the observance of the courtesies and conventions of the House. It is not for me or any other occupant of the Chair to make the rules, except by way of decisions which create precedents. I think that it would be very unwise for me, in what is for me and for the House a somewhat unprecedented situation, to make an off-the-cuff ruling that might be binding on other occupants of the Chair and their successors and have far-reaching implications for the liberties of the House.
  It might be sensible for us to have a cooling-off period and for the House to have an opportunity to reflect on the situation and the impasse into which it seems to have got itself.
  4.48 pm
  Sitting suspended.
  5.2 pm
  Sitting resumed.
  Dr. Owen rose—
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall not take any further points of order.
  Dr. Owen: I beg to move—
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) must resume his seat. We have had enough points of order for one afternoon. We ought to get on with the debate.
  Dr. Owen: I beg to move—
  Mr. Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Hon. Members: Name him.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not prepared to take any further points of order. We have had a good run. I hope that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West will now allow the House to get on with its proper business, which is the motion set down for debate.
  Dr. Owen: I beg to move,
  That this House calls upon the Government immediately to amend the Trade Union Act 1984 to ensure that, unless absolutely impossible in a particular case, all strike ballots, political fund ballots and elections for trade union executive committees are held on the basis of full secret postal voting conducted by independent returning officers and scrutineers so as to minimise the risk of abuse.
  This is an important issue, relating to the role of the trade union movement. First, it needs to be clearly established that in this country there are millions of trade unionists who belong not just to the Labour party, the Conservative party, the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party, but to the nationalist parties and to the Ecology party. It would be a great mistake for this House to debate trade union matters and think that any single party had a pre-emptive right to speak for all trade unionists. Furthermore, I believe that it is in the interests of the trade union movement, of trade unionists and of the prosperity of this country for the trade union movement not to feel itself to be politically bound or institutionally linked to any political party.
  It is a reflection of the inadequate financial support for political parties that the political situation is so polarised, and that because of long-standing financial links politics have come very close to the vested interests which financially support particular political parties. That is just as much a problem for the Conservative party, because of its links with big business and its funding by large companies, as it is for the Labour party. I believe that all of us wish that a better system could be devised.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Owen: I should prefer not to do so but instead to develop my argument.
  We need to reflect on the fact that at the last general election only 39 per cent. of trade unionists voted for the Labour party and that 61 per cent. voted for the other political parties. Therefore, the Labour party can no longer claim to speak for the majority of trade unionists. For that
  764
  reason, I think that we would all agree with the views of the Secretary of State for Employment, who said during the Third Reading debate on the Trade Union Bill:
  "We believe that the law should protect the whole community—employers, employees, union members and nonunion members alike—from the abuse of industrial power."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 832.]
  I believe that the right hon. Gentleman spoke for everybody when he used those words, but I do not believe that the Trade Union Act 1984 is fulfilling those expectations.
  We have before us the sad situation which is facing the Transport and General Workers Union. Most people are glad that there is to be an emergency meeting of the union on Thursday next. We must hope that, as press statements appear to indicate, the request of the general secretary elect, Mr. Ron Todd, for another ballot is agreed to, but I have serious misgivings about such a ballot taking place under the existing procedures. It is not my job to conduct a witch hunt into the procedures of the Transport and General Workers Union, and I do not intend to go into those matters. They have been fairly well discussed and other hon. Members will no doubt refer to them.
  Ever since the scandal that affected the Electrical Trades Union, as it then was—it is now the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union—the view held in this country is that trade union balloting arrangements leave a great deal to be desired. It is important to realise that before the Trade Union Act 1980 some of the major trade unions were prepared to make payments out of their own funds in order to establish democracy. They were prepared to pay for postal ballots.
  The Secretary of State ought to make it clear that some of his statements in recent weeks about the way in which the old ETU scandal first broke are incorrect. As was stated by its general secretary:
  "The postal element in this union's balloting system prior to 1961 was very limited."
  It was based upon branch returns. Mr. Eric Hammond, the general secretary, said yesterday:
  "We do not wish to intrude into the TGWU's difficulties but we cannot allow the present burst of distortion to go on unchallenged. We regard our system as fiddleproof and we urged the Secretary of State to adopt it if he was intent on legislating. He failed to do so, and it is reprehensible that he and others who have ignored our advice should now misrepresent our position."
  The 1961 procedure was not a quasi-postal ballot. The Secretary of State knows that well, and I urge him now to listen, as he did not listen in Committee, on Report, on Third Reading or to the House of Lords, to the criticisms that have come from a substantial body of opinion—not, perhaps, within, the House but outside the House—from shop stewards in union after union who warned him that workplace ballots were open to great abuse.
  What happens if on Thursday the TGWU decides to hold a re-ballot? The new Act will not stop what happened. Part 1 does not come into force until October. Even if the re-ballot were not held before then, the Act does not cover non-voting general secretaries. Most general secretaries, including that of the TGWU, are nonvoting. We have all realised that that is a gap in the legisation.
  Even if non-voting general secretaries were covered, the Act allows unions to have a workplace ballot. The system used for the 1984 TGWU general secretary ballot could be used again. The only changes would be that all ballot boxes, not just most, would have to be at the workplace. Some were at the branches. The boxes would

  765
  have to be open for longer in some cases. The count would have to be more secure. No doubt arrangements will be made to change the cardboard boxes and a few other issues, but the substantive issue would not change.
  Since the Act was passed we have seen how the National Union of Mineworkers has changed its rules. Mr. Arthur Scargill has arranged for his casting vote on the NUM executive to be taken away. [Interruption.] I agree that that has not happened yet.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong again.
  Dr. Owen: Mr. Scargill will not be covered by the Act, as I understand it. If I am incorrect, I withdraw that remark.
  Mr. Alexander Eadie: The right hon. Gentleman will not want to mislead the House. He said that the president of the NUM has arranged for his vote to be given away. That is inaccurate. He never had a vote. The chairman of the executive had a vote. Whether the present chairman of the national executive or the president will have a vote will be decided at the national conference. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will correct what he said. A national conference will decide on the new rules.
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman is a fair man. I said a "casting vote". As I understand it, the present chairman is Mr. Arthur Scargill. He uses his casting vote. The recommendation may not be followed, but it shows how the Act does not cover all circumstances.
  I should like to consider the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union's election for the successor to David Basnett. It will be by branch block vote. A vote, for example, of 10 to 6 in favour of one candidate could cast thousands of votes for that candidate. The Act does not stop that, as the general secretary does not have a vote. The new general secretary, Brenda Dean—
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again.
  Dr. Owen: —has just been elected by workplace ballot.
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): Wrong again.
  Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman will no doubt make it clear whether the GMBATU election is covered. I think he will find that it is not.
  We then come to the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act, which covers union executive elections. It comes into force on 1 October 1985. Unions can choose workplace instead of postal ballots. The right hon. Gentleman had better realise that there is a good deal of anxiety on his back Benches about that issue. There is a general feeling that if he had listened a little more he would not find himself in the mess that he is in. The right hon. Gentleman did a fiddle. He knew that that point would cause a great deal of trouble and he made an arrangement with the trade unions, which he now regrets.
  Mr. Richard Tracey: The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps being premature when he refers to my right hon. Friend's Back Benches. The relevant part of the Act does not come into force until 1 October this year. Most of us wish to see how it will work.
  Dr. Owen: That is a possibility, but it is also possible to anticipate some of the problems that will arise. The first thing that we have to face is that even if we argue about the role of the certification officer under part 1 of the Act we must remember that 47 unions, with 8.5 million members eligible to vote, will have to vote on political funds between April 1985 and March 1986. That will be the largest number of union ballots to take place in one year. They will take place not just under union rules but, nominally, under an arrangement made in the House to provide for true democratic procedures. The ballots must be held by 31 March 1986.
  The unions have a choice between postal and workplace ballots on political funds. Three unions only at the moment—I hope that it will be more—are expected to use full postal ballots on the political fund. They are the Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union, the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers and the Furniture, Timber and Allied Trades Union.
  Mr. Skinner: The National Union of Seamen.
  Dr. Owen: I hope that that is the case. I had always understood that there was a strong case for workplace ballots for the NUS. It has often been quoted as a case for special arrangements. The NUS is a special union. Most people recognise that there must be some flexibility. I shall be delighted if it holds a postal ballot. There is likely to be a postal element in most of the other ballots, with 10 per cent. of the members in the categories of being on holiday, sick, retired or applying for a postal vote.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls rose—
  Dr. Owen: Some unions will operate a semi-postal ballot system with ballot papers sent to the workplace for distribution and then returned by post by each member to head office or independent scrutineers. What is wrong with workplace and semi-postal ballots? Why has there been disquiet about them for many years? The points at which workplace ballots can be open to abuse are in the number of ballot papers claimed for distribution at each location, in the unsupervised distribution of ballot papers, in the return of ballot papers, in the improper use of discarded papers, which, in many cases are over 50 per cent. of those issued, and in undue influence exerted on the voter. The variety of the form of pressure is legend. The abuse can be in the local count and in the national return.
  Semi-postal ballots usually involve the distribution of ballot papers at the workplace and the posting back of the papers to union head office or the independent scrutineers. They are usually only a variant on the workplace ballot.
  Why is there a resistance to postal ballots? The 1980 Act—
  Mr. Canavan rose—
  Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman can make his own speech. There has already been fairly substantial Labour party disruption during the debate.
  The House must ask why there is such resistance. In the past one could understand that postal ballots were a costly procedure. For some unions it was not easy. I, like many other people, decided that some of those things had to change. We lived through some of the results of unrepresentative trade union decisions. The Government

  767
  were right, under the 1980 Act, to make it possible to provide funding for democratic postal ballots, and I support that.
  Mr. Nicholls rose—
  Dr. Owen: If the hon. Gentleman intends to make the obvious point that I did not vote for it, he is right. I voted against it, and I regret that. When we formed the SDP, we made it clear that we regretted it. We decided to back democracy in trade unions. We should like to have democracy in political parties and other organisations. Postal ballots, as the SDP knows, are expensive. We know that the Labour party will not trust its members to vote for its leader. We know that the Labour party will not trust the one-member, one-vote system,. We will not have lectures on democracy from the Labour party. [Interruption.] I have had those arguments. I went to the Labour party conference and urged it to adopt the one-member, one-vote system.
  Mr. Canavan: If the right hon. Gentleman is so obsessed with the idea of secret ballots, why, when he set up the SDP, were he and all the other SDP MPs who defected from other political parties afraid to give their constituents the opportunity of an immediate secret ballot? The only one who did, Douglas-Mann, was thrown out on his neck.
  Dr. Owen: It is clearly a constitutional issue. Once elected, a Member of Parliament is answerable to the House, not to the general management committee of the Labour party. He is elected to the House to speak for his constituents. When this issue was put the to constituents of Plymouth, Devonport, they well understood it, as did 7.75 million people who voted for the Liberal party/SDP, and of course the 3–5 million who voted for the SDP. It may stick in the gullet of Labour Members to realise that many of those people were trade unionists. Many of them want to see, as do the SDP and the Liberal party, a strong, democratic trade union movement in this country—
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: So does the Conservative party.
  Dr. Owen: If the Conservative party really means that, it will carefully consider making amendments to the legislation—and the sooner the better.
  The Secretary of State appears to be taking the matter personally, as though we should not make any criticism. The legislation contains substantial achievements and he should not be ashamed of them. He knows that the Government changed their mind during the passage of the Bill. After all, the Paymaster General and chairman of the Conservative party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was the Minister of State, Department of Employment, during the passage of the legislation, had the grace to say on Report:
  "I admitted to him in Committee that I began by believing that postal ballots were the best, and perhaps the only, way of electing the executive committee of a union. I must explain why I moved from that position."—[Official Report, 26 March 1984; Vol. 57, c. 99.]
  The hon. Gentleman must be regretting that he moved from that position. It was not until an amendment was carried in the House of Lords that we put back into the Bill any presumption of postal ballots, and that is still only in part 1.
  768
  The House must remember that that provision does not cover strike ballot procedures. Why is that important? It could be argued that in electing a general secretary there are many different views among the officials of the union. We know that this is true of the Transport and General Workers Union. A substantial body of people support Ron Todd, with an equally substantial body of officials and others supporting Mr. George Wright. There is a discipline within the union to ensure that there is no fiddling of the ballot—yet there have been serious allegations.
  What about a strike ballot, when almost all the officials of a union want a strike? They will supervise the workplace ballot, and there is no provision for a postal ballot. They will have the temptation to take all the shortcuts involved in a workplace ballot.
  More than 82 per cent. of the political fund goes effectively to support the Labour party.
  Mr. Skinner: Members of Parliament are sponsored.
  Dr. Owen: It is for individual Members of Parliament to decide whether they wish to be sponsored. I was never a sponsored Member of Parliament.
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman had union money.
  Dr. Owen: It is extremely difficult for members of the Labour party to examine the issues objectively, yet it would be in their interest to do so. Mr. Ron Todd appears to understand that if there is doubt about a ballot, there is doubt about the authority of the general secretary. Therefore, Ron Todd would not be in a position to carry credibility—
  Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman had £10,000 over the years.
  Dr. Owen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will never make such an allegation. If he would like to say that standing up, I would be grateful. I was never sponsored, and no money was given to me—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to a hearing.
  Dr. Owen: I beg the Secretary of State to look at this matter seriously. All the officials in the unions believe that the political fund should be involved, and they supervise the massive elections. Those elections will not simply be under union rules which we can all disown. If we hear reports of incidents, such as those affecting the TGWU, we will all be involved. This House will be involved. The workplace ballot on the political fund to support the Labour party is, in effect, a straight question of a political levy—it is Labour's levy. We are being asked to accept that the supervision of workplace ballots for the levy and for strikes should be undertaken by full-time officials of the union at their place of work.
  Whatever the Secretary of State may say about the onus of proof in part 1—the reading of counsel is that the wording leaves it open to any union which so wishes to use a workplace ballot and not a postal ballot—the onus is not on the union to hold a postal ballot. The Government and the Prime Minister have misled their supporters. I do not believe that they did so deliberately, but the fact is that under part 1 any union which so wishes can hold a workplace ballot. If that is then challenged to the Certification Officer by an individual member of the

  769
  union, it is possible under part 1 for the Certification Officer to reject the workplace procedures and to insist on a tougher procedure or a postal ballot.
  The Secretary of State has been on radio and television and given the impression that under part 1 the onus of proof is on someone to show why he should not have a postal ballot. The reverse is the truth. The alliance wanted the onus of proof to be on those who wished not to have a postal ballot to show why that should be so. For those unions with special circumstances, we suggested that they went to the Certification Officer and asked for an exemption. That is the right way. Postal ballots should be the norm, and workplace ballots the exception.
  It is not quite an accident that SOGAT '82 has been chosen to be the first trade union in relation to the political fund. It is not an accident that this union has been carrying out its procedures with hardly any examination in the press. If the SOGAT '82 ballot is to become the hallmark of ballots for the political fund over the next year, the stories that we have heard about the TGWU will run on throughout the year.
  Mr. Golding: Where is the evidence?
  Dr. Owen: We find the evidence if we examine SOGAT '82. Its official journal describes why its members should support the political fund. The Labour party is not mentioned on any page. It is well known that the only way that SOGAT "82 can get its members to support the political fund is to pretend that it has nothing to do with the Labour party; that the funds go nowhere near the Labour party.
  Matters are even more serious than that. Members of SOGAT '82 are being asked to vote for a voice in Parliament. They are told that they will not be able effectively to carry out their union activities unless they have a political fund. It has been made clear time and time again that any normal trade union activity, including lobbying, can be provided for from normal funds. I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that they do not need a political fund to campaign or to lobby.
  Mr. Leighton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that SOGAT '82 has a very good voice in Parliament? Is he further aware that our union wants the unfettered right to campaign on anything that the right hon. Gentleman might call politics? It does not want to be dictated to by him or by anybody else. No other country in western Europe dictates to a union how it will spend its money. When we want advice from renegades and turncoats, we will ask for it.
  Dr. Owen: That is diametrically opposite to what the Act states. It states that the members should decide fully, openly and democratically whether they wish to make contributions to the Labour party. If they decide to do so, openly and democratically—[Interruption.] The Act is a bit like the SOGAT Journal. It does not mention the Labour party, but 82 per cent. of the political fund goes to the Labour party, and everybody knows that. It is not for normal, traditional lobbying.
  In case anybody is in doubt about what the SOGAT Journal says, I shall read it out. It says:
  "'We would like to say on behalf of our members...' If we lose our rule which allows unions to be active politically we could soon be banned from campaigning publicly on questions which affect our members. And it would be illegal to lobby Parliament!"
  770
  The journal is entitled "Say yes to a voice". That will not lead to a fairly conducted ballot and everybody knows it. The tragedy is that the Secretary of State for Employment will be seen to be putting the veneer of respectability over this process. It is vital that we say no. These political fund ballots must be conducted democratically. They should be contracted in. If a political fund ballot is to take place, it should be postal and the cost should be borne by the country as an investment in democracy.
  Any of us who advocate fair elections in trade unions will be traduced up and down the country and will be told that we are anti-union. We are not. It is part of the assumption of a monopoly of conscience that the Labour party believes that only it can speak for trade unions. Many hon. Members of all parties believe in the need for collective action and for unions and members to organise. They believe that there should be some special safeguards in the law, as the present legislation rightly gives trade unionists.
  However, these hon. Members desire from trade unionists that if they are given special privileges and protection in the law, they should have within their procedures a fully open and democratic mechanism so that the commonsense judgment of the members can be carried out. We would like to see that more widespread. I urge the Secretary of State and the Government to listen this time. They did not listen to the House of Commons or the House of Lords, and instead partially made an adjustment to the House of Lords amendment.
  What has happened in the case of the Transport and General Workers Union is, I fear, the tip of a particularly ugly iceberg. It is giving too much temptation to any person with strong views in a trade union to ask him to supervise an election. We have not yet reached the stage where the Labour party, the Conservative party, or the alliance parties supervise the collection of the ballot boxes in a general election, or are involved in the counting of votes. The supervision of the ballot is completely separated from us as politicians, and rightly so. Supervision should be conducted independently, even if there is a workplace ballot, and even if we allow some unions to go ahead before the full operation of the 1984 Act. It is incumbent upon us to insist that there should be independent supervision at all stages of any workplace ballot. I urge the Secretary of State to think again.
  5.33 pm
  The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy."
  I took no exception in any personal sense to what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said, but on an issue as important as this, he could have done the House the courtesy of being more careful about his facts. He was wrong about the position of the president of the National Union of Mineworkers, about the position

  771
  of the general secretary of the GMBATU and about the powers of the certification officer in the example that he used. He was also wrong in the letter that he wrote to me, and I sought to set out his inaccuracies. This is an important subject, and the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House to come better prepared and equipped to deal with the argument.
  I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was not wrong in referring, as he does in the motion—I had assumed that this was a mistake—to the need for postal ballots before all strikes and presumably before those to end strikes. If that is what he intended—he referred only briefly to it—this is the first time that it has been mentioned. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) sat through all the proceedings —Committee, Report, Third Reading and the debates on Lords amendments—and said nothing about it. Is this a new policy proposal or merely a mistake in the motion? If the right hon. Gentleman rehearsed his arguments on the merit of compulsory postal ballots before all disputes, he might find it difficult to rally the support for which he is looking.
  We welcome this debate, not least because it is an opportunity to correct some of the gross inaccuracies that the right hon. Gentleman has perpetrated, not only in the House but outside. I and my right hon. and hon. Friends are not embarrassed to discuss the cause of trade union reform. I am glad to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Waverney (Mr. Prior) here. He initiated the step-by-step approach that has been such a significant success. I look across at some of the remainder of the participants in the battle on "In Place of Strife" and of the battles on the Industrial Relations Act 1971. Any honest observer will recognise the significant difference in the successes of our step-by-step approach. It is improving the climate of industrial relations, and its measures are here to stay.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport was candid enough to admit that he voted against the first step of the step-by-step approach. He does not, however, rush forward to say that, while he supports the use of public funds for postal balloting, he voted against my right hon. Friend the Member for Waveney when he introduced that proposal.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: I did not vote against it.
  Mr. King: It comes as no surprise to find that different Members of the two alliance parties voted in different ways. The real surprise would be if they voted in the same Lobby at the same time. There have been some thoroughly unwelcome scenes in the House, but it is welcome to see the new development of such a good turnout from the alliance parties.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport has chosen to lecture the Conservative party on the system of balloting for elections, secret ballots for union elections, a system of ballot before strikes and secret and periodic ballots for trade union funds. However, he would not have had the opportunity to comment on any of those items if we, as the Government, had not carried them through on to the statute book. We see this as a further development in our programme. We have tackled the abuse of the closed shop, have introduced financial support for postal ballots and
  772
  have outlawed secondary action. We have introduced secret ballots for the union elections to principal executive committees, for strike ballots and for political funds.
  Many of our critics, some of them on the Opposition Benches, have said that these measures would never be used and that they would blow back in our face, but the record does not bear that out. The National Graphical Association may have second thoughts when it is £750,000 lighter because of its efforts towards intimidation and mayhem at the Stockport Messenger and have begun to realise that, in the end, the law will have to be observed.
  The Transport and General Workers' Union learnt painfully and to its cost, at Austin Rover, that the car park meeting will no longer be tolerated and that the members must be consulted. The south Wales area of the NUM thought that it could black two hauliers with impunity. It found—it was another painful exercise—that unlawful actions will be punished and that the law must be observed. Most recently, in the Post Office at Mount Pleasant and even in the Civil Service, the requirement to consult the members, imposed through injunctions or through the serving of a writ, has ensured that disruption or strike action did not take place.
  Our legislation seeks to give rights to union members, not to the Government. That has led to a major change of attitude. I cannot vouch for it, but according to a newspaper report, the TUC has referred to
  "the apparent wish of many members for ballots in any event, regardless of the provisions of the law".
  That underlines the fact that we are right to give members rights, and easier access to remedies when those rights are obstructed.
  Our determination has been to improve democracy in trade unions. Unions belong to their members. It is to the members that we must look and to whom the rights must be given. Many politicians jump up and down about ballot rigging and allegations of ballot rigging, but it is the members who are robbed and deprived of their rights by unfairness or injustice.
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: Because of the exceptional circumstances, I owe it to the House to reply. I will give way in a moment.
  The worst abuses in union practices took place either at branch meetings or in the car park voting procedures. I do not think that any hon. Member would dispute the fact that the Act will render both those forms of abuse illegal.
  Mr. Smith: Is the Minister aware that I was the Liberal party's spokesman on employment while the legislation to which he has referred—apart from the Trade Union Act 1984 — was passing through the House? Both in Committee and on the Floor of the House, I and my Liberal colleagues consistently supported the Government in the passage of those Bills. The right hon. Gentleman's claim that the legislation is the achievement only of the Conservative Government is not based on fact. Furthermore, if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned that the unions should belong to the members, why is he tonight denying those members the right to vote by post, so ensuring that the results would be unchallengeable?
  Mr. King: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that, in order to carry through the legislation, we had to depend solely upon the support of the Liberal party, or that we

  773
  should equate the Liberal contribution with the effort of the Conservative party? I cannot readily accept those propositions.
  We have been at pains to tackle the problems. I note, for instance, the reference to the need to get away from branch voting. The right hon. Member for Devonport knows a great deal about such problems. I believe that he is a member of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs. The branch voting procedures of ASTMS may be among the most inadequate. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has raised the matter with the president or the general secretary of the union. I understand that, at the last election for their president, some 400 branches of the union either failed to return a vote or returned a nil vote. Some 10,000 members voted in the election — about 2 per cent. of the membership. It is interesting to note for how long the right hon. Gentleman has belonged to that union.
  I wish to deal with the innuendos that the right hon. Gentleman introduced into his speech. Immediately after talking about the failure of the operation of the 1984 Act, he referred to the situation in the TGWU. However, the right hon. Gentleman knows that the procedures for secret elections will not come into operation until 1 October. The right hon. Gentleman said that the TGWU situation will give the green light to many other people, showing them the opportunities for rigging. I have come to the opposite conclusion. To the union's credit, the complaints were raised under the existing procedures. A cook in a secondary school in my home city of Bristol found that someone had incorrectly stamped her membership card. She raised the matter, and further procedures led, I believe, to the dismissal of two trade union officials. The message is that we are giving the members rights that they are prepared to use.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara rose—
  Mr. King: I do not wish at the moment to labour the point, but there is another message for us in the situation of the TGWU. Any senior trade union official standing for election and seeing the problems and difficulties that the TGWU is facing in connection with allegations of ballot rigging will not consider that he has been given a green light. The TGWU's problems will reinforce the determination of responsible unions to see that their procedures are properly carried out.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. King: I must make progress, so that other hon. Members will have a chance to speak.
  We outlawed branch voting and car park proceedings. Under the original provisions in the Bill, either workplace ballot or postal ballot requirements could meet the situation. Allegations have been made that I met Mr. Moss Evans and was completely persuaded by his arguments, and that as a consequence the Bill was weakened. In fact, the Bill, far from being weakened, was significantly strengthened.
  There have been so many misleading allegations about the procedures in the Act—in some instances from ill-informed people—that I should like to make it clear what they involve. The Act lays down a whole series of new statutory requirements that will override existing
  774
  union procedures entirely. For the first time ever, it lays down statutory requirements about the frequency of elections, balloting arrangements, who can vote and who can stand. It lays down that elections must be secret, free from interference or constraint, that votes must be fairly and accurately counted, and that all those entitled to vote must be given an equal chance to do so at no direct cost to themselves.
  Those are powerful new safeguards, and they are statutory. They do not depend on which union a member belongs to or what the union rule book happens to say. Any election that meets those standards will be a free arid fair election. From 1 October, anyone claiming that a union has failed to meet those standards will be able to apply to the independent certification officer for a declaration to that effect, or to the court, at no expense to himself.
  That is one of the measures designed to help members with any problems connected with raising grievances. Conservative trade unionists attach great importance to the opportunity to be able to make representations.
  We have added a new requirement that will pave the way for the opportunity for postal ballots on the widest possible basis. We have already imposed upon the unions a duty to compile and maintain a register of the names and proper addresses of their members. That duty was imposed upon the unions on Royal Assent. The registers must be completed by 1 October and kept up to date thereafter.
  Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that such a register, like any other electoral register, will be open for inspection, so that all the members may be satisfied that it is in order?
  Mr. King: It should be available to members of the union.
  Any failure to comply with the requirements of the register will make the union open to the risk of being challenged by its members in the High Court or before the certification officer.
  We have gone further than that, as we have given much greater emphasis to postal voting. Postal voting is the system most likely to be free from interference and intimidation. The motion refers to "full secret postal voting", and I should like to consider why others think that an exception is justified. I should also like to tell the right hon. Member for Devonport why I have said that sections 2 and 3 of the 1984 Act introduce the most powerful presumption in favour of postal ballots.
  A union that is considering holding a workplace ballot must meet all the existing requirements for free and fair postal elections, meet additional ones concerning the supply of ballot papers and giving electors a convenient opportunity to vote, and satisfy itself in advance of the ballot that there are no reasonable grounds for believing that any of the Act's electoral safeguards will be breached. A union member can go to the certification officer in advance of the ballot and get his support with a view to getting the High Court to act. That was the error of the right hon. Member for Devonport, because the certification officer has no power in this regard. If there is malpractice or intimidation, the ballot is put at risk.
  If a union is not challenged by its members before an election, but the conduct of that election is found to have fallen short of the legislation's requirements, the High Court has a duty to order a re-run of the election to be conducted by a full postal ballot unless that is plainly

  775
  inappropriate. A few unions seem not to have taken those provisions fully on board as they are making fairly relaxed comments about them. It would be wise for union leaders to reflect on those provisions and the events of the past few months.
  This is not an argument about mandatory full postal ballots. On 1 December 1983, the hon. Member for Stockton, South said:
  "We strongly favour the principle of one member, one vote and believe that postal ballots should be the norm. That is as far as we go. We do not say that it should be laid down as the only way of organising ballots within unions."—[Official Report, Standing Commitee E, 1 December 1983; c. 135.]
  On 25 April 1984, the hon. Member said:
  "Postal ballots could not be adopted in every instance."—[Official Report, 25 April 1984; Vol. 58, c. 844.]
  On 24 July 1984, the hon. Member said:
  "There is a need also for some flexibility in the operation of postal ballots. We accept that it is wrong that postal ballots should be imposed on every union."—[Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 864.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) also accepts that there are cases when exceptions might have to be made. It is accepted that there is a case for postal ballots. The question is, therefore, under what terms and arrangements they are to be permitted. I am anxious to ensure the greatest possible democracy and to establish higher standards of democracy in trade unions where they have been lacking. I do not include all trade unions in that criticism. Two criteria must be met. We must ensure fair and secret elections, which are free from intimidation and malpractice, and we cannot walk away from the problem of encouraging every member to vote, because turnout matters in a democracy.
  If properly organised, workplace ballots tend to attract a much higher percentage ballot. The classic illustration of that is the National Union of Mineworkers. There was an 11 per cent. turnout in a fully postal ballot in the furniture trade union. For those who believe that workplace ballots can always be rigged by a union leadership, we should remember that Mr. Scargill was defeated twice in such ballots. He had polls of 87 and 93 per cent. and lost both ballots. Most recently he tried to persuade his members to vote for the 50p levy, which proposal was also defeated by a workplace ballot.
  I have already said that the postal ballot can be the best solution if the avoidance of intimidation and malpractice is the overriding consideration. I accept that there must be postal ballots in some circumstances, because of the activities of the union leaders. There has been some interesting research on the problems of organising a postal ballot and getting the electoral roll in order. Right hon. and hon. Members know about the problems associated with parliamentary elections. I understand from the research that, in a fully postal ballot conducted by the AUEW, which has confirmed these findings, 200,000 members never received a vote and 20,000 received a vote to which they were not entitled. The Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union has tried hard to establish the best possible postal ballot system, but there are still problems. Right hon. and hon. Members know that people who come to our constituencies after October are not able to vote for us for 15 months — [HoN. MEMBERS: "After March."] I am grateful. I hope that I am better on union law than perhaps I am on electoral law. Democracy must be about giving the maximum number of
  776
  people the maximum opportunity to vote. However, they must be able to vote free from intimidation and malpractice in a secret ballot. Our legislation ensures that they have the best possible chance to do that.
  The argument between us is whether it is better to give the power of determination of when there should be workplace ballots to a public officer—the certification officer—or to members, who should be given access to the courts. I have chosen the latter course. Our approach will succeed because it works with the grain of all union members. We are giving them rights, not imposing obligations on them. The defence of freedom and the avoidance of malpractice and intimidation, which all responsible right hon. and hon. Members deplore, will lie with the vigilance of union members. But it is our duty to see that they have proper rights and proper access to remedy. Because, in that spirit, our legislation embarks most effectively on that course, I commend the amendment to the House.
  6 pm
  Mr. John Prescott: I had better get to the Dispatch Box quickly, while I have the opportunity to do so.
  The amendment reflects the Government's anti-trade union attitude, and their legislation applying to unions must be seen in the light of their overall policy.
  SDP opportunism is reflected in the motion, which was not particularly ably moved by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen)—[Interruption.] On the facts, the right hon. Gentleman did not make a good case. As he was motivated to initiate this subject at the first opportunity he had from the alliance point of view, he should have mugged up on the facts, particularly in relation to the unions to which he referred.
  From the comments made in the debate, it would appear that neither side believes that the universality of the ballot is in issue. There are clearly problems in the trade union movement about how ballots should be applied. That is why flexibility and choice are allowed. Flexibility is necessary. It appears in the legislation and it even appears in the alliance motion.
  We can assume, therefore, that the universality of the ballot is not in issue and that we are essentially concerned with proper practices in the development of ballots. We are also concerned with the democratic participation of union members and the importance of achieving the maximum participation in ballots.
  I wish to make it clear from the outset that no hon. Member on the Labour Opposition Benches would have any truck with the interference of, or irregularities in, ballots, and the same goes for the proper democratic expression by trade union members on whatever issue may be in question. There need be no doubt or division on that aspect of the matter.
  I speak as having been a seaman with 10 years' experience in the shipping industry. I recall taking part in debates in 1972 with the present Secretary of State, particularly on legislation about the closed shop. Exemptions were then made for seafarers because of the difficulties they face in relation to ballots. The right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior) featured in the debates at that time. Clearly, therefore, my experience of the subject is bound to influence my attitude to the subjects of ballots and participation.

  777
  For 30 years I have been active in a trade union as an official and as an ordinary member. I have taken part in ballots — some postal— for executive councils, AGMs and delegates. Those ballots have occurred at the workplace, on sites, on ships, at branches, in executive councils and, for unofficial and official strikes, on sites. I can claim, therefore, to have participated in every type of ballot known to the trade union movement, including those covered by the Electoral Reform Society.
  I learnt from those experiences. I am convinced of the role that ballots can play. My trade union actively ballots, in most cases by way of postal ballot, on matters concerning strikes, the election of officials, the political fund — the political fund will now be governed by legislation—and various other matters. In other words, ballots are an integral part of my union.
  I recall one case when I was led to complain about a ballot irregularity. I complained through the normal procedures within the trade union movement and, as a result, the rules applying to ballots were tightened up. The ballot in question, with which I was closely concerned, was a postal ballot. The irregularity occurred because the postal ballot papers were sent to a ship which was due to remain in port at Southampton for only 24 hours. All the postal ballot papers were sent to the ship and we had a particularly active member who, in an effort to increase participation, collected all the envelopes and voted as he thought fit for members who had not received their voting papers.
  I regarded that as a gross irregularity, which it clearly was, and, when I laid my views before the union and its executive, the procedures were changed. Indeed, the change was such that every member then had to sign for his or her ballot paper, to be sure of receiving it. The trouble was that, because everyone had to sign, so few participated in the ballot that a mockery was made of the vote.
  There were bound to be difficulties because seamen cannot always be contacted. Indeed, the population of seafarers, so to speak, changes to the extent of 20 per cent. every year. Not only do their home addresses change, but seafarers may be out of the country for as long as a year or two years. That is the scale of the difficulty that my union has in dealing with ballots.
  Every union, on receiving evidence of irregularity, will act. We do not need a commission or legislation to make it possible for people to take legal action. Many cases have arisen in the courts as a result of people pursuing breaches of union rules. Often the common law is invoked in that respect. In other words, the right of ordinary union members to pursue cases in court has always been available.
  The interference directly in a ballot about which I am talking is improper. The sort of interference, as exemplified by Bernard Levin's article in The Times, however, is considered to be proper. He named candidates whom he thought should be elected in a ballot held by their union. He used the fact of his access to a national newspaper to influence a ballot. Apparently it is considered democratic for him to do that, even though he is not a member of the union concerned. He believes strongly, it seems, that moderates should be elected, and he uses The Times for that purpose.
  I hope I have said enough to show that I need no lectures from alliance or Conservative Members about trade union
  778
  ballots and their importance. I have explained that I am well aware of the way in which ballots operate, and I have described my involvement in them.
  In my notes, when preparing this speech, I wrote, "SDP evidence," and left a gap which I thought I could fill in when listening to the speech of the right hon. Member for Devonport. In the event, he did not produce a scrap of evidence to justify any of his assertions. [Interruption.] I shall deal with the various points that the right hon. Gentleman made, including that applying to SOGAT.
  When speaking of the TGWU, the right hon. Member for Devonport said that he was prepared to leave the issue as it applied to that union. I wish that he had decided earlier not to proceed with that. He was prepared to make all sorts of scurrilous charges on the basis of what he said he had heard from individual members who were making allegations about ballots.
  The Secretary of State was right to point out that that union acted, without recourse to legislation, firmly in the case of Bristol and dismissed two officials. [Interruption.] Whether or not my agreement with the Secretary of State is an alliance in truth I do not know, but the facts are clear on the issue.
  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft: The hon. Gentleman must know that I, as a member of the TGWU, wrote to Moss Evans and Norman Willis long before the wounding of the TGWU had continued for this length of time. In that letter I suggested, being aware of what was likely to happen— because of the way in which such matters tend to develop—that the best course would be for the TUC, as an independent and non-hostile body, to carry out an inquiry into what was happening. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been better if that course had been agreed to some weeks ago?
  Mr. Prescott: Whether or not the hon. Gentleman feels that the response to his letter was undertaken quickly enough is another matter. The fact remains that the union and the candidates in that election made their position absolutely clear. The union and Mr. B. Evans, have been calling for evidence all along. I should have thought that this debate provided a good opportunity for that evidence to be produced. Instead, we have had only innuendo. We have not been given information of any kind to enable us to judge why the right hon. Member for Devonport believes that everything should be done by way of postal ballot.
  The position seems clear enough. The TGWU executive will meet and deal with the matter. It has a history of dealing correctly with such complaints, and a similar history runs right through the trade union movement. If the union does not act, there will then be cause for concern. Either way, those who make allegations must justify what they say.
  In that context, we must consider some of the statements that have been made by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock). I have read his party's press releases on this subject. The hon. Gentleman makes various scurrilous remarks in press handouts and then, when he writes to the certification officer, produces no evidence whatever. He can only refer to what some trade union members have told him they think is going on. A campaign based on such a lack of evidence reflects the opportunism which we have come to expect from the alliance.
  Mr. Michael Hancock: Following the letter that I sent to the certification officer and Mr. Willis of the TUC, there was ample evidence for the TUC to step in and authorise a ballot to take place and for the certification officer to investigate the claims contained in the letter that was sent to him. In other words, ample evidence was provided for the investigation to take place.
  Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Member is the SDP spokesman on industrial relations, if he believes that is the TUC's role and if he has been advising his right hon. Friend, it is no wonder his right hon. Friend made a mess of the facts. My point was that the letter sent to the certification officer had no evidence in it. I have a copy here. No evidence was given apart from conversations that the hon. Gentleman had with members of a trade union, whose support he presumably canvassed when he was a Labour party member, without one murmur about whether it was legitimate to receive such support. It is only since these people became members of the alliance that they are concerned about what they regard as matters of democracy. Therefore, this is an act of opportunism by the SDP.
  If we want further evidence, we find that they voted for the Second Reading of the Trade Union Act 1984 and then abstained on Third Reading. When I looked through the debates on that legislation, I found that the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) moved an amendment to a House of Lords amendment proposing that there should be a postal ballot for the political fund but then, at approximately 12.30 am, he said:
  "In view of the lateness of the hour, and the fact that we have discussed these matters on previous occasions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment." — [Official Report, 24 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 492.]
  The right hon. Member for Devonport was not even in attendance when there were votes. On that occasion the SDP did not pursue the amendment, which it thinks is so important, to require a postal ballot on the political fund. Why did the SDP not pursue the matter then? I am perhaps cynical. Shortly after that there was a statement by Shirley Williams, about which there was much publicity in the press, offering a deal to the unions—that if they gave some money to the SDP, it would not lead a campaign against a ballot on the political fund.
  I do not know what happened, but now we have this motion before the House. Perhaps the SDP thought that it might get involved in bargaining and would have a case for saying, "Give us some of the money, Barney." When one considers the arguments and the statements that have been made, the matter does not seem very profitable for the SDP.
  If the SDP's strong view on abuse of such political funds was reflected in the motion—companies giving money to political parties without balloting their shareholders—I might understand the motion. I think companies give donations to the SDP. It received £8,300 last year, and I think £5,000 of that was from the Norwich Union. The right hon. Member for Devonport is nipping round to companies, having lunch, and asking for money. If he thinks it is wrong to have political funds, it would be useful to legislate for postal ballots of company shareholders before companies decide that money should be made available to political parties. If the right hon. Member is nodding his head in agreement, why is he receiving money from companies when he does not know
  780
  whether the shareholders agree that the money should be given to the party? I do not think that things like that worry the right hon. Gentleman. So long as he is getting the cash, so long as he is making a political point and so long as he can get more votes in the process, that is all he is concerned about.
  When one considers that that kind of money is given to the SDP it reminds us of the point that was made earlier about SOGAT. Of course, the SDP expressed its view about the SOGAT ballot. It bought space in The Sun. I have a copy here. It placed an advertisement, costing £6,000, to lead an attack on SOGAT. It had received £5,000 from the Norwich Union. Therefore, one could say that that money from the Norwich Union helped to pay for the advertisement to have a go at SOGAT. It was a scurrilous advertisement, seeking to intervene in the election going on in that union. If I may be more cynical, perhaps placing it in The Sun was looking for a bit of aggro with the printers. It might have been seen as a good investment if there had been opposition to printing the advertisement. As the Chancellor of the Exchequer said about the miners' strike, it might have been a good investment. That may have influenced the attitude of the SDP.
  The SDP's concern seems to be mainly about political ballots. As we know, the strike ballot does not come into force until October. The right hon. Member for Devonport addressed himself only to the political fund ballot. I draw to his attention the fact that there is a dispute in Devonport at present. As I understand it, the men walked out without a ballot. Of course, the Government are closing down the yard, so one can understand the lads reacting about that. Did the right hon. Member demand a postal ballot before they came out?
  I thought I had better read the intellectual newspapers in that area, so I scoured through the Western Evening Herald for comments. All I could find was that the right hon. Member had said:
  "Though anger and frustration may lead to protest today, by next week we must develop a constructive strategy for fighting back with alternative proposals."
  That is quite proper. That is what a Member of Parliament should be doing. But he did not say that the men should get back and have a ballot. He did not say that what they had done was illegal and that he had supported the 1984 legislation which laid down that they should have a ballot before taking industrial action. That was another act of opportunism by the right hon. Member, in line with accepting trade union money and trade union nominations, all of which he did in his earlier career but which he now rejects as undemocratic.
  I come to the Government's case.
  Mr. Golding: Before my hon. Friend does that, will he deal with the point on campaigning made by the leader of the SDP? Is it not true that if the main purpose of any literature used in a lobby is held to be to further the interests of any party or candidate, it can only be financed from the political fund? If there were no political fund, it would be illegal. We are telling members that they have to vote yes in the ballot so as to keep the unfettered right to campaign.
  Mr. Prescott: That is a very sound point. It was the concern of the SDP when it put that advertisement in the newspaper that the question was not about whether people voted for the Labour party. That was another mistake by

  781
  the right hon. Member for Devonport. The question concerns whether a union has political objectives and uses its funds for those objectives. That question is determined by the certification officer and, as I understand it, by Parliament. It is determined by law and is carried out under the law. The question is not whether the money is given to the Labour party, the SDP or the Tories, but whether funds are used for political objects. That is the question that has been put to union members.
  In regard to the Government's case, most of the conditions for ballots are determined by the Government. They set up the certification officer procedure. In some cases they pose the question. All these matters are determined by legislation, so in many ways this is direct intervention in trade unions which are voluntary bodies. No other voluntary body is faced with legislation like this.
  It may be the Government's case that trade unions are different and have to be treated differently. I believe that the Government see the trade unions as different. They are a target to be dealt with. Therefore, a case can be made that the Government are anti-trade unions. The Secretary of State claims that his policy is different in that it is step by step. The objectives are no different from those of other Tory legislation in the past, but the Government are achieving their aims by stealth with a little assistance from the mass unemployment that they have brought about with their policies.
  The Government's policy is to discipline the trade union movement. What else would one do with the "enemy within"? Is not that how the Prime Minister sees the trade unions? They have to be disciplined; they have to be made into friends; one needs legislation to bring them into order. The Government's language is entirely anti-trade union. Their legislation has been designed to cocoon the trade unions in court actions, where they are sued for damages and costs. Those are academically different from fines, but they are heavy on the funds. The legislation is designed to achieve a fundamental shift in power in the workplace. It is designed to attack the trade unions, impose legal controls on them and enforce the Government's ideas about ballots and how they will be conducted.
  Therefore, the Government are not motivated by concern for good industrial relations. The idea is to strengthen management. We often hear that it is the right of management to manage. The Government want to influence the power structure in the place of work. It is one step towards weakening the trade union movement before they implement the rest of their policy, which is more unemployment, lower wages, reduced benefits, the reform of the welfare state and, indeed, the reduction of statutory employment rights.
  Mr. Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Prescott: I must get on with my speech. The Government's attitude is influenced by those facts. We said that in the debates on the legislation although I did not attend them and had to read the reports. Since then, the same charge can be made against the Government. There have been further announcements about the reduction of employment benefits. There has been the abolition of the fair wage clause, which led to a 12-month strike at Barking, where the women faced lower wages and a reduction in their working week. It is proposed that the
  782
  wages councils should be abolished. The Government now talk of lowering the costs of industry by attacking maternity benefits, equal opportunities, and so on. All those things have been spelt out by the Government.
  The one thing that brought home to me the Government's attitude was the press statement of 17 April on unfair dismissals. Now one needs to work at an establishment for more than two years to be able to bring an unfair dismissal claim. It is difficult to understand why the Government want to pursue that if they are not simply to be seen as vindictive. When I consider how many people are involved, I believe that the unfair dismissal proposal is, once again, a way of improving the strength of the manager at the place of work, and reducing the rights of workers to appeal against an injustice.
  In support of that I refer to the statement made by the right hon. Member for Waveney in a Cabinet document of 17 July 1981. He was opposed to the suggestions, and he said that only 7 per cent. of all dismissals actually went to the industrial tribunals. In that document, he said to his Cabinet colleagues:
  "My conclusion, therefore, is that there is insufficient justification to amend employment legislation further in favour of employers. Moreover, I believe that any attempt to do so would alienate large sections of the working population trade unionists and others and would therefore be politically damaging to the Government."
  Now the right hon. Member for Waveney has been removed from the Cabinet, so there is action to reduce many employment benefits. That can be seen particularly in the Government's approach to unfair dismissal.
  The same two-year period will not apply to the man who might join a union with a closed shop. He might join it today, but go to the other side of the world and decide that he no longer wants to be a trade unionist. He has an action for damages against the union if he refuses to remain in the closed shop—he is a sort of bounty hunter for the money. The same two-year period does not apply in that case. That can happen from day one. That illustrates the Government's approach to trade union legislation. That is why many feel—
  Mr. Gale: I did not agree with much that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said today, but he did say that trade unionism was not the prerogative of any one political party, which is absolutely right. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that at the last election an assessed 5 million trade unionists voted for the Conservative party, that they are very well represented by the Conservative trade union movement, and that movement fully endorses the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Prescott: I shall not go into those arguments. I do not deny the right of any politician to make the case one way or the other. I am simply saying that the people who are arguing against the trade union legislation are making those points to me. I am arguing that the Government are anti-trade union in their legislation. They are continuing that approach by bringing in such measures.
  The Government say, "Look what our legislation did for British Leyland." But there was a strike. It is interesting to note that Jaguar at Coventry did not choose to use the courts or any form of intimidation, and settled a similar matter quickly. The matter dragged on in British Leyland for several days, but it was settled quickly at Jaguar.

  783
  Let me take the more recent case of the Post Office. Management took unilateral action with which the union and its members disagreed. Eventually they came out on strike, but the matter was settled quickly. We believe that as a result of the legislation there will be more unofficial quick strikes, such as we used to see in the 1960s. That is the way to bring management to its senses without recourse to the courts. Under the Government's legislation, the individual cannot be sued. Only the union can be sued. We shall have to wait and see what happens.
  In their amendment, the Government talk of their concern for greater democracy. I was reminded of that when I read in The Guardian today of the fifth suicide at Government Communications Headquarters at Cheltenham. There was no ballot of members. They were not asked whether they wanted a trade union. The Government imposed their draconian power and used an Order in Council, which did not even have to be debated in the House. They denied those people the right to belong to a trade union. They were not asked whether they wanted a ballot. That was denied to them. All that they were offered was a £1,000 bribe to give up their trade union rights.
  At the moment the other place is dealing with legislation that seeks to abolish democracy in the metropolitan counties and the Greater London council. Some time ago the other place was asked to consider passing a law to abolish elections when there was no Bill saying what would take their place. Therefore, how can the Secretary of State talk about democracy in these matters? There is no ballot for the people to enable them to decide whether they wish to keep those local authority structures. All the polls suggest that they want to keep them. The Secretary of State also talks about greater participation at the place of work. Why are we the only country in Europe that is refusing to implement the Vredeling recommendation that there should be more information for working people about their employment conditions?
  At the same time, the Under-Secretary talks about the political godfathers in the trade unions giving money to the Labour party, but he does not comment on the money that has been given to the Tory party by companies. Some £3.5 million was given last year. The hon. Gentleman does not consider any of those companies to be godfathers. That is the sort of double-talk that we have come to expect from the Government, especially when it was the non-elected chairman of the Tory party, the hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who implemented the legislation.
  We believe that the Government's legislation is an attempt to take us back to the old master-servant relationship. Labour Members believe, as we did in past legislation, in strengthening workplace participation, strengthening collective bargaining within the workplace, and bringing about greater industrial democracy and participation and harmony and co-operation in the workplace.
  I want to make this clear to the Secretary of State, because he seemed to get a bit upset about it last time. I endorse the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helen's, North (Mr. Evans) at Question Time on 2 April, that the next Labour Government will repeal Tory anti-trade union legislation and put in its place a new employment protection Act, which we are at present
  784
  discussing with the trade union movement, emphasising our belief in co-operation rather than in confrontation for all those at work. There will be many more at work when a Labour Government are returned at the next election.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Robert Atkins: I wish to make a brief intervention. I do so as a member for some years of the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs and an office holder in my local branch, and one who has tried to serve on the so-called parliamentary committee of ASTMS, without any success, because it will not allow anyone on it who is not a member of the Labour party.
  Secondly, I speak from the privileged position of being national president of Conservative Trade Unionists, an organisation representing a large number of members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) said earlier. As a matter of information, we would probably represent the largest block vote at the Trades Union Congress if we chose to exercise it at all, which of course we would not like to do. We have a substantial following. All the officers are elected legitimately within the context of the rules of Conservative Trade Unionists, and there is no reflection upon us of any of the activities that have been observed recently in the Transport and General Workers Union and other unions.
  I agree with one point that was made by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). He criticised the official Opposition for suggesting that they had the inalienable right to represent trade unionists and trade unionism in the parliamentary debate, and particularly in the House. We all know that that is not the case. The majority of trade unionists at the last election, and in the election before that, voted Conservative rather than for the right hon. Gentleman's party. In those circumstances, he cannot gainsay the facts as presented, whether or not he likes them. The facts are that we can speak with as much authority on trade unionism as he can.
  The two points that I wish to make are brief. First, the misconceptions represented by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport have, I think, been dealt with extremely well by my right hon. Friend the Minister. It would waste time if I were to go over them in detail. However, they bear repeating in one context only, in that the four safeguards in the Act need emphasising time and again. They are, briefly: a .new right for members to complain to the certification officer about the arrangements for union elections before as well as after the poll, a new duty on the certification officer to investigate the complaint at no expense to the complainant.
  Mr. John Evans: The hon. Gentleman has already said that.
  Mr. Atkins: I emphasise it again because certain people who are not a million miles away appear not to have recognised what is involved.
  Next, there is a new requirement that, when a court orders an election to be re-run, it will normally be done by post. Finally, there is a new duty on all unions to compile an up-to-date register of their members' names and addresses so that postal votes can be held. Let us therefore be clear about the four safeguards in the Act.
  The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Evans) has, I think, just lost his standing at the next election as

  785
  a result of the statements that he has made, which have been confirmed by his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He has said that he will repeal all the trade union legislation passed by the Conservative party. He is referring to legislation which, if he talks to the trade unionists whom he is supposed to represent, he will find is popular with them, whether in my constituency or in any other, and he knows that that is the truth. That is the kind of approach that will lose him and his party the next election, and he had better recognise it here and now.
  It is clear that the Labour party, as usual, has been nobbled by the trade unionists to take a stance which conflicts entirely with what ordinary trade union members believe in in their various trade unions. We observed the other day that at one moment the Leader of the Opposition was in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU, and then somebody got on the telephone to him and said, "Look, this is not quite on, old boy," so he changed his view, and he is no longer in favour of a re-ballot in the TGWU.
  As I said earlier, we have observed the hon. Member for St. Helens, North being supported by that man of principle, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, perhaps seeing the way the wind is blowing, has decided that he is now in favour of a new social contract, which means that again trade unionists have been on the telephone to him making it clear where he must stand in the context of the Labour party.
  Anybody who appreciates what is involved in this issue knows that the majority of people who are members of trade unions understand only too well that changes need to be made. Where we differ from the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport and his party is that we do not believe that the postal vote system as he enunciates it is the answer. There is a real possibility that the necessary organisation to operate that system would become the sort of quango which the extreme Left within the unions could choose to argue against more easily than it could the views of the members of trade unions which ought to carry more weight.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) said, we believe that we should give this legislation a chance. The legislation of 1980, 1982 and 1984 has proved that legislation can be put on the books to cope with some of the difficulties and problems, and, above all, with handing back the trade unions to the members who ought to be participating.
  In those circumstances, I believe that the motion of the SDP and the alliance is wrong. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear why we believe that we are right to adopt the path that we have adopted up to now and will continue to adopt. The statement of the hon. Member for St. Helens, North, supported by all the Johnnies-come-lately in the Labour party, will be a contribution to the Labour party losing the election, and it will not be helped by the antics of the alliance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House will wish to know that the wind-up speeches are expected to begin at a quarter to 7, so time is now very limited.
  6.35 pm
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I should first like to make the point that, if I live long enough, in three years I shall get a 50-year badge in my trade union. I think
  786
  that I can speak with some experience of trade unionism at many levels, as an ordinary member, a shop steward and a district committee member, and as having once fought the assistant general secretaryship of my union and almost winning it when I did not want to—but these things happen.
  I wish to make one point clear. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) suggested that the Government's legislation would give the unions back to their members. As far as I am concerned, the trade unions have always belonged to their members. The Secretary of State made some reference to car parks or suchlike in relation to voting in branches. I have to explain to the Secretary of State that each union has its own different methods of voting. The Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers always voted at a branch, and I will tell the House how we did it. We voted at the branch meeting. There were two tellers and the chairman recorded the vote on the sheet. It was, of course, an individual vote for each person who was standing, so that one received 25 votes and another 50 votes, and that was recorded. At the end of that part of the meeting, the chairman read it back. Therefore, it was on the sheet, read back, recorded in the minutes and sent to the national executive. At the end, we received a booklet which recorded every branch vote for every individual member—the fairest method of voting that I know in the trade union movement because checks took place at every level. I never knew anything different from that in my trade union.
  With regard to voting in relation to strikes, I will give a concrete example of workers who did not have a ballot, but who took an action which I think was one of the greatest actions of solidarity that I can remember. The Canadian seamen came into the port of Liverpool and they walked off their ship on the instructions of their union in Canada. A group of dockers were instructed to work the ship, refused to do so and were suspended. Within three hours, every dock worker in the port of Liverpool and Birkenhead was out on strike and remained on strike while that ship was tied up. It lasted six weeks. They did not get a penny. It was not for themselves; in my view it was purely an act of unselfish solidarity, the likes of which, incidentally, one does not often see. It was absolutely magnificent. I think that there were a few blue union members around at the time, but in the main they were members of the TGWU.
  It is nonsense to say that there is no democracy in the trade union movement. As we all know, fiddles sometimes take place within every organisation. Can any hon. Member say that they do not take place within the Conservative party? I do not know how many votes take place at local level—[Interruption.] I understand that there are not any votes. Of course there cannot be any fiddles if people cannot vote. It is as simple as that.
  But from time to time, something will go wrong over ballots in any organisation and there will be arguments about it. That is the law of nature. It happens. But it does not mean that the Government must interfere in that organisation's internal affairs. Members of the trade union movement are quite able to deal internally with the difficulties as they arise, as the TGWU and other unions are quite able to do. In all the years, only one exception to that rule is constantly trotted out, involving what was then the Electrical Trade Union.

  787
  The speech of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was as bad as that of any Right-wing member of the Tory party, and it made the Secretary of State look like a liberal. It was remarkable. That right hon. Gentleman was once a member of the Labour party and accepted everything that the Labour party could give him. He would not be where he is today if it had not been for the Labour party and the trade unionists and others who worked for him and backed him in the early years of his political life. I say to him as I say to others, "Don't turn your back" — although, of course, he has — "on the people who have sustained you in your political life."
  I shall not make a long speech, as I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who is sponsored by the TGWU, also has a right to speak in the debate. Today, the SDP and the Conservative party have once again stressed their basically anti-trade union attitudes. That is what this debate is all about. The move began many years ago with a pamphlet published by a group of Conservative lawyers which was entitled, "A Giant's Strength". They believed that the trade union movement was too powerful, that working people were getting conditions that were too good and they had to be cut down to size. That is what this debate and the legislation is all about, and that is what the right hon. Member for Devonport and the Government wish to do, although perhaps with a slightly different emphasis. They are trying to prevent the trade union movement from fighting for decent conditions and for workers' rights.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Mr. Penhaligon.
  6.43 pm
  Mr. David Penhaligon rose—
  Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Today we have had a statement from the Secretary of State for Employment about my union's procedures. When I sought to intervene in his speech to correct him, he refused to give way. In addition, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made scurrilous comments about my trade union without any evidence and did not give me—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's point of order is.
  Mr. McNamara: I was about to come to the point. Perhaps you can tell me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, how there can be a debate which is designed to attack the trade unions without Members who are sponsored by unions being given an opportunity to reply. I remind you that 28 Members are sponsored by the TGWU, which is more than the combined total of alliance party Members.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is one of several hon. Members who have been unable to speak in this very short debate, but he is a very experienced Member of Parliament, and I am sure that he will find another way of putting his point on the record.
  Mr. Penhaligon rose—
  Mr. Cyril Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Might I suggest that if Labour Members had not attempted to prevent the debate from taking place,
  788
  and had not carried on for an hour, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) might have been able to make his speech?
  Mr. Penhaligon: I always enjoy the speeches of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), because those of us who have been in the House for some time know that he is clearly part of the trade union movement and understands it.
  However, it was slightly ironic that the hon. Gentleman should criticise my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) for changing his party, because I understand that from 1941 to 1948 the hon. Gentleman was a member of the Communist party. I do not say that there is anything wrong with that, but he is not in a particularly strong position to criticise my right hon. Friend for changing his party. Another reason for enjoying the speeches of the hon. Member for Walton is that he now represents the Right wing of the Liverpool Labour party. That is clearly a mantle which the hon. Gentleman finds extremely difficult to bear in this House.
  I should like to clarify several points that have been raised in the debate. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand that the executive of the NUM proposes at the July conference to change the rules to make it quite clear that Mr. Scargill does not have a casting vote and so may not be re-elected under the legislation. It was ludicrous of the Minister to claim that the earlier remarks of my right hon. Friend were wrong. The Minister should be well aware that we have always taken the view—and accordingly we abstained from voting on the previous legislation — that although we want strike ballots eventually, the Government's proposals for ballots are not necessarily the best way of achieving that aim. We still think that trigger ballots are best, and much of the criticism of Labour Members about the legislation causing unofficial strikes has some substance to it.
  I deal now with the political levy. I listened to what the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Golding) said, and I do not complain, because what he said is true. If the political levy is voted down, the trade unions will not be able to use money to ask people to vote for Labour candidates. I have a good few farmers in my constituency and, as any hon. Member who has two cows and a pig in his constituency will know, the most effective campaigning group is the National Farmers Union. It does not specifically ask people to vote Tory, but I suspect that behind the scenes it gives a fair bit of encouragement in that direction. As I understand things, the NFU would come within the legislation as currently proposed.
  Mr. Golding: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the ballot paper it specifically says that money has to come from a political fund if it is spent
  "on the production, publication or distribution of any literature, document, film, sound recording or advertisement the main purpose of which is to persuade people to vote for a political party or candidate or to persuade them not to vote for a political party or candidate."?
  Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that the Post Office Engineering Union found it impossible to persuade the Court of Appeal about our main purpose? We were defending jobs, but we were told that we were political. We lost the case because we could not persuade the court that we were pursuing trade union objectives.
  Mr. Penhaligon: I can only suggest that the hon. Gentleman's union should take some advice from the

  789
  NFU, which has had quite remarkable success and, indeed, as a rural Member of Parliament, I can say, has sometimes caused me slightly embarrassing results for the past two decades.
  However, I shall move on as there are only 12 minutes left in which to speak. I still believe that workplace ballots have something to recommend them. The problem is that for such ballots to be seen to be above question there must be a system of independent scrutineers. That is my view, and it is the position that I have taken for some considerable time.
  Mr. McNamara rose—
  Mr. Penhaligon: There is not time—there are 11 minutes to go.
  I also take the view that the provision of independent scrutineers at all workplace ballots for great unions like the TGWU is a total impossibility in terms of resources and money. To take my own constituency, to offer scrutinised ballots the TGWU would have to employ the entire staff who man a general election. I do not believe that that is possible and realistic, so I am opposed to workplace ballots as currently constituted.
  Clearly, the scrutineering is being done by parties which often have a very clear, firm view themselves. As I understand the legislation to be enacted in October of this year, that position will not change. If there is a ballot at a workplace, the scrutineers are likely to be the most partisan people in the entire campaign, because the chances are that they will be the leaders of the union. The Government are allowing that to continue and it is rather like, at a general election, allowing the Labour party to run the ballot in Durham, the Tories that in Surrey or the Liberals—to show that I am broadminded—that in Truro. I do not think that any of them would be the first persons to spring to mind to run an absolutely independent, above-board election in any of those areas. It is my view that sheer partisanship is bound to affect a minority and that it is bound to use the opportunities available. I believe that for a minority the temptation will be just too strong.
  What is required are postal ballots with a register of members, and it is to the credit of the Government that at least eventually they will produce a register of members. The postal paper ballot should be sent to the members, and the individual members should send them to an independent agent. Anything less than that is open to adjustment.
  Many of us recognise that some genuine ballots take place within the NUM, but one of the ironies—and this takes some explaining—is that at every important NUM ballot that I can recall since I have been a Member of Parliament we have been told the result, except when it has been a very close call, before the ballots have gone to the Electoral Reform Society for counting. That clearly means that somebody has been looking at the ballots and counting them. I am not saying that they have been adjusted, but occasionally the temptation so to do must be too much for the independent agent.
  It is worth remembering that in the demonstration that took place it was by and large the most enthusiastic union members who sat on this Bench and denied my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport the opportunity to make his speech, and that they are the independent scrutineers whom the unions normally appoint. The truth is that the reliability of the trade unions in carrying out an absolutely independent, above-board ballot has fallen into disrepute.
  790
  The claim that 98 per cent. of the members of the TGWU and a whole series of unions voluntarily pay their political levy is quite incredible. The amazing situation that we now have is that the Labour party is arguing for the trade unions to maintain the position that is currently favourable to it, and the Government are coming to its defence in that. It is time that the Government recognised the logic of this motion and that Government Members voted for it.
  6.55 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I suspect that if the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Penhaligon) had been able to draft this motion, he would have put down a slightly different one. He has given a rather more acceptable face to it than did the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen).
  The leader of the SDP went through the first half-hour of what ought to have been this debate in a spirit of good humour and tolerance and I would like to recognise that. What we saw at the beginning of this debate was the kind of behaviour that some complain of at trade union branch meetings and others have experienced at Labour party meetings. When this happens anywhere, we ought to condemn rather than support it.
  Mr. Evans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bottomley: No, I will not.
  One reason why this debate is so important is the shoe that was not dropped by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott). He did not talk much about political review ballots and the reason is that he knows that about 80 per cent. of that money goes to the Labour party and those who are not in the Labour party have a vested interest in stopping it. That is open and above board. What seems to me important is that, while people are saying things which are not right about the review ballots—one example was given in the SOGAT Journal and others are in the TGWU Record, as the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) could have said—there has been very little media interest in what anion journals are saying. I think that they might go through the list of unions with a political fund, as in the cerfication officer's report on SOGAT and get in touch with the editors of the jornals and ask if they believe what they are saying. When they give examples of what they claim requires political funds, they ought to ask whether that activity has in the past been funded by political funds or by the general fund. I suspect that in that way we would get many more people participating in the review ballots and I suspect that we would see some of the funds go.
  I want to give a bit of advice to bank managers who are financing the political funds that are in deficit. They ought to be very careful about these, because if a union cuts off its political fund, the bank will be unable to get the money from any other part of union funds. That is one of the things that they ought to start looking at.
  On the question whether we should have only postal ballots in this whole field, we need first of all to see what sort of employment protection Act we are promised by the Labour party. Are they going to keep the political fund review process? Are they going to keep regular elections for members of the executive of unions?
  Mr. Evans: I do not know what the party's policy is yet, because we are having discussions with the trade

  791
  unions. However, I can tell the hon. gentleman and the Tory party what I want. I want to abolish the necessity for trade unions to have political funds.
  Mr. Bottomley: We will see. It is quite clear—this runs right across the political spectrum from Ron Todd to the leader of the SDP—that unions need to demonstrate that their affairs are in order. As Ron Todd himself has said, to have unity, trust and confidence, there must be election systems which people do not and cannot tamper with. To balance that with the sort of participation rates which my right hon. Friend was talking about requires discussion and debate not only in the House but outside. It is the sort of subject that the House can return to with advantage so that we do not just have the sort of demonstrations that, sadly, we have seen today. We should hear from the Labour party and from people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North and get the kind of participation in union affairs which is essential. That is the only way that trade union activists can represent the interests of their members and increase interest in the unions.
  There is no need for union leaders to be political godfathers. The normal and ultimately the natural posture of the trade union movement is one of neutrality towards each political party and co-operation with the Government in office. That doubles their influence. When there are trade union leaders who can demonstrate that they have the widespread support of their members, they are likely to be taken more seriously in all parts of the House and not just by those who want to barrack to get all points of view other than their own submerged in the sort of demonstration that we have seen today.
  It is quite clear that trade union ballots and elections will never be the same again. Even in the Transport and General Workers Union, of which I am a member—
  Ms. Clare Short: Who did you vote for?
  Mr. Bottomley: I did not vote this time, because it would have been a vote for the Labour party.
  It is quite clear that, with political funds fairly run and with fair national executive elections, it is inconceivable that the general secretary should be elected in a different way. It is important to note that higher participation in union votes and elections is likely to result in a trade union movement that serves the interests of its members. Parliament will then serve the interests of trade unions.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 25, Noes 374.

  Divison No. 191]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, A. J.

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Maclennan, Robert

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Penhaligon, David

  Freud, Clement

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gregory, Conal

  Sheerman, Barry

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

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

  Howells, Geraint

  Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Johnston, Russell

  Wainwright, R.

  Kennedy, Charles

  Wallace, James

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Mr. John Cartwrith and

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  792

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Amess, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Ancram, Michael

  Cope, John

  Anderson, Donald

  Corbett, Robin

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Patrick

  Arnold, Tom

  Couchman, James

  Ashby, David

  Cowans, Harry

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Critchley, Julian

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Crouch, David

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Crowther, Stan

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli

  Baldry, Tony

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

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Deakins, Eric

  Barnett, Guy

  Dewar, Donald

  Barron, Kevin

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Batiste, Spencer

  Dixon, Donald

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Dormand, Jack

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bell, Stuart

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dubs, Alfred

  Benn, Tony

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Benyon, William

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Best, Keith

  Durant, Tony

  Blackburn, John

  Dykes, Hugh

  Blair, Anthony

  Eadie, Alex

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Evennett, David

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

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

  Fallon, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fatchett, Derek

  Boyes, Roland

  Faulds, Andrew

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Favell, Anthony

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Brinton, Tim

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Brown, Gordon (D'f mline E)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)

  Forman, Nigel

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Forrester, John

  Browne, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Forth, Eric

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Foster, Derek

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Foulkes, George

  Budgen, Nick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Fox, Marcus

  Burt, Alistair

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Butcher, John

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Caborn, Richard

  Freeman, Roger

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Gale, Roger

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Galley, Roy

  Campbell, Ian

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Canavan, Dennis

  George, Bruce

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  God man, Dr Norman

  Chope, Christopher

  Golding, John

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Gould, Bryan

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Gow, Ian

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Clarke, Thomas

  Greenway, Harry

  Clay, Robert

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Cohen, Harry

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Hannam, John

  Conway, Derek

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  793

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Madden, Max

  Harris, David

  Major, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Malins, Humfrey

  Harvey, Robert

  Malone, Gerald

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Maples, John

  Hayes, J

  Marek, Dr John

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Marland, Paul

  Haynes, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Heddle, John

  Martin, Michael

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Hickmet, Richard

  Mates, Michael

  Hicks, Robert

  Mather, Carol

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Hind, Kenneth

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Hirst, Michael

  Maxton, John

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Holt, Richard

  Meacher, Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Mellor, David

  Hordern, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

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

  Michie, William

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Hume, John

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Moate, Roger

  Hunter, Andrew

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Irving, Charles

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Jackson, Robert

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  John, Brynmor

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Neale, Gerrard

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Newton, Tony

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Normanton, Tom

  Key, Robert

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  O'Brien, William

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  O'Neill, Martin

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Onslow, Cranley

  Knowles, Michael

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Knox, David

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Lambie, David

  Ottaway, Richard

  Lang, Ian

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Park, George

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Parris, Matthew

  Leighton, Ronald

  Patchett, Terry

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Lester, Jim

  Pawsey, James

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Pendry, Tom

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Pike, Peter

  Lightbown, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Lilley, Peter

  Porter, Barry

  Litherland, Robert

  Portillo, Michael

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Lord, Michael

  Powley, John

  Loyden, Edward

  Prescott, John

  Luce, Richard

  Price, Sir David

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  McCartney, Hugh

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  McCrindle, Robert

  Radice, Giles

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Randall, Stuart

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Rathbone, Tim

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Redmond, M.

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  McKelvey, William

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Maclean, David John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Robertson, George

  McTaggart, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  McWilliam, John

  Rooker, J. W,

  794

  Rost, Peter

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Rowe, Andrew

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Ryder, Richard

  Tinn, James

  Ryman, John

  Torney, Tom

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Waller, Gary

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  Warren, Kenneth

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

  Watson, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Watts, John

  Silvester, Fred

  Weetch, Ken

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

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

  Welsh, Michael

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  White, James

  Snape, Peter

  Whitfield, John

  Soley, Clive

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Spearing, Nigel

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Winnick, David

  Stern, Michael

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Yeo, Tim

  Stott, Roger

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Strang, Gavin

  Sumberg, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Mr. Tim Sainsbury.

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question. That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments).
  The House divided: Ayes 224, Noes 167.

  Division No 192]

  [7.15 pm

  AYES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Butcher, John

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Amery, Rt Hon Julian

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Amess, David

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Ancram, Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Ashby, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon 5,)

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Cockeram, Eric

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Conway, Derek

  Baldry, Tony

  Coombs, Simon

  Batiste, Spencer

  Cope, John

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Cormack, Patrick

  Bellingham, Henry

  Couchman, James

  Benyon, William

  Critchley, Julian

  Best, Keith

  Crouch, David

  Blackburn, John

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bottomley, Peter

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Durant, Tony

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

  Dykes, Hugh

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Eggar, Tim

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Bright, Graham

  Evennett, David

  Brinton, Tim

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Fallon, Michael

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Favell, Anthony

  Browne, John

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Forman, Nigel

  Budgen, Nick

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Forth, Eric

  Burt, Alistair

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  795

  Fox, Marcus

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Franks, Cecil

  Mellor, David

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Merchant, Piers

  Freeman, Roger

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Gale, Roger

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Galley, Roy

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Moate, Roger

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Neale, Gerrard

  Gow, Ian

  Nelson, Anthony

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Neubert, Michael

  Greenway, Harry

  Newton, Tony

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Normanton, Tom

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Onslow, Cranley

  Hannam, John

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Harris, David

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Harvey, Robert

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Parris, Matthew

  Hayes, J.

  Pawsey, James

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Pollock, Alexander

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Porter, Barry

  Heddle, John

  Portillo, Michael

  Hickmet, Richard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Hicks, Robert

  Powley, John

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Price, Sir David

  Hind, Kenneth

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Hirst, Michael

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Rathbone, Tim

  Holt, Richard

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

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

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

  Rost, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Rowe, Andrew

  Irving, Charles

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Jackson, Robert

  Ryder, Richard

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Key, Robert

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Silvester, Fred

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Knowles, Michael

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Knox, David

  Stern, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Lee, John (Pendle)

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Lester, Jim

  Sumberg, David

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman

  Lightbown, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Lilley, Peter

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Lord, Michael

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Luce, Richard

  Wakeham, Rt Hon John

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  McCrindle, Robert

  Waller, Gary

  McCurley, Mrs Anna

  Warren, Kenneth

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Watson, John

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Watts, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Maclean, David John

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Whitfield, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Malone, Gerald

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Maples, John

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Marland, Paul

  Wood, Timothy

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Woodcock, Michael

  Mates, Michael

  Yeo, Tim

  Mather, Carol

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

  Mr. John Major and

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Mr. Ian Lang.

  796

  NOES

  Anderson, Donald

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hume, John

  Ashdown, Paddy

  John, Brynmor

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Johnston, Russell

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Barnett, Guy

  Kennedy, Charles

  Barron, Kevin

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Beith, A. J.

  Lambie, David

  Bell, Stuart

  Leighton, Ronald

  Benn, Tony

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Blair, Anthony

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Litherland, Robert

  Boyes, Roland

  Loyden, Edward

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  McCartney, Hugh

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  McKelvey, William

  Caborn, Richard

  Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Campbell, Ian

  McTaggart, Robert

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McWilliam, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Madden, Max

  Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

  Marek, Dr John

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Martin, Michael

  Clarke, Thomas

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Clay, Robert

  Maxton, John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Michie, William

  Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Corbett, Robin

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Cowans, Harry

  O'Brien, William

  Craigen, J. M.

  O'Neill, Martin

  Crowther, Stan

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Park, George

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

  Patchett, Terry

  Deakins, Eric

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Dewar, Donald

  Pendry, Tom

  Dixon, Donald

  Penhaligon, David

  Dormand, Jack

  Pike, Peter

  Dubs, Alfred

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Prescott, John

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Radice, Giles

  Eadie, Alex

  Randall, Stuart

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Redmond, M.

  Fatchett, Derek

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Faulds, Andrew

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Roberts, Allan (Bootle)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Forrester, John

  Robertson, George

  Foulkes, George

  Rowlands, Ted

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Ryman, John

  Freud, Clement

  Sedgemore, Brian

  George, Bruce

  Sheerman, Barry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)

  God man, Dr Norman

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

  Gould, Bryan

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Gourlay, Harry

  Skinner, Dennis

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

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

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Snape, Peter

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Spearing, Nigel

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Haynes, Frank

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Stott, Roger

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Strang, Gavin

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Home Robertson, John

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  Howells, Geraint

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Tinn, James

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Torney, Tom

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Wainwright, R.

  797

  Wallace, James

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Weetch, Ken

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Welsh, Michael

  White, James

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Mr. John Cartwright and

  Wilson, Gordon

  Mr. Michael Meadowcroft.

  Winnick, David

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the success of the Government's step-by-step approach to the reform of industrial relations law and to the strengthening of rights of individual trade union members; welcomes the new and stringent provisions of the Trade Union Act 1984 concerning secret ballots before strike action, for trade union elections and for the maintenance of political funds; notes the fundamental change in trade union attitudes and practices now taking place; welcomes in particular the increasing interest and involvement of trade union members in the conduct of their unions' affairs; and congratulates the Government on making the achievement of greater democracy in trade unions a central objective of its industrial relations policy.

Orders of the Day

  Ports (Finance) Bill
  7.25 pm
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a short, but necessary, Bill which I commend to the House. It is in three parts, and it deals with three distinct aspects of port finance.
  Clauses 1 and 2 enable the Government to continue to help with the cost of restructuring an industry which has undergone enormous changes in the past 20 years. The reasons for those changes are well known the development of bigger but fewer ships; the need to minimise the time ships spend in port because of the high costs of ship operation; the effect on our patterns of trade of the development of North sea oil and of our membership of the European Community; improvements in our inland communications, both road and rail; and, of course, the evolution of new techniques of cargo handling, in particular the "container revolution." Ships now spend less time in port, so port facilities must be used more intensively; fewer berths are needed, and therefore fewer dockers. At the end of 1960, there were 74,000 registered dock workers. At the end of 1970, the number had fallen to 45,000; at the end of 1980 it had fallen to 23,000. By the end of 1984, the number of registered dock workers had fallen to 12,500.
  Those dramatic changes have not been easy for the industry to cope with, but there has been remarkably little friction.
  That contraction has been achieved largely through voluntary severances. In 1981–82 it became clear that the cost of this to the industry was becoming too severe, arid the Government decided to assist in two ways.
  First, we recognised that the ports of Liverpool and London faced severe problems. Those ports had dominated the conventional break-bulk cargo business in deep-sea trades, and were therefore hard hit by the containerisation of so much of this traffic. They were faced with enormous problems of rationalising their labour, their organisation, and their port facilities. We therefore decided that it would be right to assist them in reducing their manpower and in enabling them to continue to operate while these changes were carried through. The Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 empowered the Government to make available to London and Liverpool up to £160 million by way of grants, loans and guarantees. That ceiling was raised in the Transport (Finance) Act 1982 to £360 million.
  Secondly, in 1982 we decided to help the industry as a whole to meet the cost of severance payments to registered dock workers. As the House will know, special arrangements for severance apply to registered dock workers. They are not covered by the Redundancy Payments Act 1965; nor is their severance paid for directly by their employer. In 1969, the employers of registered dock workers entered into a national voluntary severance scheme, which is administered by the National Dock Labour Board. The board makes severance payments from a fund that it administers on behalf of the employers, and which is paid for ultimately by a levy on the employers.

  799
  Although by 1982 the fund had been substantially supported by Government loans, it was clear that at the rate at which voluntary severances were continuing, it was beyond the means of the employers both to service that debt and to meet the continuing cost of new severances. So we agreed to a three-year moratorium on the servicing of that debt, provided that the employers paid to the National Dock Labour Board a levy of £12 million annually to meet the cost of new severances.
  A large part of the assistance which the Government have given to the Port of London Authority and the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company under the 1981 Act has been in the form of grants to pay the full cost of severing registered dock workers in those two ports—no less than £106.7 million. That has not been a discrimination in favour of London and Liverpool. The money has, in fact, benefited all ports in the dock labour scheme, because it has relieved the ports collectively of a cost that would otherwise have fallen directly upon the national voluntary severance scheme, and which they would otherwise have had to fund themselves.
  London and Liverpool have continued to pay their share of the levy although they have not, because of special Government assistance, been drawing benefit in return from the scheme.
  I have described the background in some detail because I believe that it helps to explain the reasons for clauses 1 and 2.
  Since 1982, the reduction in port manpower has continued apace. In just over three years the register of dock workers in scheme ports has fallen by about a third and now stands at just under 12,000. In London and Liverpool, the decline has been proportionately greater, and the Government have committed in full the £360 million that Parliament authorised in 1982 for assistance to the PLA and the MDHC.
  Moreover, the three-year moratorium on the servicing of the debt of the national voluntary severance scheme has now expired, and though the package of assistance for the scheme agreed in 1982 has made a major contribution to dealing with the severance finance problem, it has not yet solved it. The past year has been a particularly difficult one for the ports industry. As a result, the number of approved applications from registered dock workers for severance under the scheme has exceeded expectations. The number is well in excess of that which could be financed from the board's £12 million annual levy income. In fact, the rate of dock worker severances in scheme ports outside London and Liverpool has been running at over 1,000 a year, which on present scales costs £25 million a year.
  To help the industry we have made a series of stop-gap arrangements to enable the board to fund those severances. The last of these, announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment in his minute laid before Parliament on 30 January, was a Government guarantee of the board's bank overdraft of up to £17.2 million, in addition to outstanding Government loans of £44.5 million. As we made clear at that time, our agreement to guarantee the commercial loan was intended to provide time to pursue alternative proposals for financing severances. We believe that there must be a continued strategic approach to the long-term restructuring of registered ports.
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: The Minister must forgive my parochialism, but I see that there is no specification of Scottish ports in clauses 1 and 2. Does he anticipate that part of the grant mentioned in clause 1 will go towards redundancy schemes in one or more of the Scottish ports?
  Mr. Ridley: Yes, any moneys paid under the Bill—whether under clause 1 or clause 2—will go to the national voluntary severance fund and, as such, will be used to pay for the redundancies of any registered dockers in any scheme port. Therefore, any Scottish scheme port will benefit just as much as any English scheme port. Non-scheme ports are totally outside the scheme.
  Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettlestone): Will all dock workers be treated equally? Will the same severance scheme payment apply in Glasgow as applies in Liverpool or London?
  Mr. Ridley: Hitherto, that has been the case, and I see no reason why it should not continue to be so. I must make it clear that there is also the interest of the employers in what they pay redundant workers. What we do is to provide the money for a certain level of severance—in this case £25,000 per head — but making a docker redundant is first suggested by the employer, then approved by the National Dock Labour Board, and at that point the final decision is taken. It is a fairly complex matter, but there has never been any discrimination.
  Since our agreement to guarantee the commercial loan, discussions have been proceeding and are continuing with the port employers. But it is already clear that the scheme ports cannot meet the full cost of future severance needs and at the same time service and repay their outstanding severance debts. It is against that background, and the unique circumstances of the manpower regime in this industry, that clause 1 is necessary.
  We cannot be sure of the future level of severances, but we must make provision now for some extra assistance towards severance costs. Therefore, we propose a new power to pay grants to the NDLB as a contribution towards the cost of registered dock worker severances. These grants are limited to £10 million, but a contingency provision is included to increase the amount in future years up to a maximum of £40 million, subject to affirmative resolution of the House.
  This help is merely a recognition by the Government of the special difficulties of the dock labour scheme ports as they move towards providing an unsubsidised and competitive service to their customers. I have emphasised to the employers that while these powers will enable the Government to continue to contribute to the cost of dock worker severances, the cost of severances in this industry, as in other industries, is very properly a charge on the ports themselves. Soon they will have to shoulder the burden unaided.
  Clause 2 relates to the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and the Port of London Authority. Both have made strenuous efforts to adjust, and, with Government assistance, they are moving towards viability. They have, however, some way to go, and, in view of their importance, we believe that we should continue to help them towards that goal.
  Mr. Roger Moate: Is it not a matter of the utmost regret that we are now raising the grants and

  801
  loans to those two ports to £500 million, which by any standard is an enormous sum of money? Is not my right hon. Friend now doing what he often accuses others of doing — throwing money at a problem and thereby deferring the day when we reach a competitive position and place those two ports on a viable and independent basis?
  Mr. Ridley: This is not discrimination in favour of London and Liverpool, because the money actually goes towards the total expenses of the severance fund. It benefits London and Liverpool only to the extent that any of it may be used on non-registered dock workers' severances. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that, as shown by the figures that I gave earlier, we have come a very long way towards achieving a position where scheme ports stand on their own feet and do without subsidy.
  The fact that we have come down from 70,000 to 12,000 registered dock workers shows the immensity of the task that faced the industry. I believe that there was no alternative but to assist at least with compensation for those who lost their jobs due to the technological revolution in the docks.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: The Secretary of State appears to be maintaining that clause 2 does not provide for any discrimination in favour of those two major ports as opposed to other scheme ports, yet the explanatory memorandum states that part of the additional sum of £140 million is for
  "supporting them while such measures are being taken".
  What can that mean other than a subsidy to those two major ports which is not available to other ports, and which must, by definition, make those other ports less competitive?
  Mr. Ridley: The explanatory memorandum may be misleading on that point. It is the Bill that matters. The only determinant of how much the Government have paid in the past has been the number of redundancies declared by and accepted from Liverpool and London, and that determines the sum of money — £25,000 by 1,000 redundancies, which makes £25 million — that the Government have paid to the fund. That sum is then available to all scheme ports for the redundancies that arise within them. At the same time, all scheme ports, including London and Liverpool, pay a share of the levy that is based on their number of employees. Therefore, in that respect the Bill does not produce any discrimination.
  There is an element of discrimination in that the Government have been paying towards the cost of severing the non-registered dock workers in London and Liverpool, but not in other ports. As the hon. Gentleman will soon hear, we intend to phase out that assistance so as to take away the last element of discrimination.
  The £360 million of assistance authorised by Parliament under previous legislation has been fully committed. Some £145 million has been made available to the MDHC, £170 million to the PLA and £24 million to the National Dock Labour Board in respect of severance payments made to registered dock workers in London and Liverpool before 1981. The remainder—£21 million—is earmarked for a debt write-off for the PLA. The authority to write off part of the PLA's debt to the Government and to repay commercial loans which the Government had guaranteed was given in the Ports (Reduction of Debt) Act 1983.
  Regrettably, neither the PLA nor the NDHC is yet in a position to manage its own affairs unaided, so the Bill
  802
  proposes to raise the limit for financial assistance from the Government by £140 million up to £500 million. I cannot say how much of this additional money it may be necessary to draw upon. A substantial amount will be needed for further severances, as there are still substantial surpluses in both ports.
  Scheme ports should not be under any illusion that this increase in the potential funds available would mean that they can slacken their efforts to restore their industry to health — far from it. The tasks facing the industry remain tough ones.
  I add two points. First, my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Howell), said at the end of 1982 that we were no longer prepared to make grants to the PLA and the MDHC to cover any deficits on their annual profit and loss accounts. We have stuck to that. I intend to continue to stick to that. There is to be no return to deficit funding.
  Secondly, it is my firm intention to phase out assistance to these two undertakings. They should be in no doubt that public finance will be deployed for one purpose only: to put those ports under strong and steady pressure to make the changes necessary to achieve full commercial profitability, so that they can compete fairly with other parts of the industry. I therefore intend, as I told the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), to phase out, over a period, the Government grant towards the cost of severing their non-registered employees. These payments have given the PLA and the MDHC an advantage which other port undertakings have not had. It is right that in a competitive industry we should insist upon an equitable framework for competition.
  The second and third parts of the Bill carry forward our general policy of deregulation and removing unnecessary Government controls and restrictions. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be able to expand on what I briefly say when he comes to wind up the debate, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Clauses 3 to 5 remove various ministerial controls over trust port borrowing and other matters. These controls take no consistent pattern and are no longer appropriate. Their removal is consistent with the decision, announced in the autumn statement and confirmed in the recent public expenditure White Paper, to transfer trust ports' capital investment expenditure to the private sector from 1 April 1985. Up to that date, their investment had counted—increasingly illogically — as public expenditure. I say "illogically" because most ports — other than local authority ports—now obtain capital for new projects from the private sector anyway.
  The funding of trust ports' capital investment in the main from private market sources has led us to conclude that the hotch-potch of ministerial consent provisions in trust ports' local legislation should be removed—partly because they are no longer needed and partly because their application and effect differ widely from one undertaking to another. Indeed, no trust ports' local legislation is alike in this respect. In practice, the powers of many ports are so framed that they can borrow all that they need within the basic limit specified in their local enactments, so they do not have to seek specific ministerial consent.
  The third part of the Bill is clause 6. A year ago I announced my decision to do away with Government controls over new harbour development. Under section 9 of the Harbours Act and the control of harbour

  803
  development orders made under that section, no harbour development costing more than £3 million could be undertaken without my approval. This was an anachronism in a commercial, competitive industry. Accordingly, I made an order to revoke the orders which gave effect to section 9. The order was debated, on an Opposition motion, on 19 June last year, and approved by the House.
  Section 9 itself, however, still remains on the statute book. Clause 6 of the Bill repeals it, along with all the consequential provisions which relate to it. The clause fulfils the undertaking that I gave a year ago, to repeal section 9 at an early opportunity.
  The Bill is needed to help our ports to bring their manpower numbers into line with the requirements of the traffic that they now handle. Without these powers, scheme ports risk being forced to keep, and to pay, staff for whom they no longer have any need. This adds to their costs and hampers their ability to compete with non-scheme ports. It makes it more difficult for our ports to meet the competition from continental ports.
  Therefore, I urge the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Roger Stott: I apologise to the Secretary of State for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) who, as the Secretary of State is aware, is serving on the Standing Committee on the Transport Bill. She is at dinner at the moment, but she is going back to the debate on deregulation of the bus industry. As we do not have as many shadow spokesmen as the Secretary of State has Ministers, it is important that my hon. Friend remains in her place. I hope that the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) will not seek to gain possession of the Dispatch Box, because I shall be in my place throughout the debate.
  The Secretary of State has given the reasons why the Government have yet again found it necessary to come to the House to seek approval to increase the limits of the financial assistance to the scheme ports, particularly to the ports of Merseyside and London. I shall not be encouraging my hon. Friends to seek to divide the House, because we are all too well aware of the financial difficulties that both these ports have undergone and in many respects are still undergoing.
  The port authorities covered by the scheme will have to pay £800,000 a month in April and May to finance the voluntary redundancy fund; that is 20 per cent. less than last year. I understand that the severance scheme is about £58 million in debt, most of it to the Government. The Bill will mean that the National Dock Labour Board, as the Secretary of State said, will get £10 million grant, with further powers to receive another £30 million some time in the future. I have watched the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) through transport debates over the years. It makes a refreshing change, although he may not agree, to see this particular Secretary of State making public funds available to ensure that the scheme works properly.
  Mr. Moate: I wish that it were a refreshing change. In this industry, this Secretary of State and this Government have consistently, time after time, come back to the House
  804
  and asked for more money. Every time, we are told that it is likely to be the last time, so why should we believe it now?
  Mr. Stott: It makes a refreshing change for this Secretary of State to say that he is prepared to put more public money into making the scheme work properly. We are not complaining about that.
  The decline in manpower in the port of London and in Liverpool illustrates in our view the chaotic state of the British port industry. When I left the Merchant Navy in 1964, my home port of Liverpool employed 13,500 dockers. Today, that has shrunk to 2,841. Some 301 jobs were lost through voluntary severance during the last 12 months, and more jobs could be lost in Merseyside as a consequence of the loss of the Isle of Man trade. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) will enlarge on that problem if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  According to the Port of London Authority's latest annual report, the number of people employed by the PLA has been reduced from 4,406 to 3,553. That reduction included 400 registered dock workers and 453 nonregistered personnel, and represented a reduction of 17 per cent. in registered personnel and 22 per cent. in the rest of the work force. In the past twelve months alone, we have seen in those two ports a drastic reduction in manpower.
  We have had a number of debates in the House on ports and harbours since the Government came to power, and under successive Secretaries of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in 1983, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in 1984, with every justification, repeated the assertion that the Government have no long-term strategy for the British ports industry other than selling off the profitable assets of Associated British Ports and Sealink harbours and dissolving the National Ports Council. That lack of a proper strategy has accelerated the rapid decline of the once great natural highways of the Mersey and the Clyde. It has encouraged Antwerp to become, one might almost say, another British seaport, just as Schiphol has become another British airport.
  The Secretary of State's response to the decline of this great industry has been predictable. The Secretary of State and I and a number of our colleagues are engaged in a titanic battle in Committee because the Secretary of State is putting into practice his obsession with market forces by deregulating Britain's buses.
  The Bill merely confirms the statutory instrument introduced last year. The right hon. Gentleman is deregulating Britain's ports by replacing section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964.
  Among other things, section 9 included the words:
  "Subject to the provisions of this section, the Minister, with a view to securing the proper control in the national interest of schemes of harbour development that appear to him to involve expenditure of a capital nature".
  The important words are
  "in the national interest".
  That section was inserted because it was felt at the time—and I still feel—that the development of ports is a national issue and should be treated on a national basis. That is what the Secretary of State seeks to do.
  Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman wants endlessly greater investment in the infrastructure, why is it in the national interest to have powers that are limited to preventing investment being made in the infrastructure?
  Mr. Stott: It is interesting that the Secretary of State should raise that point, given his views on the alleged profligacy of bus support. However, I shall answer it shortly.
  Last year, at the annual dinner of the British Ports Association, the Secretary of State made his intentions clear. They were not surprising. The Secretary of State is well known for his neolithic views about how we conduct our affairs. He said:
  "Our predecessors saw"—
  even this point is wholly wrong—
  "the ports as part of the infrastructure needing to be centrally planned, protected from so-called 'wasteful' competition, regulated by Government, with investment vigorously controlled by the state … We regard the ports industry as a normal industry like any other. Ports can and should compete among themselves. We have made them compete with each other as well as the continental ports".
  That is typical of statements by the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, East said in the debate on the statutory instrument:
  "This naive belief in the absolutism of competition shows an ignorance of port activities and of the industry."
  I subscribe to that view.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Is not the situation even more serious? My hon. Friend mentions Antwerp. On the philosophy of the Secretary of State, Dunkirk, Antwerp and Rotterdam are competing directly with London. The right hon. Gentleman says that there is more surplus labour in London to be discarded. He did not give the figures. Is he not devoting public money to subsidising the elimination of port facilities in London necessitated by subsidised competition from municipal ports on the continent?
  Mr. Stott: My hon. Friend is quite right. That point was made by the managing director of the PLA when I visited Tilbury last year.
  It is generally acknowledged in the industry—
  Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman has not given his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) a very satisfactory answer. Rotterdam is probably the biggest port in western Europe. It handles about the same amount of trade as the whole United Kingdom. It employs about 4,400 dockers—about a third of our total. That is why overseas ports take our trade. They are more efficient in the use of labour.
  Mr. Stott: We could stay here all night disagreeing with the Secretary of State's interpretation of facts and figures. Neither I nor my hon. Friend believe what the right hon. Gentleman says for a moment, and I am sure that my hon. Friend preferred my answer to the helpful intervention of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Spearing: I certainly did.
  I visited Rotterdam last October. It is very different from the British ports because it fulfils a somewhat different function although it can compete with the ports of south-east England.
  Mr. Stott: It is generally acknowledged by those in the industry—even if not by the Secretary of State—that there is serious over-capacity in our ports now, and has been for some time. That became abundantly clear last
  806
  year when Southampton, regrettably, ceased to function as a port for a considerable time. The cargo was absorbed quite easily by other United Kingdom ports.
  During the 1983 debate, my hon. Friends graphically illustrated to the House the way in which their ports had declined—especially the ports on the west coast. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston, (Mr. Marshall) summed up the debate for the Opposition. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said:
  "It is horrible to think that 10 years or so ago there were over 2,000 shipping movements on the Clyde, but last year there were only 112. We have seen a collapse from about 1.6 million tonnes of general cargo to under 500,000 tonnes."—[Official Report, 14 March 1983; Vol. 39, c. 86.]
  My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) can confirm that there has been an even bigger decline in traffic movements on the Clyde and in cargo movements.
  With my hon. Friends from the shadow transport team, I paid an official visit to Glasgow some years ago. At Gushetfaulds freightliner terminal, we discovered that crates of bottles of Scottish whisky were not bei:ag exported through the great natural highway of the River Clyde but were being put aboard freightliner trains, sent to south-east England and shipped out from Felixstowe. That is the result of a lack of strategic planning.
  It will not have escaped the Secretary of State's attention that the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has introduced a private Bill with a view to extending its facilities. I want it to be understood clearly by all concerned that we shall vigorously oppose that Bill because of the damage that it will do to other port facilities, especially to the port of Ipswich, which I shall visit tomorrow with my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Weetch). We shall discuss that matter with the work force and the port managers.
  Britain's ports are in decline. There are now 87 per cent. fewer registered dock workers than there were 12 years ago. The redundancies have been accelerated by the Government, under whom there are more than 12,000 fewer registered dock workers—a decline of nearly 50 per cent. Investment has also declined by the same proportion. Government policy is to leave the development of ports to the market place, with no assessment of the needs of the country.
  The fortunes of British ports are tied closely to the patterns of foreign trade, and they have shared a fate similar to that of the merchant shipping industry in the past 20 years. The pattern of development of ports has also been closely connected with the demands of shipowners, dock companies and the users. The Government believe that ports ought to develop according to the demands of the market place, and they have removed powers to control port development from the statute book. That was done primarily to ensure that they did not have to make a decision on whether to allow Falmouth's container port to develop.
  It is nonsense to say that ports can develop without any implications for the Government. Southampton has all the facilities of a port, including the benefits of past. Government investment in developing the road network to cope with the traffic. Falmouth, however, is developing without the necessary infrastructure having been built. If

  807
  developments at Falmouth go ahead, it will not be long before the industry and port users demand new and expensive roads and railheads to the terminal.
  Ports are vital to the British economy and involve millions of pounds of public money. There should be sensible planning and proper use of resources. The history of British port development in the past 20 years is one of poor planning, uneven development and decline in traditional port areas.
  Another sign of the decline in ports traffic comes from the figures of tonnage that has gone through British ports in the past 20 years. Traffic has increased, but the increase in oil traffic accounts for most of it. The development of North sea oil has meant an increase in the overall oil traffic through ports and a turnround from petroleum imports outweighing exports to exports outweighing imports.
  The figures disguise what has happened to the distribution of traffic. There has been a substantial loss of trade on the west coast of Britain, especialy in south Wales, on the Mersey and on the Clyde and a concomitant gain on the east coast and in channel ports. The increasing use of container or railway traffic is likely to continue. That will probably mean a further increase in spare capacity in British ports, and further redundancies and loss of port investment.
  The Government's policy towards ports has been counter-productive. They have often sided against the unions on the operation of the national dock labour scheme, ducked out of crucial decisions on port development by removing legislative controls, abolished the National Ports Council and privatised Government-owned ports.
  Mr. Ridley: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Stott: The Secretary of State says, "Hear, hear," but the Public Accounts Committee criticised the Government for under-pricing Associated British Ports when it was privatised.
  Britain's ports are suffering from the problems of excess capacity, financial instability, fragmented control and insecurity among the work force. For the sake of our ports, we should have a rational policy. We must assess the needs and invest in the appropriate ports accordingly. Rather than shirk their responsibilities, the Government should be engaged in rational planning which maximises the potential of the ports and does not force the Government into unnecessary infrastructure costs around new ports.
  The Labour party will develop its policy and continue to insist on the establishment of a national ports authority. We believe that that is essential for the control of our major ports. The Government have taken a laissez-faire attitude to the problems of the port industry and dissolved the body—the National Ports Council — which took a central view about how our ports should develop. When we return to office we shall reconstitute the National Ports Council and bring some order to the chaos that the Government have brought to our industry.
  We shall not quarrel with the Secretary of State about providing more money for the severance scheme, but the repeal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 is a further example of his inhabiting the planets of lunacy. That step will not help the British ports industry but increase uncertainty and ensure that ports develop haphazardly. It
  808
  will also turn the ratchet once more against the west coast ports and in favour of south coast ports. We know what redundancies and problems will result from that. We might return to this matter in Committee.
  8.7 pm
  Mr. Michael Stern: Despite my natural reluctance to welcome a Bill which increases public spending and subsidises an industry, knowing all the distortions that such subsidy creates, I welcome the measure as part of the long process of bringing a sense of reality to many of the country's ports.
  Despite the 1950s style of maundering and harking back to the golden age when everything was under the control of the Secretary of State offered by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), it is worth considering why some of the Bill's provisions are necessary. They are necessary because the dock labour scheme, as amplified by the Jones-Aldington agreements, created an aristocracy in the ports. As is always the case, the only peaceful way to get rid of an aristocracy is to buy it out. It is not easy to buy out an entrenched aristocracy.
  On the current problems of the port of Bristol, that city's Evening Post reported as follows on 18 April:
  "manpower cutting plans are being held up by a wrangle between management and the Transport and General Workers Union...port bosses find they have no work for two electrician labourers and want the jobs declared redundant. The union is insisting the previously agreed manning scales should be met and the posts filled."
  In other words, the attitude in the ports is that it does not matter that they have no work or that providing labour increases the cost of the port and therefore continues its decline, the posts must be filled.
  In most ports, only the taxpayer funds the costs of removing the aristocracy 'created by the dock labour scheme. In Bristol, however, the same taxpayer pays twice, for it is the only major municipally owned port in Britain, and all the losses of the Bristol port fall on the ratepayer. Thus, the ratepayer in Bristol, as a result of the dock labour scheme, pays not only for the local losses but contributes his share, as a taxpayer, to the losses of all the scheme ports in the country. What the Opposition principally resent about the non-scheme ports is that they are not dependent upon the state because, in most cases, they are making a profit.
  I listened with interest, though with an air of disbelief, to the comments of the Secretary of State when he attempted to answer what might have been an examination question, "Compare and contrast London and Liverpool ports with all other ports in this country." It is a major difference not only that the ports of London and Liverpool are covered by the National Dock Labour Board, as dealt with the clause 1, but that they need special provision because that funding is provided not just for the voluntary severance of registered dock workers, but for the voluntary severance of non-registered dock workers.
  Such a policy, while it continues, cannot but cause resentment, not only among non-registered dock workers, in particular in the port of Bristol, but among the ratepayers of Bristol, who find themselves contributing twice to the severance pay of non-registered dock workers.
  In addition, considerable resentment is created by the London and Liverpool schemes as between registered and non-registered dock workers in the port of Bristol because,

  809
  again, the setting up of an aristocracy by the dock labour scheme has meant that some dock workers are more equal than others.
  It is generally accepted that the drip feed into the Treasury, which the special schemes for London and Liverpool comprise, must continue, but I want a more specific assurance than the Secretary of State gave about when, and in what manner, the drip feed will end. It has gone on for a considerable time. We, who as ratepayers pay for the non-drip-fed ports, are entitled to an assurance that sooner or later the drip will be cut off.
  I welcome the aspects of deregulation in clauses 3 to 6. Can anyone, even the hon. Member for Wigan, seriously maintain that it is a necessary factor in modern port operation that the Minister should be entitled to name the auditors for the port? If so, I shall willingly give way to enable the hon. Gentleman to explain why ports alone are incapable of choosing their own auditors.
  Similarly, given that it is the policy of the Government that ports should look more to private finance—in the case of Bristol that is unfortunately the local ratepayer; in many other ports private finance is obtained, and Bristol is moving in that direction—it is nonsense that an additional borrowing constraint should be placed on ports, unlike other industries. We are not talking about public sector borrowing controls. We are talking of an additional constraint as if investment in a port did not require borrowing. Because of that, according to Labour Members, it should be made more difficult for them to obtain it.
  I shall not repeat what was said in the debate on 19 June 1984 in relation to section 9 of the Harbours Act. The remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) that night and those of Labour Members tonight were, as I said in the June debate, the language of Stalinism and the language of Mussolini-type Fascism. All other commercial entities can make commercial decisions, but in the ports alone commercial decisions must be at the behest of the Minister.
  Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman must not be allowed to get away with accusing the Opposition of being in any way, shape or form related to Mussolini-type Fascism. I greatly resent his remark and I hope that he will have the decency to withdraw it.
  Mr. Stern: I shall certainly not withdraw it, because the policy of the Opposition, as related to the House tonight, and as related in June 1984, is indistinguishable from the state-operated control of major industries that occurred in Italy in the 1930s. I am not accusing Opposition Members of advocating other aspects of Fascist policy. I am only saying that in this area their policy is indistinguishable from it.
  Mr. Stott: The hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me. Nor do I think that he has satisfied my hon. Friends. We want that section of the Act to be retained because we believe that it is in the national interest that ports policy should be controlled. The hon. Gentleman suggests that, simply because we hold that view, in some way we subscribe to the views of Mussolini and the Fascist dictatorship in Italy in the 1930s. Many of my hon. Friends fought against Fascism in the second world war and we greatly resent remarks made in the House suggesting
  810
  support on our part for Fascism. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now have the decency to withdraw the remark.
  Mr. Stern: The hon. Gentleman continues to refuse to listen to what I am saying. I repeat that the policy of the Opposition to ports is identical to the policy that was adopted towards major industries by Mussolini. I could, if the hon. Gentleman wished me to do so, draw other parallels, for example with the economic policy of the Roman empire as it was applied to certain outlying states. [interruption.] I am sorry if Labour Members resent that parallel too and choose to draw one that goes far further than was inherent in anything that I said.
  On the subject of the revocation of the order in relation to the Act, I agree with the hon. Member for Wigan on a point that was raised in the debate on 19 June. I seek, as he sought, an assurance from the Minister which has so far not been forthcoming. Unlike Opposition Members, if business men feel that there is profit to be made and employment to be created from the development of a new port, my attitude is to tell them to go ahead. It is no concern of mine. However, if, as the result of that development, the Minister finds it necessary to seek additional expenditure on the infrastructure surrounding that port, then, like Opposition Members, 1, representing the ratepayers of the city of Bristol, who already pay heavily through their rates for one port, strongly resent my constituents being asked to pay to support an opposing port. I hope that the Minister will give the House an assurance that in any port development in future expenditure on the infrastructure will be entirely out of the pockets of the developers of the port.
  Against normal principles, I welcome the Bill. It is part of a process that has perhaps gone on too long but, nevertheless, once started in 1946 by the introduction of the dock labour scheme, and all the problems that it generated, the process must be brought to a conclusion. I share the hope expressed by my right hon. Friend that the process can be brought to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
  8.20 pm
  Mr. Eddie Loyden: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) except to point out that his knowledge of port is probably of port out of a bottle rather than ports such as we are talking about in the debate.
  The hon. Member referred to the national dock labour scheme that was established by Ernie Bevin in 1946. The hon. Member and the House should understand that it is the very processes that followed the establishment of that scheme that we are debating today. The Secretary of State has never made any secret of his abhorrence of the national dock labour scheme. If he had been around at the time and had had his way he would probably have strangled it at birth. Fortunately for many people, he was not around then.
  The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West referred to the privilege—I think that was the word he used—of registered dock workers. In the period that the hon. Member was talking about, there were 16,000 registered dock workers working in the port of Liverpool on a system of casualisation. They went to the docks three, four or five times a week to seek work. They had to stand on stands, being treated worse than animals, to be selected for work

  811
  at the whim of the ship's boss. That period is a blot on British industrial relations. The hon. Member should recognise that casualisation and hyper-exploitation through the pen system of hiring ended long since and that we do not want to see that system again.
  When we consider what the Secretary of State wants to do in this Bill, we have to ask if we are moving back to that state of affairs. In spite of what has been said from the Government Front Bench, it has been the clear intention of the Government and the Secretary of State to abolish the national dock labour scheme. They knew that if there had been a blatant and direct attempt to do so in the past it would have resulted in prolonged industrial disputes in the docks. Therefore, the Government decided that the non-scheme ports should be developed. That is why we have in this Bill the amendment to section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964. That means that through control — the word "control" should be seen in its proper context as planning control — non-scheme ports should be efficient and should be spread around the United Kingdom in accordance with trade in and out of the ports.
  Mr. Stern rose—
  Mr. Loyden: It has to be recognised that the modernisation of the ports following the Devlin report in 1967 resulted in a transformation of the national dock labour scheme. As I said, it has been the clear intention of the Government to abolish that scheme.
  I was surprised that hon. Members in interventions this evening suggested that Liverpool and London were being treated better than the rest of the ports. Since the money that is to go to Liverpool and London is for buying off more jobs, I wonder what those hon. Members meant. With the Isle of Man ferry company leaving Liverpool after more than 150 years, the dock company will be obliged to go to the National Dock Labour Board to report a further surplus in requirements for registered dock workers. In that sense the Secretary of State is enabling the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company to destroy more jobs in Liverpool through redundancy payments.
  The House is well aware that that area already has one of the highest unemployment rates in the United Kingdom. We do not welcome the Secretary of State's action, nor will registered dock workers welcome the fact that further money will be made available for redundancies. At the end of the day, they may be compelled by the nature of the industry to accept it, but there will be resistance for a further reduction in the registered dock labour force in Liverpool. In the 1950s that force stood at 15,000: by the 1970s it was down to 7,000, and now it is less than 2,000.
  It is not just the port industry that has been affected by that downward spiral. The whole hinterland of Merseyside has been affected because industries and commerce were linked to the port economy. The Government must consider seriously the effect that the reduction in the dock labour force has had not just on the port, with seven miles of docks closed, but on the community that lives adjacent to the docks. With the exception of the development of the Albert dock and other places at the south end, those communities have been left with the obsolescence and problems that empty docks create.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): Could the hon.
  812
  Member develop more fully the point he is making and bring out for me what he believes will be the help to Liverpool in competing for trade if it has to carry large numbers of dockers for whom it has no work? Does he think that will help Liverpool to get more trade or will it do the reverse—hasten the loss of trade, which neither he nor I would wish to see?
  Mr. Loyden: I shall give the Minister an example of how it would not help Liverpool. Two or three months ago, Saex moved from Southampton to Merseyside. For the purpose of this debate, the reasons are irrelevant. Liverpool was struggling to cope with the additional trade. Is it not fair comment that a continuing reduction in the number of registered dock workers in the port of Liverpool will limit its possibilities of attracting trade? If the Government are intent upon reducing the number of registered dock workers in Liverpool, London and elsewhere, they are minimising the possibility of those ports ever attracting more trade. There will be no question of further recruitment in the event of trade going to those ports.
  In that sense Saex is a perfect example of how the port of Liverpool is restricted in developing further opportunties for trade. It could cope with the Saex trade only with great difficulty. Had there been a further reduction in the work force it would not have been able, in my view and in the view of the registered dock workers, to cope with that increase in trade.
  Therefore, such scheme ports face a clear impediment in that situation.
  That discloses the real intention behind the Bill. The non-scheme ports are now being given virtually unlimited powers to carry out the functions of the scheme ports, which can be done, because of the finite nature of the trade, only at the expense of the scheme ports. The scheme ports happen to be in areas of very high unemployment. The north-south syndrome comes into the argument again.
  Through those powers and many other things, the ports' functions are being restricted. I worked in the port of Liverpool for 28 years and claim, for that reason, to know something about the port transport industry. If I do not, after 28 years, there must be something radically wrong with me. I have seen the development of the ports from the early post-war years in 1946 up to the present day. I have seen the effects of the lack of investment in the scheme ports over the years, which were run by shipowners in the interests of shipowners. They were both the landlord and tenant of the ports because they were sitting on the board of the dock company, and the shipowners and merchant princes used the ports as tenants. Therefore, they regulated the costs of the ports in accordance with their own whims, which meant that they were kept at a low level. There were startling revelations in the 1960s, when 12s 6d was still being charged for the hire of a crane. That shows the way in which the ports were run by those people. It had nothing to do with the so-called elitist registered dock workers. The misery and hyper-exploitation of that pre-war period should not return.
  In view of what the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State have said now and on previous occasions, I wonder what the answer would be if Liverpool were to win trade and could not meet it because of the manning levels—the number of registered dock workers in the port. One answer is to go to casual labour in the ports and docks. Therefore, we may not have seen the end of

  813
  casualisation. I am very concerned about the possible effects that this limitation will have on the ports of Liverpool and London and, indeed ports in Scotland and the north-east.
  During the debate on what became the Dock Work Regulation Act 1976, the Secretary of State made it clear that he wanted to see the end of the national dock labour scheme. The industry may now be drifting back, at least in the scheme ports, to a form of casualisation if the required numbers are not met by the number of RDWs employed.
  That is the Government's clear intention, and it is underpinned by the decisions taken by the Secretary of State to enhance the non-scheme ports. As he sees it, and as the Government probably see it, the scheme ports will wither on the vine if the jobs there are brought off and restrictions are placed on their capability of taking on further work and bringing further trade into the ports. The obvious consequence is that the non-scheme ports will flourish and the scheme ports will die away. There is sufficient evidence that we have already gone a long way along that road.
  Mr. David Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman believes that scheme ports will wither on the vine as the non-scheme ports gain their trade, what solution does he offer? If the non-scheme port is more economic and able to attract custom, in his scheme of things how would he put right the withering on the vine of the scheme port?
  Mr. Loyden: I think that I have made a sufficient contribution to that argument. I thought that the Minister would now understand the situation. There has been an act of deliberate policy on the part of those controlling the scheme ports to see that the investment does not go there. That has nothing to do with the scheme ports as such. The non-scheme ports have developed without a history in the docks industry. It is the clear intention of the Secretary of State and the Government to use the clean slate of the new complexes in the non-scheme ports as a way of breaking down the national dock labour scheme and the tremendous efforts put in by the registered dock workers to establish a decent standard of living for themselves and their families and decent conditions in the docks where they work.
  I see the Bill as taking us much further along that road. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) paved the way in the debate in exposing the Government's intentions for the national dock labour scheme. It has nothing to do with Liverpool or London having more money. That money will be provided to reduce the number of jobs in Merseyside, an area of high unemployment, and the port of London.
  8.36 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I come to the debate, not as the Liberal party's spokesman on transport, but, as is fairly self-evident, as someone who has inherited a constituency the name of which is most associated with the docks and the port industry of the past. The Minister will know that the vast bulk of the constituents who are mine today in Southwark and Bermondsey are people whose families earned their living and made their way because of the success of the port that was London.
  Let me reflect briefly over the 33 years of my life. I was born in the last days of the second post-war Labour
  814
  Government, when the scheme ports were very much places where activity was concentrated and planned and we sought to make sure that we retained our place in the markets of the world, with ports guaranteed to provide those facilities. I jump ahead to a date when the figures are nicely rounded. In 1966, 25,000 dock workers were registered in London. Today's figure has been given to the Minister: it is about 4,000. Of course, the port has moved downstream from the docks on my side of the river—the Surrey docks in Bermondsey—to Tilbury and so on.
  I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions which the Bill does not answer. I welcome the ability of the scheme to pay for people who do not have work and for those who wish to take voluntary redundancy. That is right if people want to move out of the industry. It is better that they should have money to go in search of work elsewhere. The financing has needed to be upgraded on a regular basis. This is the fourth occasion since 1979 when the Government have come to the House with proposals for increasing the financing for ports. That is right, and I do not object to it. Therefore, clauses 1 and 2 are unexceptionable.
  However, what begs the question is what the Minister failed to say in answer to questions that were asked earlier. It has been accepted that trade has moved over to the east and south coast ports. The pattern between the established ports and the new ports has been that ports such as Felixstowe have become effective and important contributors, while we have retained our old ports and sought to make sure that, inasmuch as they can compete for trade and hold it, they are able to do so. Merseyside and Liverpool are those two ports par excellence.
  London is an east coast port. It is the capital city. There will always be a need for a decent port facility on the Thames. There is a great demand for goods to be brought to London, whether in containers to Tilbury and then by road on the M25 or elsewhere, or broken down at Tilbury and brought upstream and unloaded for servicing London. What concerns me is that in the contribution of the Secretary of State there was no projection of the need for grant or labour in London.
  I obviously have a vested interest and wish to address my remarks primarily to that issue. What is the Government's projection of the future need in terms of labour and trade for the port of London? If the Government are saying that they will leave it to the market place, it could be—I do not say that it will be—that the port of London, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), will wither on the vine. It is a ludicrous proposition, when we are competing with Rotterdam, Antwerp and the major entry ports of our neighbours and allies in commerce in Europe, to think that our capital city, which has good port facilities, might not be able to have a planned development which retains its importance, given the facilities which it has historically inherited.
  I hope that the Government do not believe that we can apply at some early time in the future the principle of the magic of the market place when we start, not from here, but from the fact that this inbuilt infrastructure of the ports exists with the potential for the port of London to be efficient, effective and important as part of the port network throughout the United Kingdom. This could be done without any detriment to potential competing demands for ports elsewhere.

  815
  First, what is the Government's plan for the port of London? All that the Bill does is to provide money to pay off those who will not have work. We need to ensure that there is a positive and not just a negative side to the coin of paying off what would be a reduced labour force.
  Secondly, there have been consultations. The Minister, following the public inquiry last year into the rates imposed by the PLA on private operators on the Thames, will be aware of the decision to retain, but to reduce, rates. There is a new private sector in the Thames, the wharfingers. They can play an important, and I believe increasing, part in the prosperity of the lower river and of the upper port. My constituency and the Government's plans, through the urban development corporation, envisage such developments.
  If, at some stage, the Government plan to take away the rates which the PLA charges, which effectively subsidise its commercial undertaking—that is, to take from the private wharf owners to subsidise the PLA—can they guarantee that that will not be done simply on a commercial basis if that would act to the detriment of the PLA's finances? Will the phasing out procedures envisaged as a result of the inspector's report and the Secretary of State's response take into account on the one hand the need to reduce the burden on the wharfingers and on the other the need to ensure that an unmanageable burden is not imposed on the PLA?
  My last point relates to the planning of our ports policy. The pattern of events seems to show that there is some potential for developing new ports round Britain. However, it seems that there is also great potential—the case has been argued in many erudite reports — for ensuring that the river which comes up to London and services London is better used for commerce than it has been hither to. I do not expect the Minister, in the context of the Bill, to accept that it would be right to make such a provision, but it would be reassuring to know that the Government take seriously the interest which I believe the Docklands Corporation has shown in trying to maximise the commercial use of the Thames as an adjunct to, support for and extension of the existing dock and port facilities of London.
  There is enormous potential, possibly for different sorts of trade. The technological revolution means that things have moved on. I hope that the Minister can say something encouraging about what he and his Department are doing, and are prepared to do, to ensure that the port of London and the PLA, which is responsible for the two different parts of the river, can—without detriment to anybody else's commercial success against other competitors—maximise London's unique potential for trade. That is why in the first place the port of London was the subject of a scheme, with all the infrastructure and planning and regulations that were established.
  I do not propose to oppose the Bill. However, we look for more than merely financial temporary measures, which in my view is what the Bill is accepted to be. We look for something that will inject health, and not just money to pay off people. We look for more than the statement that the magic of the market place must rule irrespective of the interests of the port of London. I hope and believe that the Minister can be more reassuring, but I have yet to hear it.
  8.46 pm
  Mr. David Marshall: I fully support and endorse all that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the intentions of the Government towards a national dock labour scheme and registered ports. I think that I need not elaborate on what he said.
  I wish to bring to the notice of the House the serious situation in the Clyde port authority. If no action is taken soon by the Government, there will not be a Clyde port in the true meaning of the term, and the authority will be reduced to carrying out the role of a conservancy agency. It is inconceivable to think of the Clyde without any port at all. The indications are already there because the former Queen's dock is now the site of the new Scottish exhibition centre, and the former Prince's dock is now the site of the 1988 international garden festival. Welcome as these new ventures are, there is no shortage of alternative sites for them. It would be preferable if the docks had continued to work as a part of a busy port, as was the case not long ago.
  Since its inception in 1966, the Clyde port authority has been a fairly profitable operation, but since 1980 it has made steady losses each year, and the total work force has been reduced from 2,000 to 500—a redundancy level of 75 per cent. in the short span of four years. The workers have not benefited from some of the enhanced payments proposed in the Bill.
  In addition, to the best of my knowledge, the Clyde port authority never received any special grants or aid from the Government, and it has been forced to sell off many of its assets, such as land, in order to meet its day-to-day operating costs. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will give detailed facts and figures relating to activities on the River Clyde. In my brief remarks, therefore, I shall confine myself to some general issues of concern not only to Glasgow but to west central Scotland as a whole.
  For the benefit of hon. Members who are unfamiliar with the Clyde, the port is like a stack of dominoes. There is the Hunterston ore terminal, Greenock container dock, Ardrossan harbour company and Meadowside granary. Take one away, and they will all eventually come tumbling down. Yet each and every one of them is at risk at present. The key domino to the future of the port is the Hunterston ore terminal. That terminal is crucial to the future of the port, yet its very existence hangs by a thread. That thread is the continuation of the Ravenscraig steelworks at Motherwell. Without Ravenscraig there would be no need for the Hunterston ore terminal, and without that terminal there would be no Clyde port at all.
  I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is one of the Bill's supporters, will take steps to ensure the continuation of Ravenscraig, and so guarantee the future of the Hunterston terminal, thus making the provisions of the Bill unnecessary, at least for Hunterston. The Greenock container terminal has only one container firm remaining there. I hope that the Secretary of State will do all that he can to keep it there. In addition, the Ardrossan harbour sea wall needs repair.
  I mention these points because the Clyde port authority cannot afford from its own resources to make concessions to container operators or to invest in the necessary new infrastructure and equipment that would make it a modern, competitive port. It is unable to do that, because it has

  817
  never received the assistance that other ports have received. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
  The Meadowside granary in Glasgow is the second largest in Europe, with a capacity of well over 100,000 tonnes; yet it is lucky if, at any time, there are 10,000 tonnes of grain in it. It is operating at only a fraction of its capacity. All that could be changed substantially for the better. I understand that recently the EEC intervention board visited it regarding the possibility of storing EEC intervention grain there. If that is to be done, improvements will need to be made to the loading facilities. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all that he can to get that grain into Meadowside? Will he tell us what the prospects are for any shipments of intervention grain going to the Clyde this year?
  I am glad that earlier, in response to my intervention, the Secretary of State confinned that all dockers covered by the national voluntary service scheme, regardless of location, will receive the same treatment and that the sum will be £25,000 per person. I understand that until a week or two ago the figure for Glasgow was £16,000, but that happily there were no takers. Will the right hon. Gentleman again confirm that the figure for Glasgow workers will be £25,000?
  Dredging on the River Clyde costs the port authority about £1·5 million per annum, yet there is no statutory obligation on it to carry out that work. If it has to stop doing it because of its desperate financial position, what will happen to the shipbuilding industry on the upper Clyde? What future will there be for Govan Shipbuilders and for the newly-privatised Yarrows yard in Scotstoun? Severance schemes, even at an enhanced rate, are not the answer to such problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) referred to the speech made in the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar) in March 1983. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will confirm that we take no pleasure in informing the House that the situation on the Clyde is much worse than it was only two years ago. One reason why the Clyde is experiencing such difficulties is that the traffic is diminishing. In recent times 75 per cent. of our trade has been with South America. We are concerned about the need to bring more business to the Clyde. Will the Minister give an assurance that he will do all that he can to attract new business to the Clyde and to build on the South American connection, whether or not it is to the Government's political liking?
  As Clydeside Members of Parliament, we expect some evidence from the Government that they are aware of the major problems confronting the largest port in the west of Scotland and of the imminent threat of closure. The Clyde has been treated inequitably compared with other ports. I am glad that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, as he will no doubt recall meeting the delegation of workers from the Clyde, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Garscadden, and for Greenock and Port Glasgow, my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) and me on 26 April last year. We were asking for parity of treatment with Liverpool and London. We were asking not for any additional aid or concessions, but only for parity. Surely that is not too much to ask for.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will make a positive response to the appeals that I have made on behalf of the Clyde port.
  8.54 pm
  Mr. Michael Fallon: I give the Bill a general welcome. It is good evidence—
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Fallon: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene other than from a sedentary position?
  Dr. Godman: Perhaps I should apologise, but 1 was pointing out from a sedentary position that the hon. Gentleman has only just come into the Chamber.
  Mr. Fallon: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was asleep earlier, but I was here for both the opening speeches. I then had to leave the Chamber for another engagement, but I have now returned. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
  The Bill is good evidence that the transfer of ports from the Department of Trade and Industry was a good move. They are now covered by one of the more enterprising Departments. I only hope that one day the Department of Transport will complete the exercise by taking from the Treasury control of the freeports and encouraging the development of a second generation of freeports under the auspices of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rather than under those of the Customs and Excise.
  The Bill is about freeing our ports. I welcome all the dismantling of controls that it contains. If I have one small reservation about it, it involves clauses 1 and 2. What my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is doing is not unreasonable—he is a reasonable man—but the amounts of money involved are large, and he is taking a considerable power.
  I wonder whether hon. Members are not entitled to a slightly clearer statement from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I am not sure whether I have his attention at present—on the timetable that he hinted at. He spoke of the unique circumstances and the special difficulties. That might seem to be rather Department of Energy language to those of us who consider the various borrowing powers Bills that are presented to the House. But I put it no stronger than that.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that it was his intention that assistance generally should be phased out. I wonder whether we could be given a slightly clearer idea whether he envisages the clause 1 arrangements, in particular, having any sort of medium-term permanency. The difficulties that have arisen and that clauses 1 and 2 are intended to tackle arise in no small part not because of the absence of a scheme but because of the very generosity of the scheme and the enormous costs thus imposed. It seems to me that the scheme as a whole has quite clearly destroyed rather than protected them. The clearest evidence for that is the ports to which reference was made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing)—that is, Antwerp and Rotterdam. It is to those ports that we should look and that ports in this country hoping for commercial success should look.
  Like the hon. Member for Newham, South, I paid a visit to the port of Rotterdam some three or four years ago and was enormously impressed by its efficiency. It may well be a different type of port from some that we have been considering tonight, and there is no doubt that it has very different working practices. It was made absolutely

  819
  clear to me that no-strike agreements were at the heart of those working practices. Under his contract, an employee of the port of Rotterdam authority is not allowed to go on strike.
  Dr. Godman: The hon. Member, by what he has just said, has obviously had more experience than I of the workings of the Rotterdam docks and industry and also the industrial relations that exist there. Can he tell the House whether there have been any industrial disputes since his last visit there three of four years ago?
  Mr. Fallon: I cannot tell the House that, and I certainly do not claim great experience. I made a visit there, which lasted two days, as a guest of the port of Rotterdam authority. Strikes certainly did not seem to feature very high on their agenda, nor did they anticipate many in the future.
  I would have hoped that in clauses 1 and 2 my hon. Friend would have laid as great stress on the need to modernise working practices and reform labour relations in the docks as he is quite evidently laying on the need for port employers to address their minds to the problem of restoring their finances.
  9 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I start by asking the Minister if, in winding up, he will elaborate on the observation made by his right hon. Friend during his comments on clauses 1 and 2 to the effect that soon the ports will have to shoulder their burden unaided. I ask that because I should like to know if the Government envisage phasing out the severance scheme. this was the fate, as the House will recall, of the British Shipbuilders' severance scheme and I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman is pointing us in the same direction.
  Representing a port on the Clyde, I have a great deal of sympathy for the plight of the docks on Merseyside and in London. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall), I would remind the Secretary of State of the very serious economic circumstances of the ports not only on the Clyde, but on the Forth as well.
  The deterioration suffered by Britain's maritime industries is nothing short of scandulous. Historical trends in maritime trade have pushed us in the direction that we have taken over the past 20 or 30 years, and some would say that those trends extend much further back. There has suddenly been a shift in maritime trade from the west of Britain ports to the east coast ports and much of this has been brought about by the growing importance of the short sea trade—the trade between those east coast ports and continental Europe.
  There has also been over the past 20 or 30 years a disastrous, deeply worrying shift from Scottish to English ports, as outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan. Until he mentioned the Clyde, I was beginning to think that here again we were listening to a debate concerning the Government's policy for the English ports. There seems to be little or no ministerial concern for the plight of the Scottish ports.
  There are understandable reasons which partly explain the decline in the Scottish ports. I am not talking here about Aberdeen or some of the other ports in the north-east of Scotland which have benefited dramatically from the
  820
  development of the offshore gas and oil industries, but certainly other ports on the Forth and on the Clyde have suffered severely over the past 20 or more years.
  Every day, Scottish goods are shifted to England by road and rail transport. Scottish cargo, including whisky, whether malt or blended—that is the best known cargo—knitwear, textiles, engineering products and goods produced by our burgeoning information technology industries, bypasses the ports on the Forth and Clyde and is shipped to places such as Felixstowe. That harms not only the Scottish ports on the Forth and Clyde but other industries in Scotland.
  The only new cargo that has been offered to the Greenock container terminal in recent weeks has been the contaminated soil from the Faslane nuclear submarine base. An outlet had to be found for that soil so that the base could take the wasteful Trident programme. I am tempted to say that that soil should be shipped to English ports, but I am not that parochial or nationalistic.
  The Government's ports policy may mean—if the Conservative Government survive this long, but recent signs are that they will not—that they will preside over the collapse and disappearance of most of the Scottish ports, and even Merseyside. What is the future of the ports on the Clyde and Forth? Will they eventually close? Will all or the major part of Scottish imports and exports pass through English ports? That has certainly been the trend during the past couple of decades.
  Much of the coastal trade is carried on foreign vessels—in "foreign bottoms", according to the colloquial phrase. I believe that the state can play a major role in shaping developments in our maritime industries. Does the Secretary of State believe that the pattern of maritime trade that has evolved during the past two decades will remain as it is today, with an overwhelming emphasis on traffic moving through English ports?
  I make a plea on behalf of the people employed by the Clyde port authorities—my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) also made this plea—and by the Forth ports authorities. Although it is essential that help should be given to Merseyside and London, the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues should not overlook the desperate plight of Scottish ports.
  9.9 pm
  Mr. William Powell: It is always a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and to listen to him speak about Scottish affairs. I listened to him with considerable pleasure, bearing in mind that I represent more Scottish people than any other English Member of Parliament and, indeed, more Scottish people than many Scottish Members of Parliament.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way. However, as someone who was born south of the border I have to correct what he said about the "little Scotland" in Corby.
  Mr. Powell: I have no doubt whatsoever that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will have noted carefully the hon. Gentleman's observations on the future of Scottish ports. There are no more ingenious or inventive people than the Scots. They have gone to every corner of the earth and created prosperity there. I have

  821
  little doubt that if the dead hand of state control were to be removed from their endeavours, Scotland would enjoy the prosperity which its people so richly deserve. Of course they will need help to create that prosperity—that is why many of the hon. Gentleman's observations were of such value—but help does not mean state control. Nothing is more likely to ensure that Scottish ports have no future whatsoever than to arrange, by our legislative mechanism, for the Secretary of State, Ministers and Whitehall, far away from Scotland, to have a decisive influence upon what happens there.
  The reason I welcome the Bill so wholeheartedly is that it will reduce the level of Government and Whitehall interference and control. Liberalisation and deregulation will make a real contribution to the future prosperity of our ports. In making that observation, I am conscious that little has been said about Scottish ports in this debate. The most prosperous ports in our land are situated on the east coast and in the southern part of England. Only a few years ago, they barely existed. They have grown up because of the demand for the services they provide.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to traffic being transferred from Scottish ports to Felixtowe. I have no doubt that both he and others will have asked themselves why Felixtowe has become such an attractive port to so many people. Geography is one factor. The hon. Gentleman is in the unfortunate position of representing a constituency in a part of the country which a century ago was ideal for the trade which passed through the ports on the west coast of Scotland and England. Because of the switch of international trade to Europe, those ports are now on the wrong side of the country. Those areas which, 100 years ago, were far from prosperous and endured periods of considerable depression and poverty are now the most prosperous in our land, while those areas which, 100 years ago, were the most prosperous now find that they are in the opposite position.
  I am not one of those who believe that the state has no role to play. Far from it. The state has a role to play, but at best it is a regulatory role. State control is unhelpful and has led to the accelerated decline of ports whose prosperity was so evident only a generation ago. For that reason, the provisions in the early clauses of the Bill are very welcome.
  My right hon. Friend has many matters on his desk. I welcome the fact that, despite his many other responsibilities, which take up a considerable part of his time, he has devoted part of his time to bringing before the House this measure which will make a real contribution to the future of our ports.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Donald Anderson: I was somewhat intrigued to hear the hon. Member for Corby (Mr. Powell) say that in his political ideology the state should have only a regulatory role. Corby has suffered more than most places from the decline of the steel industry. I have yet to hear the hon. Member criticise the substantial assistance which has properly been given to Corby by way of regional policy by both major parties after the ending of steel production. That is not a regulatory aspect of state activity. It is far more positive and against the spirit of one of the key clauses in the Bill.
  This has been an unusual debate in that the Minister, who has the reputation in the House of being essentially a Treasury man parachuted into a spending Ministry,
  822
  determined to reduce expenditure at all costs, and who has followed that to the full with the bus industry, now comes to the House without a blink of an apology with a Bill the key clause of which increases public financial assistance to two major ports by £140 million in an open-ended commitment. He knows that he loyally follows a number of predecessors, because the casualty rate of Secretaries of State for Transport has been high in this Parliament. He follows a number of his colleagues who have put forward schemes for subvention. He said, with his hand on his heart, effectively, "This is the last such subvention. We believe that the industry will be able to stand on its own feet after the process has been completed."
  There has hardly been a whimper from those Conservative Members who normally are so alert about such public expenditure, save perhaps his hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) who made one or two sceptical noises earlier.
  The hon. Member for Corby will no doubt have noted the removal of section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 which relates to the control of harbour developments. That was debated at length in the House on 19 June last year. The Secretary of State supports the removal of that section his proposition that it is an anachronism in a competitive industry. The points made during the debate on the order in June last year are still valid.
  I wholly support what my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said about the lack of strategy in the port industry. That is in part reinforced by the removal of that section. Surely the Government cannot maintain that in all circumstances a project involving substantial capital investment in the ports can be viewed on its own merits without seeking to examine its effects on the industry as a whole.
  The Government appear to be saying, "If people are prepared to risk their money, so be it. Let market forces predominate." Even this Government, despite the way in which they have dismantled much regional policy since they came to power in 1979, maintain a regional policy, because they believe that if the ports were left entirely to market forces there would be substantial dislocation, with adverse social effects.
  The Government are depriving themselves of what admittedly is only a last stop, but nevertheless, a means of placing decisions on port location and port investment in a wider context. There will now be no opportunity to exercises a wider national control or to examine any port investment decision in a wider regional context.
  An example is the viability of the new port project at Falmouth, which may now be in doubt. Not unexpectedly, the promoters are still saying that it is going ahead. They are still optimistic. Can it be said that the development at Falmouth has no relevance to the national interest, and that the Government can simply say that if private promoter:; are prepared to risk their money, so be it? Obviously, it must have an effect on other ports, especially at a time of over-capacity and when that intended investment is aimed at ocean-going container ships and piggy-backing the imports to other ports.
  Obviously, the project will also have an effect on infrastructure within that region. It is not enough to say that the local planning authority—Cornwall county council—exercise sufficient control. It will warn to attract as much private and public investment into its area as possible. But that investment has public investment implications. If the project goes ahead, it will no doubt be

  823
  said that the road pattern to Falmouth is inadequate and there will be pressure for an increase in road spending. If that road spending is not sufficient, there will be pressure for increased rail investment and section 8 grants.
  Therefore, one private investment without any Government supervision will not only have an effect on other ports within that area, but will trigger off a substantial amount of public investment. Can it be said that the Government, exercising the national interest as they would have done under section 9 of the 1964 Act, have no proper role in such an investment decision? I believe that that is wrong and that anyone looking objectively at a major investment location decision will surely conclude that Government should have a role in considering such an investment in a wider national context.
  My second point relates to the additional £140 million to finance the severance pay at London and Liverpool. Will the Minister clarify his remark to me that there is no element of subsidy in that? He said that the explanatory memorandum was loosely drafted and he implied that it did not say what he had intended it to say. That memorandum states that the effect of clause 2 is to raise
  "from £360 million to £500 million the ceiling on financial assistance"
  to those two ports
  "by grants, loans, and guarantees for measures to reduce manpower in their ports and"—
  this is the key phrase—
  "for supporting them while such measures are being taken."
  I concede the Minister's point that the wording of the Bill is the key factor, not the explanatory memorandum. However, is he seriously saying that those words in the explanatory memorandum have no meaning? If they have a meaning, what is it? Can it be other than that there is a subsidy to those two ports and that they are therefore receiving a form of assistance that is denied to other ports and making them that much more competitive than other ports?
  I remind the Minister that other scheme ports contribute finance, for example, for the servicing of debt, much of which is used for the purposes of those two ports. All registered ports have to pay a levy that is now roughly £1,000 per annum per man. I think that my arithmetic is correct. There are roughly 12,000 dock workers and the Secretary of State said that the cost of the scheme is £12 million per annum.
  All the operators within the registered ports have the burden of financing severance, but some are more favoured than others, and this has regional implications. A port such as mine in Swansea suffers from the same problems, albeit not on the same scale, as the PLA and the Mersey ports. We too are subject to the effects of the same recession.
  My port has been heavily dependent on the steel industry and there has been a major decline in the manufacturing base of south Wales. Queen's dock in my constituency is virtually dependent on British Petroleum. Within the past few weeks, that company has announced the closure of its refinery at Llandarcy in my constituency. This is bound to have an effect on the port because ports are a service industry. They reflect the pattern and volume of industry and the health of industries in their areas. The recession hits ports outside the two favoured ports just as
  824
  much. They too will be affected by the same factors of over-capacity and the new technology of containerisation. I ask the Secretary of State to look carefully at this.
  Have we not come to the point, in seeking to meet the problems of these two major ports, at which there can be adverse effects on the other ports, also in difficult parts of the country, that are suffering from the same factors, including the way that scheme ports are harmed by developments in unregistered wharves? These are developed alongside the scheme ports and have problems about safety. There are also concerns about the pensions available to the men and they are not burdened —properly burdened — with the obligations laid on the scheme ports.
  Will the Secretary of State look carefully at the philosophy behind the Bill? Is it not going too far in the direction of favouring two ports at the expense of other ports, often in difficult regions and often facing the same problems?
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Christopher Chope: I apologise for not having been able to be present at the Outset of the debate. I was detained upstairs in a meeting of the Select Committee on Procedure.
  Any debate concerning ports is of interest to an hon. Member representing a Southampton constituency, and it is a pleasure for me to be able to rise in a debate on ports policy in a rather more hawkish frame of mind than I have on recent occasions.
  There has been a great and welcome revival in the fortunes of the port of Southampton this year. That is due to good management, to a much better relationship with the work force and to an increase in realism, which has been sadly lacking in the past.
  Last year, the troubles in the port resulted in a trading loss of £6.4 million. This year as a result of negotiations between management and work force, the total number employed in the port has been reduced from 2,400 to 1,400. That is sad, but in consequence there has been a 25 per cent. reduction in the rates offered to people wishing to use the port, most of the port's principal customers have returned, and business is booming.
  On 29 March, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State made a speech at a lunch organised by the British Ports Association. It was reported in the Financial Times on 30 March. He referred to the fact that
  "British ports cost an average of 50 per cent. more for handling deepsea container cargoes than their Continental rivals",
  according to research by his Department. He said that this had raised the costs of imports, resulted in lost export orders, and increased unemployment. It was also disclosed that negotiations were taking place between the National Association of Port Employers and the Government over the cost of the national dock labour scheme. The employers had argued that if the Government continued to refuse to scrap the scheme, which makes compulsory redundancies difficult, they should bear the costs.
  There is little evidence in the Bill that the burden placed on the scheme ports is being reduced to any significant extent. I welcome clause 1, which will give a £10 million subsidy to the national dock labour scheme. The clause will stop that burden falling upon employers in the scheme ports. However, compared with the additional subsidy of £140 million referred to in clause 2—I look forward to

  825
  my hon. Friend's replies to the points made about that by the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson)—it is pretty small beer and goes no way towards dealing with the principal complaint of scheme port employers—that a levy of about 10 to 13 per cent. is added to their costs because they belong to the scheme and carry the enormous burdens that it places upon them.
  The port employers' chairman, Mr. Donald Stringer, was quoted in the Financial Times as saying:
  "It is one thing to know that we are to continue to be beaten but it adds insufferable insult to painful injury if we have to pay the cost of the beater and his overheads."
  That feeling is shared by scheme port employers throughout the country and by those who work for them. The scheme adds to the costs of the ports and makes it more difficult for them to compete with other British and continental ports.
  Many of the problems that the Bill seeks to address have been caused by the national dock labour scheme. I do not call for the abolition of that scheme, but it is clear that it is expensive, inflexible, outdated, and in need of major reform, if not abolition. The Bill does not deal with that problem.
  The purpose of the scheme was to secure stability of employment for dock workers, and the creation and maintenance of a permanent labour force of a size and composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work. In 1955, there were 81,000 registered dock workers. Today, there are 13,000. The scheme has failed to maintain the size of the labour force. It has also failed to provide a work force of a composition appropriate for the efficient performance of dock work.
  Today, I received from the National Dock Labour Board figures for the numbers of people employed and the age groups into which they fall. There are 12,822 dockers on the register. Only 50 are aged under 25, 349 are between 25 and 29 and 994 are between 30 and 34. A grand total of 1,391 are under 35. I calculate that figure to represent less than 11 per cent. of the total, whereas 44 per cent. of the generally employed population are under 35. That shows the extent of the problem for scheme ports. They have the continuing burden of an aging work force and potentially large severance costs.
  Moreover, this restrictive scheme denies entry to younger people. A young person who lives near Felixstowe can join a thriving port, but it is a non-scheme port, so, when he is taken on, the employer does not have to think about the consequences of employing him. It is rather different for scheme ports.
  The national dock labour scheme has failed to achieve its declared objectives, and there are other elements of it about which I am deeply suspicious. I asked whether there is a guaranteed minimum rate of pay for dock workers and how much it is. I was told that there is no set national figure, but that it is agreed by the local joint council at each port. That is significant for both London and Liverpool. To what extent will the joint councils in those ports respond to the cold wind of competition if they are given the enormous additional subsidy outlined in the Bill?
  I also asked about privileges for dock workers' children and was told that preference is sometimes shown to sons on the waiting list, again subject to local agreements. As somebody who believes in equality of opportunity of employment, I raise an eyebrow at the likelihood of preferential treatment being given to those whose fathers are dock workers.
  826
  I also asked about surplus labour in the ports of London, Liverpool and Southampton. The most recent available figures are for the last quarter of 1984. The average was 179 for London, 104 for Liverpool and 465 in the special circumstances of Southampton. The burden of those 465 was borne solely by employers in Southampton, yet there is to be a subsidy to London and Liverpool. If they are subsidised, others will be disadvantaged.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that it is a pity that section 9 of the Harbours Act 1964 is to be repealed and he said that the Government should be involved in the control of harbour development. That was the attitude of the Transport and General Workers Union in Southampton last summer when I met one of its officials to discuss the threat from Falmouth. I told him that the best way in which to beat off that threat was to increase efficiency in Southampton. Yet he told me that there was no way in which he could increase efficiency in Southampton and reduce costs. I am glad to say that that official has been proved wrong by what has happened since. We have been able to be more efficient and to reduce our costs by 25 per cent.
  The hon. Member for Swansea, East said that the Falmouth project may now be in jeopardy, but he must accept that one reason for that is that Southampton is now a thriving competitor. A prospective investor might not think it worthwhile to invest in Falmouth when he can see a well-established, thriving port just up the road in Southampton.
  For those reasons, I welcome the Bill and, although I have reservations about it, I shall, if necessary, support it in the Lobby tonight.
  9.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate on the Bill and hon. Members in all parts of the House have made interesting contributions. Rather than repeat what my right hon. Friend said at the outset, I shall deal with the points that have been raised in the course of the debate.
  The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) said that he was not proposing to divide the House, and I was glad to hear that. He has adopted a sensible approach, showing that on many issues we need not have strident division. In other words, there are areas in which there is agreement and about which there is no reason to create artificial disagreement.
  As the hon. Gentleman went on to develop his speech, there was much with which I could not agree, and he will not be surprised to hear that. He referred to drastic reductions in manpower, particularly in Liverpool and the port of London, and he illustrated the decline of the ports industry. He claimed that it was all because the Government had no strategy.
  I assure the House that the Government have a strategy. It is based on the recognition that, as a trading island, reliant for jobs in manufacturing and service industries on our ability to get goods in and out of the country at the minimum cost, we have an overwhelming national need to ensure that the disadvantages of being an island—in terms of our ability to compete, particularly in continental markets—are minimised. For that reason, we must have ports which are as cost-effective as possible, so enabling

  827
  us to get goods in and out of the country effectively and efficiently, with the quick turnround of ships and the safe movement of cargo.
  There are areas besides the handling of ships which impose costs and burdens on goods coming into and going out of the country. They include the cost of pilotage, a problem which the Government have sought to tackle in a recently published Green Paper, in connection with which we are consulting on major reforms in the archaic system which governs pilotage in this country. There is also the area of lights. A major report has just come into our hands on what we should do about the burden of lights, which are perhaps unfairly distributed as between one vessel and another.
  Thus, for the hon. Member for Wigan to talk about our not having a strategy is wrong. Our strategy is designed to ensure that we do the best possible for the many people whose jobs depend upon our being competitive in international markets. That means cost-effective movements through our ports.
  The hon. Gentleman gave his alternative strategy. He said that he wanted to see planning, and he demonstrated that, I thought helpfully, by describing the Scotch whisky trade. He said that instead of the whisky being loaded from Glasgow, it was sent to Felixstowe for export. That was a very good illustration of the divide in the House on these matters. We would say that that whisky should go by whatever means its owners found to be most competitive in selling it abroad. The hon. Gentleman thinks that it should go by a planned system which would ensure that it went out through the Clyde by ship. As it would probably be destined for somewhere on the continent, it would have to go round this island before reaching its port of destination. That would add so much to the cost of the whisky that orders would be lost. That would mean not only that there would be no jobs for people on the Clyde, but that people in the whisky trade would lose their jobs because their product was not competitive in the markets in which people were trying to sell it. That is the sort of madness that would come from the planned system which the hon. Gentleman seeks to visit on us.
  Dr. Godman rose—
  Mr. Mitchell: I shall cover the points made by the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) if he will give me time.
  The hon. Member for Wigan opposes the Felixstowe expansion scheme. It is not for me to comment on that today. He said that he would be visiting there tomorrow, and that he would also be visiting Ipswich. I hope that he will see the Transport and General Workers Union representatives in both ports, as I have done, and not just the union representatives in one of them, so that he can get the pure flavour of their views.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to attack the possible development of Falmouth, on the grounds that it might justify investment in road construction and in railways. Those are odd grounds on which to attack the idea. I had thought that there were other reasons which he might have used.
  I do not know whether Falmouth is the right place for a port to be developed. That is for potential investors and the management to form a judgement on. However, a major transformation is beginning in the movement of
  828
  international container cargo. Huge vessels are going round the world with the minimum number of stops. They will make one stop in Europe. It may be—I do not know; it is for the investors to judge—that if there were a transhipment port somewhere on the south coast—perhaps Southampton, Falmouth or some other place—it would attract all of that transhipment trade. Therefore, the employment would come to this country rather than go to Le Havre or another European port with us being missed out. I urge the hon. Gentleman not to wear blinkers when considering the possibilities that are opened up by new investment.
  The hon. Gentleman claimed that ports had been privatised at too low a price but in the same breath he said that there was a surplus of capacity. I cannot think of a better way of the hon. Gentleman shooting his argument in the foot.
  The hon. Gentleman also said that a Labour Government would go for interventionist policies. He illustrated that by saying that the ending of Government control had led to the loss of jobs in west coast ports and consequential gains on the south coast and the east coast. It is not the Government's ending of controls, but rather the movement of trade, which has led to that. It is the fact that continental markets have been opened up. Our trade is increasingly into Europe. Therefore, it must follow logically that it takes the short sea route from the east coast direct to the continental ports. The hon. Gentleman is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he believes that one can expect to be competitive by shipping cargo from the west coast of this country into continental ports. That would destroy the prospect of those goods ever being sold. They would become uncompetitive because of the burdens which the right hon. Gentleman would add by the cost of transport. Transport is a very important part of the cost of delivery of goods and of our being competitive in world markets.
  I respect the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) for his intimate knowledge of the port of Liverpool. I believe I am right in saying that he worked in that port for just short of 30 years. He referred to the national dock labour scheme as having been founded by Ernest Bevin, that great man of my old union, the Transport and General Workers Union. Many have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman's approach to trade union matters. He referred to the inequity of the former casual labour system, and I join him in his condemnation of it. When going around the ports I have met no one who would seek to bring it back. There are good Transport and General Workers Union members who work in non-scheme ports and who can demonstrate that one does not need to have a scheme to put an end to casualisation.
  The hon. Gentleman said that, in his view, it was the clear intention of the Secretary of State to end the scheme. The Government have no plans to change or abolish the national dock labour scheme. However, I thought that the hon. Gentleman had a glimpse of reality when he said that we should plan ports so that they are spread around the country where the trade is. It is "where the trade is" that is the glimpse of reality. The problem is that the trade has moved from the west coast ports—from Glasgow, the Clyde, Liverpool and Manchester—to the east coast ports. The fact that one must have ports where the trade is provides the reason for the reduction in the amount of cargo going through the west coast ports.

  829
  The hon. Gentleman believes that if Liverpool won a large new service the port could not take it on because of the shortage of labour. Is it not ironic that at a time when there is so much unemployment in Merseyside, the hon. Gentleman, representing a Liverpool constituency, can get up and say that he believes that the port could not take on extra work if it were available? I do not take as unhappy a view, because my reading of the recent report of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company is that it could, and would, willingly seek to take on considerable extra work. Therefore, I do not take as despondent a view, though the hon. Gentleman does do so. If the company would not dare to take on a contract because of a lack of labour when so many people are unemployed, that shows that it is because people cannot be asked to leave that others are not being recruited. Potentially, that is preventing jobs being created.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to scheme ports withering on the vine because the non-scheme ports are free from the penalties of history. We should all recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) has recognised, and as the experience of the unfortunate major strike in Southampton last year illustrated, that when we are talking about the penalties of history and the penalties of restrictive practices that go with it, those are things that men and management can tackle if they are determined to do so. They can break through and shed the shackles of history so that they can complete successfully for trade. in the way that Southampton is now winning back trade which, for some time, it was thought it would never succeed in resecuring.
  In an intervention in the speech by the hon. Member for Wigan, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) referred to unfair competition from subsidised continental ports. I agree that there is an area that is unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has recently given notice to one of the EEC Commissioners of our concern about state aids for port infrastructure. He is actively considering how we should pursue that matter in the European Community. It is linked with the area of shipping policy on which the Community is taking a new initiative and, more directly, with the treaty requirements concerning state aids. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to it, and we are pursuing this at present.
  The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) described the London area's need for goods, and he wants to maximise the commercial use of the river. He and I may have some glimpse of what it could be, and a great sense of loss of what it is not. Here in the capital city there is a huge requirement for an enormous amount of stuff that is imported into the country, yet it lands at Felixstowe on the east coast and is dragged all the way along our road system to London. The simple reason for that is that London is not competitive. If London would get its act together, it would be the natural place into which all those goods should come.
  I trust that the hon. Gentleman would not wish, and I certainly would not wish, to impose a requirement on people to send their goods in through the estuary and through the Port of London Authority if that were not the most economic way of doing it. His constituents would not thank him if the cost of the commodities that they bought in the shops had a loaded 2p or 3p on each item to pay for the extra cost of moving goods in less than the most economic way.
  830
  I therefore have to say to the hon. Gentleman that. unlike the Opposition Front Bench, who seem to have learnt nothing, we have a vision. It is not a vision of directing cargo to go to one port or another because that is what the planners think is good for people, but a vision in which that port gets its act together to the point at which it is the most attractive place for goods to come. A great deal more cargo ought to be coming into London, because it is the natural place and has all these advantages, but this will never happen until it can become an efficient and attractive place into which people can bring their cargo.
  We have been seeking to strengthen the board of the Port of London Authority. We have appointed new members to it, who bring with them a breadth of business experience. Recently we have appointed a new chairman, Sir Brian Kellett. I am confident that, when he has become embedded in his new job, considerable progress will be seen, in a way that we would both wish, in London receiving its proper share of the cargo that is available.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Stern) exposed some of the petty conflicts in the port of Bristol. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) are worried about the way in which the PLA and Merseyside are given special provisions and favoured by the Bill, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen. They referred in particular to the generosity of the finance that is available on severance of non-registered dock workers. I understand their concern. We have announced today that we intend to phase out for these two ports the extra assistance for non-registered dock workers' severance costs. That is an important indication that we are moving in the way that my hon. Friends seek.
  I was asked when the drip feed from the Treasury would come to an end. I can say only that there is no firm date, but we are moving perceptibly in the right direction.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Itchen made a perceptive speech which I do not have time to cover in the depth that it warrants. Clause 1 is designed to move in the direction in which he seeks to go in beginning to mitigate the disadvantages of the burden of the scheme.
  This is a small, useful Bill which I believe can do a little to help in a number of ways. It provides further funds to Merseyside and the Port of London Authority. It makes available limited resources to help scheme ports. It takes useful steps to reduce the burdens on trust ports, and finally formalises the end of section 9. I believe that it should be welcomed as a small step towards fairer competition in the ports industry. On that basis, I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  PORTS (FINANCE) BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Ports (Finance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for marking grants (not in the aggregate exceeding £40 million) to the National Dock Labour Board in respect of costs incurred by the Board for the purpose of reducing the number of registered dock workers; and

  (b) any increase in the sums payable out of such moneys or into the Consolidated Fund which is attributable to

  831
  increasing the limit in section 1(3) of the Ports (Financial Assistance) Act 1981 from £360 million to £500 million. [Mr. Durant.]

  Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland)
  9.59 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 2nd April. be approved.
  The law in Northern Ireland, in common with that of other developed legal systems, contains limitation periods for the bringing of civil actions, so as to prevent stale claims. Actions in respect of contracts and debts, for example, must generally be brought within six years of the events which give rise to the action; actions in tort within six years, or three years in personal injury cases; and actions involving land within 12 years. The law of limitation in Northern Ireland corresponds to the law in England and Wales; the law of Scotland is distinct.
  But it may happen that under the established rules of private international law — which have been evolved from the common law in relation to both England and Wales and Northern Ireland — a court in Northern Ireland is called upon to apply the law of a foreign country. I shall try to illustrate this with a simple example. A Northern Ireland importer agrees to buy goods from a French manufacturer under a contract governed by French law. A dispute arises in respect of the goods, and proceedings are instituted in Northern Ireland. The Northern Ireland court applies French law.
  In such a case as the one that I have illustrated, the French limitation period may well appear to have relevance in the proceedings which are substantially governed by French law. But, in essence, under the present rule of private international law in Northern Ireland whether or not the Northern Ireland court applies a foreign limitation period depends in turn upon whether the court classifies the foreign limitation as a matter of substance or merely as a matter of procedure. If the court regards the limitation as a matter of substance, it will apply the foreign period; but if it regards the matter as merely one of procedure it will apply the Northern Ireland period.
  The English Law Commission examined the rule in its report No. 114 and found it wanting. The rule was based on a highly technical and perhaps artificial distinction between matters of substance and procedure; it had created a number of anomalies; and it was inconsistent both with the private international law of many other countries and with the European Community Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations.
  The Law Commission's report was implemented, in relation to England and Wales, in the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984. The order does likewise in relation to Northern Ireland, thus ensuring that the private international law of Northern Ireland remains the same as that of England and Wales.
  The essence of the Law Commission's recommendations, contained in article 3 of the order, is that, where under the established rules of private international law the substantive foreign law applies in a particular case, the rule of that same foreign law which relates to limitation should also be applied, rather than the Northern Ireland law of limitation.
  Article 4 contains three exceptions to the rule, the most important of which concerns public policy. Where in a

  833
  particular case the court determines that the application of the limitation period prescribed under the foreign law would be contrary to public policy, it may refrain from applying the foreign period.
  The order is quite legally complex. I know that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) is a lawyer and he will no doubt look upon it with a lawyer's eye. However, I am grateful for the support which the order received from the Northern Ireland Assembly, which considered it with the benefit of submissions from the Law Society of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry. All of them supported this change. Thus, I commend the order to the House.
  10.5 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this debate. The Minister anticipated my enjoyment when he referred to the fact that I am a barrister. As a barrister I have looked very carefully at the order. I have also looked at the order very carefully as a legislator. The legislator must be eternally vigilant. The barrister must be vigilant too, but in the sense of protecting not the nation but his client, whether plaintiff or defendant.
  As a barrister I have welcomed this stroll back in time through the doctrines of renvoi — quaintly called "tortuous reasoning" by a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. There are also in this order the rules of private international law, lex fori and lex causae—rules which are prosaic or exotic, esoteric or essential, depending upon whether one is a plaintiff or a defendant.
  The realms of international law are not as complicated or as bureaucratic as those of the former Chancery—by which we are all being entertained in "Bleak House" on BBC Television. They may not be as expensive as libel actions brought against the BBC and the "That's Life" team, but they can be costly and lengthy all the same. The weaknesses brought to light in Great Britain by the Law Commission, while they may be rectified by the order, may in time reveal other weaknesses which will also have to be purged from the statute book.
  Reverting briefly to the role of the legislator, I congratulate all those in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have scrutinised this order in accordance with section 3(2)(a) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982. They have rendered the House a signal service and in a sense done a great deal of work for us.
  I read with some amusement the verbatim record of the evidence taken by members of the Finance and Personnel Committee on Thursday 11 October 1984 from witnesses well versed in the highways and byways of private international law who were from the Office of Law Reform. I can sympathise with the statement of the deputy chairman of the Committee, who admitted that there were some of his members whose knowledge of legal matters was somewhat elementary but who had no doubt been enlightened on the subject. It is to be hoped that some of our colleagues have been and will be enlightened by this short debate tonight and that more will be enlightened when they avidly read the pages of Hansard, which I am sure that many hon. Members do, certainly as they relate to debates on Northern Ireland. I am sure that that is how they stay in touch.
  I note that the deputy chairman requested submissions from a whole host of authoritative bodies in Northern Ireland, included among which was the Irish Congress of
  834
  Trade Unions. There is no evidence of a reply. I presume that they were preoccupied at the time with the future of the town gas industries—and no doubt we shall be getting round to a debate on that subject at another time in the House.
  The Finance and Personnel Committee was thorough in its work and therefore, as I have said, rendered a signal service to the Northern Ireland Assembly as well as to Members of the House, and they should be congratulated on that. It highlights once again the importance of the Assembly and the useful work that it can do on behalf of the citizens of Northern Ireland even when dealing with an item of legislation as abstruse as the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985.
  The heart of the order, as the Minister has already indicated, is the new rule, already incorporated in legislation covering England and Wales. Mercifully we are not also discussing Scotland tonight. The rule states that where a foreign law falls to be applied in a Northern Ireland court the rule of that same foreign law which relates to the limitation should also be applied, and not the Northern Ireland law of limitation. It occurred to me immediately on reading that that it might cause damage to plaintiffs rather than assist them or cause benefits to accrue to them. For a plaintiff might be damaged in the pursuit of his claim if the limitation period in the foreign law were shorter than the limitation period in Northern Ireland. That may be a complex point and it may read better then the way I have put it. We must bear in mind that there are different and differing limitation periods throughout the EEC.
  I was somewhat assuaged in my anxiety when I read the background paper by the Office of Law Reform on the draft Foreign Limitation Periods Order, which seemed to indicate that this difference had been taken care of by article 4(2) which provides that the application of foreign limitation periods
  "shall conflict with public policy to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship to … a party to the … proceedings."
  The example of undue hardship that was given was one where the foreign limitation period was extremely long compared with the Northern Ireland limitation. In such a case, the court might take the view that it would cause undue hardship to a defendant to have the threat of an action hanging over him for an excessive period—the concept in law of the so-called stale claim.
  Conversely—this is the point that originally exercised my mind—in different circumstances a court might take the view that a foreign limitation period that was escessively short caused undue hardship to a plaintiff.
  All this is not, of course, in the order. It is an interpretation which a judge must make. He must decide the appropriate definition of hardship. I cannot ask the Minister to alter that tonight. I cannot ask that the English and Welsh law should be changed tonight. I cannot ask for the Law Commission to make a further reference back to the Chancellor, because that can be done only if the Chancellor wishes. This is the concept of functus officio. Unless the Lord Chancellor refers the matter back to the Law Commission for further and better particulars and advice, the Law Commission has no status. It will be left, therefore, to the enterprise of the Bar, to the skill of the barrister on behalf of his client, plaintiff or defendant, to

  835
  drive that point home in the Irish court of law or in arbitration proceedings. It will be for the judges or the arbitrators to understand and take that on board.
  With these fine legal points I have completed the circuit of private international law, statutes of limitations, lex fori, lex causae, renvoi and the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order. I therefore follow the Government in commending the order to the House.
  10.12 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I first congratulate the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) on the substantial and tasty meal that he has made out of this order. It need be no secret from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that throughout this afternoon and evening my hon. Friends and I have been anxiously approached by other hon. Members desirous of knowing the likely duration of the proceedings on this order and the order that is to follow and whether any events would require their presence. We have assured them—or, if they had spared the time to listen, we would have assured them — that it is not our fault that they are being troubled in this Way, that we are on their side and that it is very much our contention that these are procedures with which the House should not be troubled; and that in the interest equally of Northern Ireland and the rest of the kingdom.
  The Minister of State observed that the law of Northern Ireland in this respect corresponds with that of England and Wales. None of us would dream of saying that an alteration such as that which was made by the statute of last year in the law in England and Wales should not correspondingly apply in Northern Ireland. To that extent, we welcome the order. We have no intention of resisting its passage. We must take the opportunity to draw attention to the absurdity of the operation in which the House is engaged.
  I have in my left hand the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984, applying to England and Wales, which was passed last year by the House, and in my right hand I have the Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. I have examined them quite zealously and, except for the necessary references in the Act to England and Wales and in the order to Northern Ireland, they are to all intents and purposes identical—as, indeed, they ought to be. Therefore, the question naturally arises: why, when we enacted in 1984, did we not enact at the same time for that part of the United Kingdom in which the law on the subject is and ought to remain the same?
  When we made observations upon that point, my hon. Friends and I used to be reminded of an imaginary thing called the statute book of Northern Ireland which had to be maintained in its pristine integrity. In order that it may retain that integrity, whatever is done in England and Wales that ought to be done in Northern Ireland has to be done separately for Northern Ireland by an Order in Council. However, in this case, as in many of the other examples that we have examined, that will not wash, for in article 4(4) we find a reference to something which will not be found upon any real or imaginary statute book of Northern Ireland, namely, the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945.
  836
  I consulted the statutes at large and ascertained that that Act applies to the whole of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the House is being troubled with an order so that the separateness of the code of law that applies to Northern Ireland may be maintained, yet this order is having to appeal to the text of an Act of the United Kingdom to which the same procedure was not applied—an Act of the United Kingdom, incidentally, that was passed when there was still a separate Parliament in Northern Ireland.
  It would be wrong for my hon. Friends and I not to complain once again of the arrant and useless waste of effort and time that is involved in this sort of complication. It is a waste of skilled manpower. Drafting work is duplicated. It is also a waste of resources, of the time of the House and of the effort of all the officials who are concerned. It might be thought that this wasteful procedure is being maintained simply for the purpose of irritating hon. Members, including my hon. Friends and myself. It used to be argued, although the argument is wearing threadbare, that in order that Northern Ireland might drift off or be pushed off into another political connection there ought to be loaded on to it, as this House legislates, separate legislation for Northern Ireland. Then it could sail away with its code of law complete, not to mention the Limitation (Enemies and War Prisoners) Act 1945. For such causes is this House invited to do such absurd things.
  Although the application of the Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 to Northern Ireland is necessary and right, it is a wasteful and stupid absurdity against which my hon. Friends and I are bound to protest. It is absurd that tonight the House is being troubled unnecessarily with what could have been accomplished equally well, sooner and more efficiently within the ambit of the 1984 Act.
  10.18 pm
  Dr. Boyson: I have listened carefully to the points made by the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell). On his point as to whether the foreign limitation period is excessively long or excessively short, if the court decides that in the public interest it is excessively long or short, action can be taken under the law of Northern Ireland. I welcome the general comments of the hon. Member.
  The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) expressed the view that he holds about this procedure. I am not being drawn into that argument this evening. I know the integrity with which he holds that view. He has expressed it on a number of occasions.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: I assure the Minister that all my hon. Friends—present and absent—share the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell).
  Dr. Boyson: I welcome that intervention. I do not doubt that that is so. I referred to the right hon. Gentleman because only he had spoken. It would be difficult to refer to 635 people if all hon. Members agreed about something. I hope that on this occasion when there are only nine or 10 of us here we can agree to the order.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Foreign Limitation Periods (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 2nd April, be approved.

  Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland)
  10.20 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
  That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.
  One needs to be a quick change artist, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with the orders being brought forward as quickly as this.
  The order deals with escapes of water from mains and pipes belonging to the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, which is the sole water authority there. It would, except in certain circumstances, make the Department of the Environment strictly liable for loss or damage resulting from escapes of water onto agricultural or forestry land from a water main or service pipe belonging to the Department.
  Until recent years, water authorities throughout the United Kingdom were liable to compensate only for loss or damage resulting from an escape of water caused by a water authority's negligence. Property owners, however, could insure against loss or damage caused by escapes of water from water mains, but it has always been extremely difficult, throughout the United Kingdom, to insure agricultural or forestry land against that.
  Following many years of pressure from farming and land interests in England and Wales, section 6 was added in Committee in the House of Lords to what is now the Water Act 1981. It creates a liability, which is not confined to agricultural or forestry land, on English or Welsh water authorities for loss or damage caused by all escapes of water from water authority mains. That provision was included after a promise made on Report in this House.
  As often happens when proposed legislation is amended at a late stage, the effect of the coverage given was not fully realised. Because of the breadth of cover provided, water authorities have found themselves having to pay large sums of money to persons who would, in the normal course of events, have no difficulty in obtaining insurance against the risks covered by the legislation.
  In 1982–83, over £14 million was paid by water authorities in England and Wales. Of that, only £100,000 was for damage to agricultural and forestry land. In 1983–84, the figures were nearly £2 million and just over £80,000 respectively. The money went to people whose agricultural or forestry land had been damaged by water from burst water mains. The effect has therefore been that in each of those years less than 5 per cent. of the money paid has been going to the bodies whose difficulties originally raised the need for legislation.
  In addition, it has been discovered that of the compensation paid probably as much as 80 per cent. is paid to insurance companies through injured parties, or direct. The beneficiaries of section 6 of the Water Act 1981 have therefore been insurance companies and the losers have been the payers of water rates.
  Inquiries of those companies have revealed that the provision of legislative cover has had no effect on the premiums payable for damage caused by water. The vast
  838
  majority of claims against insurance companies for water damage are as a result of burst pipes or overflowing systems within property or floods from rivers overflowing.
  I repeat that it should be kept in mind that the cost of meeting these claims, as with all other costs, is in fact borne by the consumers either through the rate bill or by direct charges.
  The Water Act 1981 did not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland, but it was indicated in Parliament at that time that the law in those two countries would be changed in due course, although there has not been a lobby for it in Northern Ireland.
  Scottish legislation was enacted in section 57 of the Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982. It was wisely more tightly drawn, and it confined its cover to those suffering loss or damage resulting from an escape of water on to agricultural or foresty land; that is, to those who could not normally obtain insurance cover.
  In bringing foward the amendment to the Northern Ireland water legislation, we propose to follow the Scottish rather than the English path and to deal specifically with the problem which first gave rise to this legislation, that is, the uninsurability of agricultual and forestry land against water damage risk.
  The draft order was considered by the Environment Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly and was debated in the Assembly. The report of the Assembly recommending no change to the proposal was laid before this House on 19 December 1984, and all of us will have seen that report.
  Prior to the laying of the order before this House, a number of Northern Ireland hon. Members made representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten) to follow the English rather than the Scottish legislation. Among the 30 non-governmental bodies consulted on the legislation, only one made that representation. I can well understand why hon. Members made that representation. They were desirous that the law in Northern Ireland should be the same as that in England. It will be the same as that in Scotland—a country which has had close links with Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the Minister with responsibility for the environment in Northern Ireland, has communicated with my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, who has agreed to consider whether there should be a change in the English and Welsh law on the lines of the Scottish law.
  I stress that the unexpected results of the England and Wales legislation have put money into the pockets of the insurance companies at the expense of the payers of water rates. They take up with the authorities damage done to their client's property by burst water mains and collect the costs from the water authority despite having themselves received premiums to cover such liabilities.
  As one who believes in personal responsibility and containment of Government expenditure, I support the move to the present Scottish system and not the England and Wales system, especially bearing in mind that the England and Wales system is being reconsidered.
  I must also stress that the order does nothing to remove the existing rights of individuals to pursue claims against the Department if it is negligent. On the contrary, it provides cover for a section of the community which has difficulty in insuring against damage which may be caused by escapes of water from the Department's water pipes. If this order is not passed tonight, the holders of

  839
  agricultural and forestry land in Northern Ireland will be at a disadvantage compared with their counterparts in England, Wales and Scotland.
  As hon. Members are anxious to raise points on the order, I shall not go through the articles one by one, unless hon. Members so desire. It is the general theme of the order that concerns us, and I commend it to the House.
  10.28 pm
  Mr. William Ross: As the Minister has indicated, the order has its roots in section 6 of the Water Act 1981, which relates to England and Wales. When we ask that the same law be applied to Northern Ireland as to England and Wales, we are at least consistent. We are asking only for the principle that has already been followed to everyone's advantage.
  I appreciate that this matter has caused some difficulty for water authorities in England and Wales, but that is not a good argument for suggesting that the people of Scotland or Northern Ireland should be deprived of a benefit that, perhaps, is more widespread than the Government may like but that would be of real benefit to some people in the community.
  When the corresponding legislation for Scotland was being discussed, I noted from Hansard that, while the Labour party was anxious to support such legislation for England and Wales, it took the opposite view for Scotland, and did so on not particularly good grounds. The grounds were that there is a different set-up for water authorities in Scotland, where councils were the responsible body, and they could not afford the extra burden. I rather fear that the Labour party was taking that line on the advice of the councils in Scotland rather than on published figures, because it is difficult to get hard and fast figures on the cost of the application of section 6.
  When the order was first published in September, I noticed that Northern Ireland was not being treated as England and Wales were. I asked what the effect of this difference in the law was, as I am of an inquiring mind. I wrote to the Minister and asked for his observations, and with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) I went to see the Minister. Despite the representations that we made forcefully and clearly, the order was published, and we are now discussing it.
  A number of points have to be made about this order. As a general principle, we should try to have all public utilities on the same footing one with another throughout the United Kingdom, because they are all providing a public service to the community.
  The water authorities have an absolute statutory duty laid on them to provide water to private individuals, and therefore Parliament has, over the years, given them the right to lay pipes where ever it is necessary to provide the water supply. If an individual builds his house alongside a major water main, he is accepting the risk inherent in that, because water under pressure is a pretty potent instrument if it gets out. However, if the high pressure watermain is laid alongside an already existing house, that risk was not there, the individual does not want it, and it is being imposed on him. On that ground alone, I would have thought that the water authorities have a powerful moral reason to provide compensation to an individual whose property is damaged by a burst watermain. However, the individual does not have that right now,
  840
  unless negligence can be proven, and will not have it in Northern Ireland even if the order goes through. On the other hand, he can get compensation automatically in England and Wales.
  Until section 6 of the Water Act came into force, the water authorities could not insure, and therefore they did not have the legal liability to compensate those whose property was damaged. Since the passing of the Water Act, surely the water authorities can insure that they have a legal liability to compensate. Cannot the water authorities in Northern Ireland insure themselves against damages? Has that possibility been explored?
  In the debate in the other place on these issues, it was said that everybody paid water rates, and therefore all would be contributing to any compensation that was paid. It may well be that the system in Scotland is different from that in England and Wales, but the system in Northern Ireland differs from both. In Northern Ireland we all have to pay for the water that we consume. We are all metered. We all make payments to what is in effect a Government body. I can see no good reason why the burden for the damage suffered should not be spread among the water consumers rather than that the Department of the Environment should have to find extra money. Perhaps that is a suggestion that should have been considered.
  I remember that the hon. Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw), then the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, said in this House that the Government believed that the Water Bill had been greatly improved by the inclusion of clause 6. Something must have happened since then. Perhaps it was the harsh light of experience that made the Government change their mind. The Government should be trying to claw back. They should not be depriving the people of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and indeed the insurance companies there, of the benefits that they should enjoy. Surely they have as much right to the money for compensation as the people 'of England and Wales.
  One of the excuses made in the other place with regard to Scotland was that there was simply not enough time to consult all the interested parties. There has certainly been time to consult interested parties in this case, and efforts have been made to do so.
  I believe that the Government have not proceeded correctly. I would have preferred them to follow the English and Welsh legislation. A mistake made in one place could perhaps then have been remedied across the board when a suitable opportunity occurred.
  The report by the Northern Ireland Assembly was an astonishing document, produced after an astonishing investigation by the environment committee and the Assembly.
  The Assembly was satisfied, and it welcomed the Scottish standards. The agriculture committee of the Assembly was satisfied too. I am sorry that neither of the chairmen of those committees is present this evening. They might have been able to tell us, and the people of Northern Ireland, why they took such peculiar decisions.
  The Ulster Farmers' Union was satisfied. The Northern Ireland Agricultural Producers' Association was asked, apparently, and did not reply. The Department of the Environment was satisfied. The general public in Northern Ireland was not consulted by the Assembly. They had no opportunity to put their view. Apparently, one body

  841
  consulted asked for the English and Welsh procedure to be followed. Could the Minister tell us what it was? Whatever it was, that body showed a wee bit of wit.
  The Assembly stated that it was grateful to all the bodies that had assisted in the preparation of the report. Let us think about those bodies. Why should the Ulster Farmers Union not have been satisfied? It asked only about the agricultural aspect, and the agricultural aspect was met. The union was not worried about the domestic householder. It is not clear whether the Agricultural Producers Association was satisfied, as it did not reply. The Department of the Environment was satisfied. It told the Assembly what the Assembly wanted to hear.
  The one person who could suffer from the bursting of a massive pipe was the domestic individual, and his interests were not protected.
  Many years ago, when I represented the city of Londonderry, the water main to the city burst in the middle of a housing estate occupied by people who, at best were poorly paid and, for the most part, were unemployed. We should try to protect such people who, perhaps because of age, sickness or poverty, are unable to insure themselves and therefore suffer considerable personal loss. The houses were built across the hill in fairly long blocks, and some had 3 and 4 ft of water in them. A large water main with, in this case, 500 ft of head behind it, can shove out an awful lot of water in a short time. Such people get hurt, as they get no compensation from anybody and they are those who can least afford it. It is no excuse to say that insurance is available, as it is not always in force, for the reasons that I have given.
  The Assembly also noted that Parliament was assured that the law would be reformed in Scotland and Ireland. I have not managed to lay my eyes on the relevant Hansard of this House, the other place or the Scottish Grand Committee, although I assume that it will be of this House. I should like to know whether Parliament was told then that the law for Scotland and Ireland would not be the same as that then being passed for England and Wales. If the House had been told, I feel that many more questions would, or should, have been asked.
  The Assembly was worried about the effect on public expenditure. That might come as a surprise to some people. There is a means of spreading the compensation burden evenly, because all consumers are metered. Why did the Environment Committee and the Agriculture Committee in the Assembly and the Assembly in general allow the order to pass without challenge?
  The Assembly said that it recognised the extent of the Scottish and of the English and Welsh legislation. I believe that that is not an accurate reflection of what happened. I cannot believe that anybody explained the practical effects to the members of those Committees, or to the Assembly. Officials in the Department of the Environment did not tell them, and the Minister did not tell them. Unfortunately, nobody in those Committees thought to ask the right question. The agriculture bodies were happy, as they got what they wanted, but nobody spelt out to members of the Assembly what the result would be.
  I have no doubt that the Minister with responsibility for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland was told of the effect. I believe that his civil servants advised him, even if he had not the wit to spot it himself. Members of the Assembly and its Committees were not
  842
  told, as the Minister would have been told, because the Assembly is served by civil servants who are not responsible to it or paid by it.
  In other words, the brief was prepared by civil servants who were responsible to the Minister and to the interests of the Department, rather than to the interests of the Assembly. The order seemed fairly harmless, at worst, and, at best, helpful to the agricultural community. That is why I am glad that we are in this House. We can act as a longstop and ask the questions that were not asked in the Assembly.
  The Department of the Environment presented to the Assembly a long letter which contained a statement that I should like to have clarified. The Department pointed out
  "that the regional water authorities in England and Wales who are responsible for sewerage also undertake prosecutions."
  Can those bodies undertake prosecutions against the Crown?
  The question of the treatment of sewage occupied the Assembly when considering the order. I shall be writing a lengthy letter to the Minister tomorrow about the Kilrea sewerage works. We corresponded on the subject a year ago, but a serious problem remains. The sewage has been troubling people for years and it seems that the Department of the Environment is falling flat on its face.
  That is the sort of matter with which the Assembly concerned itself. It did not worry about the domestic property that would be damaged and the problems that would be caused to the people living in that property.
  The Department said in its letter to the Assembly that the whole matter would be reported to the water council. What can that council do about reports that are presented to it? I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) has joined us, because he was prominent whenever section 6 of the Water Act was being debated. I trust that he will support us tonight. What can the water council do about bad sewerage works in Northern Ireland?
  We are discussing an important matter because it raises the question whether all citizens of the United Kingdom shall be treated alike, shall stand equally before the law and have the same benefits, or whether some shall be treated differently.
  The Labour party failed in its representations on behalf of Scotland, having argued one case for the people of England and Wales and another for the people of Scotland. The Government failed to protect the people of Scotland and are failing to protect the interests of the domestic sufferers in Northern Ireland. I hope that it will not be long before these matters are corrected.
  10.48 pm
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is wonderful how a lesson gets inculcated, first one way and then another. The second order which the House is considering returns to the theme of the first yet approaches it from a different and novel angle.
  It is a pretty pickle that has been committed by the Government which the House is invited to contemplate tonight. Before 1981, the code of law in all parts of the United Kingdom in these matters was the same. In that year, the Department of the Environment in England and Wales, for reasons unconnected with the matter which is under discussion, decided to go ahead on its own, and had its own Water Bill for England and Wales.
  Into that Bill was inserted under persuasion in both Houses a clause which was ill-considered, of which the

  843
  consequences were not foreseen and which the Government had reason to regret. Before long it was discovered that as a result of that provision £14.5 million a year was being paid out to unintended recipients, mostly in the form of insurance companies, to alleviate the burdens and obligations that they had undertaken in the policies that they had written.
  So the Government wondered what to do. One might think that the simple thing to do would be to amend the Water Act 1981 and to remove the disastrous and offending section. But then there is a saying, much current in Treasury circles, that one cannot take butter out of a dog's mouth. The proposition of introducing a Bill into the House of Commons to amend the Water Act 1981 by deleting section 6 did not commend itself, surprisingly enough, to the managers of Government business, to the Whips or to those who might have been expected to ensure that that legislation got through.
  So since 1981 the Water Act for England and Wales has been left severely alone to go on its riotous course, subsidising the insurance companies, but it occurred to the Government that they had still to deal with the other parts of the United Kingdom. They took Scotland first. They had a favourable course there, because whereas in England and Wales the sufferers, mainly the water authorities, are impersonal and not very popular bodies, in Scotland the water authorities were none other than the elected county councils which, as we all know, are so popular that everybody is anxious to take part in the relevant parts of the United Kingdom in the forthcoming elections to return even more worthy representatives to those bodies. The Government got away with it in Scotland and they succeeded in passing a Scottish water measure without the blemish which had unhappily been allowed to disfigure the England and Wales Act.
  Then, of course, there was left Northern Ireland. "Easy," said the Government. "We do not have to legislate for Northern Ireland. We do not have the embarrassment of having to bring in a Bill and pass it through all its stages. Goodness knows what trouble there might be when people discovered what we were up to. We can do it by an Order in Council. That is how we legislate on transferred subjects for Northern Ireland. So we will just produce an order on the lines of the Scottish measure, without the blemish of section 6 of the Water Act 1981. If they do not like it, they will have to lump it because that is what Orders in Council are about."
  It turned out, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) said, that by some strange inadvertence the curious Northern Ireland Assembly apparently liked it but the rest of us do not like the fact that what has not been remedied in England and Wales because it would involve legislation is omitted in respect of Northern Ireland because we do not have to be legislated for, but can just be governed by Order in Council.
  We come back to the same old grievance. We have returned to King Charles' head—the evil of legislating differently for different parts of the United Kingdom and in particular of legislating for Northern Ireland by means of an Order in Council.
  What ought to be done — surely the Treasury's interest must be engaged—is that the Water Act 1981 for England and Wales should be amended. It is a minor scandal that when the Minister in Northern Ireland in the
  844
  Department of the Environment communicated with his opposite number in England and Wales he received a vague and distant suggestion that the Department might get round to considering what to do in England and Wales. I have to say to the Treasury—if my voice will reach it —"Wake up; there is £14.5 million a year there to be saved for the trouble of introducing amending legislation. Surely you can lean on the Department of the Environment to the extent of getting it to put its house in order in England and Wales and save that substantial sum from going every year down the drain as a result of that blunder."
  Until that is done, until that happens, and certainly until there is a definite assurance that that is going to happen in England and Wales, we in Northern Ireland will not sit down under the indignity, because we are legislated for by order in Council, of having imposed upon us what the Government are afraid to impose upon England and Wales. Against that we are duty bound to protest. So strongly do we feel that duty upon us that many of my hon. Friends and I have temporarily quit the electoral field in Northern Ireland in order, alone of all the parties of Northern Ireland represented in the House, to make sure that our grievance is heard and is marked.
  Let me once again, therefore, reaffirm what the grievance is. That grievance is that, by reason of the fact that in Northern Ireland we are under temporary arrangements, annually renewed, legislated for by Order in Council, that which ought to ge done in England and Wales and which would save £14.5 million in England and Wales if it were done there, is imposed upon us by sleight of hand. We do not like it. We protest against it, and despite the fact that the order is beneficial to the agricultural and forestry interests in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom, we shall protest against it in the proper manner in due course.
  10.56 pm
  Mr. Stuart Bell: It is fortunate for me that I do not have to answer the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), although I congratulate him, as I often do, on putting his finger on the essential matter that preoccupies Northern Ireland Members. I had some sympathy for the Minister—
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We all have.
  Mr. Bell: Several of us here have great sympathy for the hon. Gentleman.
  I had greater sympathy for the Minister when he was trying to explain to the House the problem that he had, as he moved to the Scottish system, of trying not to put money into the hands of free-thinking, free market insurance companies and take it out of the pockets of the hard-pressed water ratepayers in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister believes sincerely and deeply in free enterprise, and that he also believes in restrictions on public expenditure. Therefore the dilemma that he faces is understandable.
  I took on board the comments of the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) when he said that in this matter what he described as a wee bit of wit should have been used. We might all benefit from that wit when we discuss the great ironies and illogicalities of orders which, as the right hon. Member for South Down said, are

  845
  different in Scotland from those in England and Wales, and are now in parallel with Northern Ireland and Scotland. It would be of some puzzlement to the British public if they were aware of the great variety on this matter.
  The essence of the order is aptly contained in the explanatory note dated August 1984 provided by the Department of the Environment. Essentially, it is that the order amends the Water and Sewerage Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 by inserting a new article 57A, which makes the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland liable for damage caused by escapes of water on to agricultural or forestry land. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East referred to the domestic user of water and said that that was not covered by the order. The liability under the order is absolute and covers escapes of water from pipes for which the Department is responsible. That covers water mains and service pipes coming within the Department's responsibility.
  It is true, of course, that when the proposals came before the Environment Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, although the proposals were generally welcomed, concern was expressed at the damage caused to agricultural and forestry land by escapes of harmful substances such as sewage and chemicals coming from equipment, plant or premises for which the Department has a vested responsibility. However, even absolute liability, to which I referred earlier, cannot be that absolute. The order will not extend to certain undertakings empowered by statute to provide public services; for example, railways and road transport undertakings. In addition, the Department will not be obliged to compensate a person who suffers loss or damage through an act for which he is wholly responsible. In essence, therefore, the basis of the order is that damage caused to uninsurable agricultural or forestry land shall be covered, but that there is a limit to the burden on public expenditure.
  If I may revert again to my barrister training, I note that in the past liability rested with the Department only when an escape had been caused by the Department's negligence. The question of negligence might be relevant to the home owner who finds himself the subject of a burst water main and is not covered by insurance. He might nevertheless be covered by negligence. This principle was established by an English legal precedent, Green v. Chelsea Waterworks, and that was decided in the Court of Appeal as long ago as 1894.
  Some reference has been made to the position taken by the Ulster Farmers Union. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made the apt point that such proposals and such an order would be acceptable to the farmers union. The reasons for that are obvious. It has also sought additional amendments to cover leakages of harmful substances even in very small amounts which can lead to serious damage and losses to users of waterways, including farmers and livestock farmers. It appears to me that the farmers union, while it draws attention to valid points, goes further than this order should go.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East makes the point that possibly the wrong questions were asked in the Northern Ireland Assembly and by the Environment Committee. It is right, as he said, that we are the backstop, the ultimate legislators who must try to put the right questions in the right circumstances. The Environment Committee recognised that there was a distinction between water and sewerage operations, whereby the Department
  846
  had sole control over the former, whereas third parties can discharge effluent, pollutants and the like. It recognised also the increased financial implications should the area of liability be broadened. It also accepted the high level of public scrutiny to which the Department is subject in Parliament and in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  I should like to take on board all the points made by the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell), who never ceases to draw the attention of the House to the various anomalies which we face when we are dealing with such orders. He puts them in a constitutional context as well as a practical and pragmatic context. The Opposition take note of the various points that have been made and the differences between Scottish and Northern Ireland legislation and that of Wales and England. Nevertheless, we feel constrained to support the Government and to commend the order to the House.
  11.3 pm
  Dr. Boyson: The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), as always, expressed a measured, careful and in many cases sound view, although I cannot agree with everything that he said.
  The hon. Member referred at the beginning of his speech to Scottish Members. There is no sign that any Scottish Members feel aggrieved by the fact that legislation was brought forward for Scotland of the type proposed for Northern Ireland. Scottish Members could easily have intervened in the debate this evening, but none seem to be bursting through the doors to say that rising movements throughout Scotland are protesting that they are not having the same privileges of paying their insurance premiums, twice, as it were, with the company then getting back the money from the water authorities — in that case, as the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) said, from the local councils.
  I do not think that it is a question of the amount of money. The right hon. Member for South Down referred to the £14.5 million that I mentioned earlier. That is a lot of money. Of course, everything could be said to be on the margin. Mention has already been made of "Bleak House". As Mr. Micawber said in another Dickens novel, happiness or misery depends upon whether one is sixpence below £20 or sixpence above £20. I enjoy agreeing with the hon. Member for Londonderry, East when I can, but I must mildly rebuke him over his remarks concerning the £14.5 million. That was a considerable issue. The right hon. Member for South Down said that he hoped that the Treasury was listening because if the legislation which now applies in Scotland, and is to apply in Northern Ireland, were introduced in England and Wales there would be a considerable saving to the public purse.
  The Assembly has been referred to time and again. Today, I ate with one of the chairmen of committees in Northern Ireland, although he was not the chairman of the Environment Committee or the Agricultural Committee I met the chairman of the Department of Finance and Personnel Committee today. But the Assembly's recommendation is clear. The Environment Committee recommends that no change be made to the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985. That was its view.
  In my opening remarks I said that, of the 30 nongovernmental bodies consulted on the legislation, only one had made such a representation. As I knew that some hon. Member would ask me about that, I made a note in the

  847
  margin about that body. As the hon. Member for Londonderry, East implied, it was the Law Society. I did not include that at the beginning, because it did not particularly strengthen my case, but I had it in reserve if required. But whether or not it was the Law Society, we are here as legislators, and Assembly Members were making their comments as people elected to represent the Northern Ireland electorate.
  It should be pointed out that the Association of Local Authorities, Shelter and the Northern Ireland Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux were also consulted, yet none of them was against the proposal. They either did not reply—although they were not busy electioneering at the time—or they nodded in agreement from their offices.
  The hon. Member for Londonderry, East queried whether the Crown could be sued. I am not a lawyer, and I should perhaps take legal advice on that. I was hoping that the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell) would save me from having to answer that point. But I doubt whether the Crown can be sued in that regard. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, who spoke for the Opposition, said, the right hon. Member for South Down often puts matters on a more general constitutional plane. Since being privileged to be a Minister for Northern Ireland, I have listened to the logical and careful arguments that the right hon. Member has regularly put forward. He said that the grievance had been heard and marked. I am not quite sure what marked means in this case, but as a former schoolmaster I know that one can either tick it or put a cross against it. I shall leave my response to his comments there.
  The right hon. Member for South Down used a phrase that I had never heard before, about taking butter from a dog's mouth. One problem is that once one legislates so that certain people have additional privileges, it is difficult to take them back.
  Mr. Harold McCusker: Fifty million of them.
  Dr. Boyson: Probably fewer than that in England and Wales. I always say that one cannot take a bone from a dog without being bitten. I do not usually find dogs eating butter. They are usually eating bones.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Patten), who is responsible for the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, wrote to the Minister for Housing and Construction about what could be done to rectify an error that was made at that time in section 6 of the 1981 Act, and the last line of his reply was:
  "I am happy to assure you that we will think again about the way in which section 6 has operated."
  We thought again when we laid this order and decided that it was not our job to put money into the pockets of the insurance companies, which drew money from people and then got it back again, so that they were paid twice over, without any sign of premiums being lowered. It is not our job to stop people from being prudent and insuring when possible, because we believe that they should be prudent. It is not our job to increase Government expenditure—the hon. Member for Middlesbrough agreed that that has been my consistent view — but, where people cannot insure — the pressure for the original section 6 came
  848
  from the fact that it was almost impossible to insure forestry and agricultural land—the Government should step in.
  On those counts we commend the order to the House. I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support it in the Lobby when right hon. and hon. Members opposite show their displeasure with the order.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 6.

  Division No. 193]

  [11·10 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Lang, Ian

  Ancram, Michael

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Lester, Jim

  Baldry, Tony

  Lightbown, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Lilley, Peter

  Bottomley, Peter

  Lord, Michael

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Maclean, David John

  Bright, Graham

  Marlow, Antony

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Crthpes)

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Butcher, John

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Mills, lain (Meriden)

  Chope, Christopher

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Neale, Gerrard

  Conway, Derek

  Neubert, Michael

  Coombs, Simon

  Newton, Tony

  Couchman, James

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Durant, Tony

  Parris, Matthew

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Pawsey, James

  Evennett, David

  Portillo, Michael

  Fallon, Michael

  Powley, John

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Forth, Eric

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Fox, Marcus

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Freeman, Roger

  Silvester, Fred

  Gale, Roger

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Galley, Roy

  Steen, Anthony

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Stern, Michael

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Gow, Ian

  Sumberg, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Waller, Gary

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Watson, John

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Watts, John

  Harris, David

  Whitfield, John

  Hayes, J.

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Heddle, John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Hickmet, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Hind, Kenneth

  Wood, Timothy>

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

  Yeo, Tim

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Mr. John Major and

  Knowles, Michael

  Mr. Peter Lloyd.

  NOES

  Beggs, Roy

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

  Clay, Robert

  McCusker, Harold

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Marek, Dr John

  Mr. A. Cecil Walker and

  Nicholson, J.

  Mr. William Ross.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Water and Sewerage Services (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1985, which was laid before this House on 27th March, be approved.

  FAMILY LAW (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Ordered,
  That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee —[Mr. Boscawen.]

  St. John's Colliery, Maesteg
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]
  11.22 pm
  Mr. Ray Powell: I requested this Adjournment debate after receiving a letter from the director of the South Wales area of the National Coal Board, Mr. Philip Weekes, who informed me that he had recommended the closure of St. John's Colliery, Maesteg. He attempts to justify his recommendation in his letter and in his press statement, both of which are dated 16 April. I shall deal with this matter in my closing remarks in order to ensure that the Minister does not overlook the special request that I shall be making to him.
  The motion ends with the words
  "the consequences of the closure of St. John's Colliery, Maesteg."
  I appreciate the fact that the Minister may not be aware of some of the issues that I intend to raise, since they relate specifically to Maesteg and Wales and should therefore be dealt with by a Welsh Office Minister. However, I realise that the Minister was the winner of the Observer Mace for the British Universities debating competition in 1966. Therefore, I appreciate that he will be able to deliver a masterful reply. Nevertheless, I plead with him to recognise that unless a positive response is forthcoming it could result in the economic and social collapse of the whole community.
  In his letter of 16 April, Mr. Philip Weekes stated that he was recommending the closure of St. John's colliery. He said that 350 men out of a total work force of some 830 had said that they were prepared to take the option of voluntary redundancy. The recommendation has not been agreed by the National Coal Board or the National Union of Mineworkers. We do not know whether the coal board could be persuaded by the NUM and others to keep the colliery open.
  I am pleased to have drawn a place in the Adjournment debate to place on record the complete and overwhelming opposition to the closure of St. John's colliery felt in the Maesteg area. Some 830 jobs in the colliery and a further 200 to 300 related jobs would be lost.
  The colliery is the last in the Llynfi valley. It is the town's last hope of remaining economically viable. Last Saturday morning in the council chamber I met representatives from the chamber of trade and religious organisations, the leader of the Ogwr borough council and other borough and county councillors, and representatives from the community council and other organisations. I intend to express tonight their views with the hope that somehow, somewhere, someone will listen to their pleas for help and that their 12-month struggle to retain their only pit will not have been wasted. I hope that the debts incurred will not be paid off with the 30 pieces of silver which are available to buy off the jobs of their sons and grandsons.
  I stated many times during the protracted, demoralising 12-month dispute that Arthur Scargill's fight was not my constituents' fight. Their fight was not for more pay or better conditions; it was to retain their jobs, pits and communities. This proposed closure is a classic illustration of what the fight was about.
  The Government did not listen then, and I doubt whether Mr. MacGregor or his Welsh boyo, Philip

  851
  Weekes, will listen now. As they butcher the social and economic fabric of the Welsh communities, the harvest will be a complete reversal in the polls at the next election and the return of a powerful Labour Administration committed to a just society free from the scourge of the unemployment that we are now enduring.
  It is fitting to consider the lovely and picturesque town of Maesteg some six years ago. It is the proud home and birthplace of saints, bards, singers, druids, miners and rugby players. It is a land full of folklore, custom, traditions and legends. It does us all good sometimes to look with humility and gratitude at the stock from which we were hewn and the quarry from which we were dug and to remember the people and influences that shaped our lives.
  In Maesteg, legend has it that there was a maid of Cefn Ydfa. Hers was a romantic story that would take more than an Adjournment debate to tell. I want to go back not to the days of the maid of Cefn Ydfa but a mere six years when it was almost impossible to rent a shop in Commercial street or in the main shopping centre. It was impossible to hire a stall in the market, because the town was thriving. Unemployment was at 3·5 per cent. Of that figure, 2 per cent. of the people were unemployable because of silicosis and pneumoconiosis. The remainder were those employed in building or other such jobs registered as in transit from one job to another.
  In the Maesteg area, 24 per cent. of the males are unemployed. If 830 jobs are lost at St. John's colliery, the prospect for jobs in the future is bleak and male unemployment may reach 45 to 50 per cent.
  The boarded windows of shops in Commercial street symbolise the decay that has attacked that once flourishing town in six years. This community has suffered on all fronts—the catastrophic decline in the mining industry, the recently-lost development area status, and the 'worst catastrophe of all, the election of a Tory Government in May 1979. During the past six years unemployment has escalated and the town is now gripped in a depression that cries out for Government action, cries out for hope and cries out for reasoned and rational assistance.
  The catalogue of decline since May 1979 has meant an increase in unemployment from July 1978 to July 1981 of 158 per cent. for the male population and 180 per cent. for the female population. The closure of the Caerau and Coegnant collieries has meant the loss of 483 jobs at Caerau and 392 at Coegnant. There has been a rundown of the Port Talbot steelworks with the loss of 315 jobs for workers living in Maesteg. Cutbacks and closures have shed 578 jobs. Multimetal Products, Louis Edwards Limited, Mastercraft Furniture Limited all closed in 1981 and there were 300 redundancies at Revlon International in early 1981. There were also 200 job losses at British Tissues paper mill in the Llynfi valley. All those have come about since May 1979.
  What can we do to help the community of my constituents—the male and female unemployed, the business men, the bankers? At last Saturday's meeting I was asked to ask the Minister to class Ogwr borough, and Maesteg in particular, as a very special development area and regrade its development status up the two places which it was put down some weeks ago, to increase the inducement to industrialists to come into the area with more grant aid, to call on the Welsh Development Agency
  852
  to look at the problem of that community area and take appropriate action, to call on the Development Agency for Rural Wales to assist and to ask for more funding from NCB (Enterprise) Limited to establish factories and improve what is already available at Tondu.
  There is also the need to continue the fight to retain this colliery and there is a need for the plans for extracting coal from the Margam reserves and seams to be examined. Many miners have explained to me that these plans could be used, could work and could save the colliery for future generations. At the height of the strike there were daily bulletins about Margam development. It is passing strange, to say the least, that we have not heard a peep about the future development of Margam since the miners returned to work.
  The help needed could be readily made available. The Government could have acted to retain the industries lost since 1979. We have skilled, trained, experienced, efficient and responsible workers on the dole in and around Maesteg. All that is needed is a deliberate attempt by the Government to assist in protecting the colliery itself because I have yet to be convinced that the pit is uneconomic. I have yet to be convinced that a deliberate, motivated attempt to overspend to qualify for justified closure was not orchestrated by Philip Weekes and other NCB officials.
  I ask the Minister to give me a clear and concise promise that he will set in train an inquiry to establish why £8 million of public money was spent on St. John's colliery, who sanctioned that expenditure, on what it was spent, whether it was in search of coal seams and who advised where to carry out the search.
  I believe that it is nothing short of criminal and wilful neglect and irresponsibility to allow such massive expenditure without some research. The Minister responsible will in all probability be asking for further funding for the NCB soon, and I ask him to justify this expenditure. Only £10 million has been allocated for NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. for the whole of the nation, but already £8 million has been spent in searching for what is now suggested to be non-existent coal in St. John's.
  I recommend that the Minister looks at columns 601 to 610 of yesterday's Hansard, which has questions on job creation, answered by the Secretary of State for Wales. He will realise why communities such as Maesteg are desperate to see employment created, because there is no chance for any jobs.
  I also ask the Minister to consider seriously the possibility of attracting tourism to areas such as Maesteg. Today, the Welsh Affairs Committee departed to investigate tourism in Wales. I suggested to my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Wardell), who is Chairman of the Committee, that he should have planned to go to see some of the valleys where there is a need for tourism to be developed, rather than going to the northern part of Wales, where tourism is flourishing.
  11.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. David Hunt): I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell), which led him to raise this issue tonight. Possible colliery closures, particularly in areas of high unemployment, are of concern to us all, and as a Merseyside Member I know only too well the serious problems caused by unacceptably high levels of unemployment.

  853
  The hon. Member has looked up my career, and he kindly mentioned my success in the Observer Mace. He did not mention my pride in having been born in Glyn Ceiriog near Llangollen in North Wales. I appreciate the significant point that he raised about the importance of communities in Wales. He will realise that many of the points that he has raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I shall bring them immediately to the attention of my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues.
  The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the recent history of St. John's colliery, but in view of his remarks about the management of the colliery, and his remarks which have been quoted in the newspapers, it might be helpful if I outline the facts from the NCB.
  Over the past few years the National Coal Board in South Wales has spent many millions of pounds in an effort to make St. John's a viable proposition. A number of faces have been opened up, but the poor geology of the area has in each case made it impossible to mine from them a reasonable quantity of coal. In fact, in the last full year of production—1983–84—output and productivity were the lowest in the South Wales coalfield. The area director, Philip Weekes has made it clear that these results were due, not to standards of work, but to the appallingly difficult geological conditions.
  St. John's is recommended for closure by the area director because of the exhaustion of all reasonable reserves, despite massive efforts to secure more. The unions have suggested—and it is reported that the hon. Gentleman has suggested too—that the pit could be made viable by reducing the work force from 830 men to about 500, thereby cutting costs. But that would not do, because the forces of nature are not impressed by cost-cutting exercises and the massive geological problems would remain.
  The hon. Gentleman has argued that more money should be made available and that we should have an inquiry into the money already spent. That money has been spent wisely. Boreholes have been drilled, and, sadly, similar geological problems have been encountered in all the colliery's coal seams. The hon. Gentleman believes that considerable sums of money have been wasted. How much more money does he suggest the NCB might need to spend in proving that the exceptionally difficult geological conditions will simply not permit further worthwhile seams to be established?
  At a reconvened colliery review meeting on 16 April the area director said that he saw no alternative to recommending to the NCB that St. John's should close. The meeting was held under the existing colliery review procedure. I understand that a very effective presentation was made by the deputy director, mining and the chief mining engineer, illustrating on slides the results over recent years, which have been most disappointing — mainly, if not wholly, because of the difficult geology. They explained that the board had been forthcoming with major development works. Those works were explained in detail. They need not have been, as many of those present already knew the facts. Those major development works had succeeded in making available only short-life faces on which production to any reasonably acceptable level had been inhibited by faults and other geological features.
  854
  The mainstay seam for many years—Gellideg—had been worked to its limit, and there had since then been a marked deterioration in performance. It was explained at that meeting that it was
  "unlikely that any of the options considered by the investigating team could survive the type of geology which boreholes and other determinations had proved in the other seams."
  The early stages of the existing procedure are being adhered to. The matter, I understand, now lies with the trade unions. I understand that neither the NUM nor the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers have yet given notice that they intend to appeal to the NCB about the future of St. John's. If the unions were to decide within the next month to appeal to the NCB, the next stage would be the national appeal meeting. The procedure after that would depend on the success in bringing in the modified colliery review procedure.
  I understand that the NUM has made no technical inspection of the pit since before the strike. During that time, two producing faces were lost. Production is down to about 550 tonnes a day. Geological problems with the new S12 face may bring that figure down to 250 tonnes a day. With only one face now operational, there is little productive work available, sadly, for many members of the work force.
  Many of the men whom the board has interviewed so far want to take voluntary redundancy and to leave the industry on the generous terms which we have discussed recently in the House. Those who wish to remain in the industry will be offered alternative jobs at other collieries.
  Pits have always closed — because they were exhausted, because mining conditions became too difficult, or because they became uneconomic. Nobody denies that the closure of any pit can have serious implications for the individuals concerned and their community. That is why the board and the Government have gone to such lengths to ensure that, if a closure has to take place, there are good redundancy terms for:hose who choose to accept them and alternative jobs with generous transfer allowances for those who wish to stay in the industry. But that is also why we are as concerned as everyone in the House that some closures which might not have been necessary have become inevitable as a result of the self-inflicted damage of the industrial dispute of the past 12 months.
  I have to say that because the hon. Member said much with which I disagreed about butchery and slaughter and the coming of a Labour Government, which would bring strength to the industry. Labour Governments were responsible for the closure of a total of 330 pits. We have debated that so many times that I shall not reiterate the arguments, except to say that there are answers to his assertions. I understand that he would not accept them and I do not propose to take up any more time trying to respond to his points one by one.
  As for the new review procedure, I understand from the NCB that the first meeting of the joint sub-committee, comprising the board and the industry's trade unions, has been held to discuss the modified colliery review procedure. It was agreed to set it up at the special meeting of the Coal Industry National Consultative Council on 11 April, following the agreement last October to examine the colliery review procedure. The three unions, the NUM, NACODS and the British Association of Colliery Management have nominated two representatives to join three representatives from the NCB on the sub-committee.

  855
  Now that the strike is over, I strongly hope that this newer element will speedily be implemented in the review procedure. Provided that all those involved adopt a reasonable approach, agreement should be reached quickly, and disputed closures will be put to the new independent review body.
  The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Margam project several times in the House and blamed the Government for not bringing it forward fast enough. The board has now received planning permission from West Glamorgan county council to build a colliery at Margam, which would employ about 650 people. However, the board has yet to make a final decision on whether to proceed with the project. If it decides to proceed, the next step will be to refer it to the Secretary of State.
  The hon. Gentleman spent some time talking of the effect on his community, and surrounding ones, of any possible closure. He is rightly worried about the effect of the proposed closure on the unemployment figures. We should not allow ourselves to forget that there are jobs in the industry for all who wish to remain in it. Those who leave choose to do so and receive redundancy terms which are the most generous in the country.
  I should like to consider the NCB's enterprise company, which was a positive step to relieve the unemployment that follows pit closures. NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. was established by the board precisely for that purpose and to take measures which would create new jobs in areas affected by closures. The company has been in operation since October 1984 and has already established links with enterprise agencies throughout the country. It has done particularly well in south Wales, where the Welsh Development Agency is already operating, and where the Government have been creating a positive climate for job creation.
  856
  Ogwr is among the first area in Wales to benefit from the activities of NCB (Enterprise) Ltd. The Ogwr partnership trust is now operational and a manager from the National Westminster bank has been seconded to it at the former NCB training centre at Tondu. The centre is being leased at a peppercorn rent to provide start-up units. The NCB is also providing revenue support of £30,000 a year over three years. Urban programme aid is expected to be sought and some discussions with officials have already taken place.
  I can also tell the House that I understand from the board that, on Thursday, it will meet the leaders of Mid-Glamorgan council and of other local authorities to discuss what further initiatives can be taken in the area.
  The present unemployment rates are unacceptably high, but the Secretary of State for Wales has done much to attract new industry into the area. Wales receives more than its fair share of overseas investment. I am glad to have on the Front Bench with me the Minister of State, and I understand from him that since January 1984, offers of section 7 financial assistance have created and safeguarded more than 2,000 jobs in the hon. Gentleman's constituency alone. Stirling work is being done by the Welsh Development Agency. Three units are available for letting in the constituency, 74 in total in Mid-Glamorgan.
  As I said at the outset, I share in many ways the hon. Gentleman's deep concern over the effects of unemployment on his area and the results of it on the local communities, but, unlike him, I see every reason to look forward to future prosperity. All the points that he raised tonight will be carefully considered by me, by the National Coal Board and by the Welsh Office.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Twelve o' clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Grass Carp
  Grass Carp
  Milk (Outgoers Scheme)
  Milk (Outgoers Scheme)
  Intervention Stocks
  Intervention Stocks
  Export Rebates
  Export Rebates
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
TRANSPORT
  National Bike Week
  National Bike Week
  Fishing Vessels
  Fishing Vessels
  Bypasses (Signs)
  Bypasses (Signs)
  Birmingham Convention Centre
  Birmingham Convention Centre
  Swans (Lead Shot)
  Swans (Lead Shot)
ENVIRONMENT
  Home Improvement
  Home Improvement
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Inner Cities
  Inner Cities
  Economic Summit
  Economic Summit
  Ordnance Survey
  Ordnance Survey
SCOTLAND
  Mr. Ronald Mackenzie
  Mr. Ronald Mackenzie
  Elm Bark Beetle
  Elm Bark Beetle
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Scottish Tourist Board
  Deprived Areas
  Deprived Areas
  Retail Stores (Rates)
  Retail Stores (Rates)
PRIME MINISTER
  "Better Schools"
  "Better Schools"
  President Belaunde Terry (Press Conference)
  President Belaunde Terry (Press Conference)
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Export Promotion Services
  Export Promotion Services
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Australian Royal Commission
  Australian Royal Commission
  Technology, Growth and Employment Working Group
  Technology, Growth and Employment Working Group
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Custody Statistics
  Custody Statistics
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Police Patrol Vehicles
  Police Patrol Vehicles
  Demonstrations
  Demonstrations
  Prisons (Mailbags)
  Prisons (Mailbags)
  Greenham Common (Incident)
  Greenham Common (Incident)
  Alcoholic Beverages
  Alcoholic Beverages
  Productivity
  Productivity
  Winson Green Prison
  Winson Green Prison
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Imports
  Imports
  Chemicals
  Chemicals
  Investment Statistics
  Investment Statistics
  Clothing (Imports)
  Clothing (Imports)
  Double Glazing
  Double Glazing
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  Estate Agents Act 1979
  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Works of Art (Export Licences)
  Consumer Durables (Exports)
  Consumer Durables (Exports)
  EC (Clothing Imports)
  EC (Clothing Imports)
  Clothing Manufactures
  Clothing Manufactures
  Romania
  Romania
  Matthew Brown plc
  Matthew Brown plc
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Peat Industry
  Peat Industry
  Benefits (Automatic Credit Transfer)
  Benefits (Automatic Credit Transfer)
EMPLOYMENT
  Young Persons
  Young Persons
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Leicester
  Leicester
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Special Employment and Training
  Special Employment and Training
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Human Embryos
  Human Embryos
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Cohabitation Rules
  Cohabitation Rules
  Health Authorities (Budgets)
  Health Authorities (Budgets)
  Homeless Men (Resettlement)
  Homeless Men (Resettlement)
  Fazakerley Re-establishment and Resettlement Units
  Fazakerley Re-establishment and Resettlement Units
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Health Expenditure (West Midlands)
  Health Expenditure (West Midlands)
  Medical Defence Union
  Medical Defence Union
  Children (Residential Care)
  Children (Residential Care)
  Doctors (Visits)
  Doctors (Visits)
  NHS (Female Employees)
  NHS (Female Employees)
  Kidney Dialysis
  Kidney Dialysis
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Kidney Donor Cards
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Fraud (Investigations)
  Fraud (Investigations)
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Cervical Smear Tests
  Wessex Health Region (Expenditure)
  Wessex Health Region (Expenditure)
  Cyclosporin
  Cyclosporin
  Drug Prices
  Drug Prices
  Mortality Rates
  Mortality Rates
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  Nurses (Pay)
  Nurses (Pay)
  Contraceptives
  Contraceptives
  Children's Legal Centre
  Children's Legal Centre
  Camberwell Reception Centre
  Camberwell Reception Centre
  Mrs. Julia Hall
  Mrs. Julia Hall
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Loan Facilities
  Loan Facilities
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Community Care
  Community Care
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Interest Payments
  Interest Payments
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Educational Charities (VAT)
  Educational Charities (VAT)
  Philippines (Reciprocal Tax Arrangements)
  Philippines (Reciprocal Tax Arrangements)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  EC (Finance)
  EC (Finance)
  Customs and Excise (Control Visits)
  Customs and Excise (Control Visits)
  Government Departments (Expenditure)
  Government Departments (Expenditure)
  Accommodation Costs
  Accommodation Costs
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  European Commission of Human Rights
  European Commission of Human Rights
  Embassies and High Commissions (Staff)
  Embassies and High Commissions (Staff)
  Soviet Jews
  Soviet Jews
  Chilean Ambassador
  Chilean Ambassador
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Open University
  Open University
  Universities (Grants)
  Universities (Grants)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  Ethnic Minority Pupils
  "Better Schools"
  "Better Schools"
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Heriot-Watt University
  Heriot-Watt University
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
  School Sizes
  School Sizes
  Engineering and Technology
  Engineering and Technology
  Schools (Self-managing Status)
  Schools (Self-managing Status)
  School Libraries
  School Libraries
  Student Unions
  Student Unions
  GCSE (Distinction and Merit Certificates)
  GCSE (Distinction and Merit Certificates)
  Education Achievement
  Education Achievement
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Unemployed Persons (Open University Courses)
  Unemployed Persons (Open University Courses)
  Apley Park School, Shropshire
  Apley Park School, Shropshire
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Foreign Language Teaching
  Medical Science
  Medical Science
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Teachers (Dispute)
  Bursaries
  Bursaries
  School Sizes
  School Sizes
  Universities (Jarratt Committee Report)
  Universities (Jarratt Committee Report)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Children (Illegal Sexual Relationships)
  Children (Illegal Sexual Relationships)
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
DEFENCE
  Ethiopia (Military Personnel)
  Ethiopia (Military Personnel)
  Royal Dockyards
  Royal Dockyards
  Portsmouth
  Portsmouth
  Polaris
  Polaris
  Trident
  Trident
  Arms Control Unit
  Arms Control Unit

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

South London Hospital for Women: Disposal
The Countess of Mar: 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 the proposals are for disposing of the South London Hospital for Women.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, following the recent closure of the South London Hospital for Women the South West Thames Regional Health Authority intends to dispose of the building and realise its full market value.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer to my Question. May I ask him to request the health authority to bear in mind two very important factors when the proceeds from the sale are being allocated? First, while there is no longer any legal obligation for them to carry out the original trust, there is a very strong moral obligation that the fund should be allocated to the treatment of women by women. The second factor is the interim report by the Women's National Commission, which indicates clearly that there is a need for this kind of service, particularly for women in the 25 to 44 age group.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the Wandsworth Health Authority has given an assurance that wherever possible it will continue to provide patients in the specialties of obstetrics, gynaecology, general medicine and general surgery with the choice of being seen and treated by male or female doctors at other hospitals within the district. With regard to the Women's National Commission, I confirm that the Government are currently considering that report.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister explain why this hospital was shut in the first place, and how he can guarantee that women in that area can be treated by women doctors? Is he not just putting some hopefulness before the House without any certainty? Can he also tell us whether the waiting list in that area has lengthened or shortened as a result of the disgraceful closing down of this hospital?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the reasons for the closure were well debated in this House at an earlier stage. I confirm that the closure is part of the improvement and rationalisation of acute services planned for the Wandsworth area and releases resources in the short term to help improve services for the mentally ill and in the longer term for the future development planned for St. George's Hospital.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that previous policy was to offer the buildings and land of hospitals disposed of to any other Government department? Now the policy seems to be a quick sale and a quick profit.
The Earl of Caithness: No, my Lords; the policy is to achieve the best price and to reinvest in the health authorities.
Lord Stallard: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to be more specific on the alternative arrangements that are being made for women to be seen by women doctors? Does he recall that the principles were clearly accepted by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister in 1979, when we debated, after many years, the proposed closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital which is now, thankfully, refurbished and flourishing? Will he be a little more specific about the alternative arrangements for women who desire to be treated by women doctors in the south London area?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, it is a little difficult for me to be specific because it is the responsibility of the individual health authorities. They are aware that certain women want to be treated by women doctors and they will try wherever possible to ensure that this happens. I am sure the noble Lord will agree with me that there are a number of difficulties.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that it is not necessarily a request to be treated by a woman doctor, since in some religions which are prolific in the southern part of this city many people hold to religious beliefs and are unable to be treated by men? Can the Minister put pressure to bear on the local DHA to ensure that there are plenty of beds for those people?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. We are very concerned about the ethnic minorities, but I understand that for the purposes of medical treatment it is not in any faith forbidden that they be seen by a male doctor.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, will the Minister be a little more explicit about what will happen to the endowment fund set up in the first place for the South London Hospital for Women; and what arrangements are being made to carry on this endowment fund?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry that I did not catch the first part of the noble Baroness's question.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I asked the Minister to be a little more explicit about what will happen to the endowment fund which was set up in the first place to create the South London Hospital for Women and which is still in existence.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, the matter of the endowment fund itself is a little wide of the Question.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, can the Minister say on what authority he states that there is no religion in which women are made to feel that it is difficult for them to be dealt with by men doctors? Those of us who have worked for years with the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital, for example, find that many women feel that it is impossible and unacceptable for them to be seen by men doctors.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am sorry if I gave the House the impression that I categorically stated that; I said only that I understood it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Earl the Minister accept that it is a little difficult on this side when questions as relevant as that of my noble friend are asked and she is told that it is wide of the Question? How can an endowment fund which is there, and its future, be irrelevant to the question of proposals for disposing of the hospital?
The Earl of Caithness: Because, my Lords, in view of the report of the Select Committee on Procedure of the House, I considered that supplementary to be slightly wide of the Question on the Order Paper, which relates specifically to the disposal of the South London Hospital for Women.

Pay Restraint: Chairmen and Chief Executives
2.43 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 to what extent their appeals for wage restraint are intended to apply to the chairmen and chief executives of British companies.
The Minister Without Portfolio (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, the Government consider it important that employers and employees should take account of the effect of pay increases on costs, competitiveness and jobs. Each company should consider carefully what it can afford, and what it needs to pay to recruit, retain and motivate its staff, including its senior staff. But it is for companies, not third parties like the Government, to decide what level of pay is right in each case.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that there is something repugnant—or "offensive", as, I think, The Times expressed it—in the implication that certain individuals will give of their best or show initiative only if they are paid in terms of hundreds of thousands of pounds a year? Can we really expect to move forward to a genuinely happy and stable society if these sums are paid to a few, while for those down below we say that pay increases must be restrained?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I slightly regret the emotive language of the supplementary question because the position is simply that unless we get men
1006
of proven talent and ability at the heads of our enterprises we shall not have the employment and the wealth creation which this country so sorely needs if we are to have a compassionate and caring society. It is no good comparing the salaries of those at the top with those below. What we have to compare is the profitability of the enterprises and the jobs that they grow. There is no use in having similar salaries and no employment.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend continue to rub into the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that there are men and women in all ranks of employment with rare skills, and who are in extremely short supply, who are vital to the creation of jobs in this country, and that the only way of attracting quality of this kind is, on some occasions, to pay over the odds; and that it is necessary to do so?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his observation, but I would also remind the House that although we are an island we live in the whole world and that if we do not attract the best talents to enable us to grow, other countries will do so—as they did in the 1960s and 1970s.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that he really does show a complete insensitivity in his replies? Is he further aware that on the same day as the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that he was either to abolish or emasculate the wages councils, which fix the pay of the lowest paid in our society, ICI announced—on that same day—that their chairman, Mr. Harvey-Jones, would have an increase in salary from £171,000 to £287,000 per annum—a 66 per cent. increase or a £2,200 per week increase? Is this not really offensive, as my noble friend Lord Beswick has suggested, especially when ordinary workers are being harangued by the Government and the CBI to accept low wage increases to save jobs? Finally, does it not apply similarly to those in high places—that if they have large salaries their jobs might be in jeopardy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I will give way to no Member of your Lordships' House in my concern for the evils of unemployment in this nation. What I am concerned about is that we have a competitiveness and wealth creation to give jobs; and to give jobs we need the best talent. I think that the chairman of ICI is to be congratulated on the performance of his company and the way in which he has restored that once-great company to its position of greatness. He deserves it.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, do not the salaries of these executives go back to the state in tax?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is another question.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that this wage reorganisation was first enacted in 1909 in the Board of Trade by no less a person than Winston Churchill? As a matter of fact, I know all about it because he made me the Scottish

1007
representative on the trade board along with J. J. Millen, a well-known social reformer, and the famous Miss Mary McArthur. The purpose was to abolish sweated labour, to prevent people on the lowest scale from being sweated. Is not what the Government are proposing to do to reintroduce wage restraint and reintroduce sweated labour?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. I, too, recall that it was Winston Churchill who in 1909 introduced the wages councils. I stand in admiration of Winston Churchill, who was a far-seeing statesman. Indeed, I would remind the House that it was Winston Churchill, when he was Prime Minister in 1942, who asked the then Minister Without Portfolio to ask Sir William Beveridge to produce a report on social security. Upon that firm foundation we have in this country our system of social security which may well have transformed the position about wages councils. But I should remind your Lordships' House that the Chancellor made no announcement in the Budget speech and that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment has asked for a period of consultation (which expires at the end of May) in which to consider the future of wages councils. I believe that it behoves me, on this side of the House in any event, to wait until that period of consultation is over.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, regardless of what the Government have done or seen, can the noble Lord give us a figure which can be easily remembered for the relationship between the success of a company and the salary paid to its chairman or chief executive, comparing like with like?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords, because that is a matter which is solely the prerogative of the shareholders, and if the shareholders and the board of directors do not approve of the salary of their chairman or chief executive, they will take steps. It would, indeed, be a sad society if Government were to intervene in each and every such decision.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords—
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, if I interpret the debate we had last week correctly, I think I would be doing less than my duty to this House if I did not suggest that we take one further question from one noble Lord and then bring our discussion on this Question to an end and move on to the next one.
Lord Polwarth: My Lords, since a particular company and an individual have been mentioned, may I, as a former director of the same company, ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would not agree that it would be quite unreasonable to expect an individual to lead a great international company based in this country which has performed so outstandingly for considerably less than he would obtain for doing the same in other countries and, in particular, in the United States of America?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is not for me to comment upon relative pay scales, but I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept the Guardian as a good authority; and this morning I read with interest that one of our great companies has six employees in the United Kingdom earning more than £50,000 per year; overseas it has 273. I think that in itself may indicate something about relative pay scales.

Nuclear Weapon Verification
2.52 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider the possibility of a special EEC summit to examine the principles of nuclear weapon verification together with Europe's involvement with the Strategic Defence Initiative.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): No, my Lords; these subjects are primarily for NATO, not for the Ten.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that reply. In regard to summit conferences on thermonuclear weapons—and there are now enough of them to wipe out all mankind—would he not agree that after such summits nuclear weapons have increased? It would appear that the bugbear has always been a foolproof system of verification. If the NATO aspect could entrust itself to the European partners to concentrate on finding some form of verification acceptable to East and West, that may be the great breakthrough. May I also ask the Minister whether he can say what progress has been made in multilateral talks to prevent the arms race in space?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, perhaps I may answer first the noble Lord's second supplementary. I am pleased to be able to say that the 40-nation conference on disarmament in Geneva recently reached agreement to address the present position, including all relevant treaties, along the lines proposed by the Western delegations last year. The United Kingdom believes that these talks could usefully supplement, but not replace, the United States—Soviet talks on this subject, and we certainly plan to play a full part.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, has the noble Lord seen the report in The Times today of American pressure, apparently successful, to stop the European Foreign Ministers from issuing a statement after yesterday's discussions on the Strategic Defence Initiative? Is it the view of Her Majesty's Government that the European Governments have a right to reach and publish a joint view on defence matters affecting Europe?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course the European Foreign Ministers and Defence Ministers can reach views on whatever subject they like. They are not subject to the kinds of pressures the noble Lord imagines, though naturally they take into account all the views that are relevant.
Lord Renton: My Lords, with regard to verification, do any of the NATO countries object to it, and is my noble friend aware that the countries of the Soviet bloc have always resisted it?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, on the contrary, I know of no NATO country which departs from the proposition that what we are seeking are balanced and verifiable measures of arms control.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, while the exact proposal in my noble friend's Question may not be acceptable to the noble Lord, does he not agree that in principle there is a widespread feeling in Europe that leaving these important questions, the consequences of which will be felt in Europe, to the two super powers is most unsatisfactory? Will he press the Government's voice in favour of a greater intervention by European Governments in this question?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is not totally left to the super powers, though naturally they have a prime interest in these matters. That is why I was happy to be able to tell the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in answer to his earlier supplementary, of the progress that is being made in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the noble Lord the Minister not agree that while the noble Lord's Question may perhaps be eccentric in suggesting that this should be a matter for an EEC summit, there was yesterday a joint meeting of all the Foreign Ministers and all the Defence Ministers of the Western European Union on this very subject? Can the noble Lord the Minister give the House any news of what happened yesterday, and, if he cannot, can he say when we may expect a statement?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to give the noble Lord the information for which he asks; but perhaps I may sound a warning note about the desirability of summits, whether attended by Prime Ministers or Presidents, or even Foreign Ministers or Defence Ministers, dealing with what are essentially technical matters. I believe that technical matters—and verification is most certainly one of them—are best dealt with by technical experts.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, is it not a reasonable question to put as to what happened at this meeting of WEU Ministers? Ought we not to know? Is it something very secret?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I merely said to the noble Lord that I was not yet in a position to answer his question.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I say to the noble Lord the Minister that his reply in regard to the arms race in space is very encouraging? I feel certain that our Government have played an important part, on which they ought to be congratulated. Would the Minister be prepared perhaps to discuss with even the Foreign Secretary whether the European members of NATO, with the brains that they have at their disposal, could examine the possibility of finding some form of verification? That could then be a subject for
1010
discussion by all the big nations involved, and perhaps we could give a guarantee and therefore set mankind on the road to sanity.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course there is no question of excluding the European powers from the submission of ideas in this area. Indeed, in the United Kingdom we ourselves have taken a leading role in proposing measures of verification in the chemical weapons discussions.

East Timor and Indonesia
2.57 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards Indonesian policy in East Timor and whether the Prime Minister made representations on it during the recent visit to Indonesia.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, East Timor was one of a number of issues which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister raised with President Soeharto during her recent visit to Indonesia. The content of the discussions is of course confidential, but I can assure the noble Lord that the Indonesian Government are well aware of our position on East Timor.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what is the position of Her Majesty's Government on East Timor? Does he agree that the Indonesian invasion and occupation of East Timor is as serious a breach of international law as was the invasion by the Argentine of the Falkland Islands?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we believe that the problem of East Timor is best resolved between Indonesia and Portugal, the parties directly involved, and the United Nations. Her Majesty's Government hope that a fair solution, acceptable to all concerned, can be found by diplomatic means.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there are two problems in regard to East Timor? One is the abuse of human rights; there is also the failure to achieve self-determination. Is it not the case that the right honourable and learned gentleman the Home Secretary in January said that Her Majesty's Government were in fact in favour of human rights in East Timor? Did the Prime Minister press these two matters?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that we deplore abuses of human rights wherever they occur, and the Indonesians are well aware of our position on that matter. We believe that this problem, as I said, is best resolved by discussions between the parties principally concerned; and those discussions have our blessing.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that in addition to the repression of self-determination in East Timor, the Indonesian

1011
Government have one of the worst records in the world on the suppression of human rights? Does not the attitude of the Government on these issues, compared with the commendable protest which the Foreign Secretary made in Poland, indicate that these principles are subordinate to whether a country supports the West or the East in their confrontation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that that is not so. As I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, we deplore abuses of human rights wherever they may occur and we lose no opportunity of expressing our views in appropriate cases.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the negotiations of which he speaks have now been going on for at least 10 years without result? If he and the Government are so concerned about human rights, how is it that this Government continue to supply the Indonesian Government with arms, including the Hawk fighter, and abstain when the issue goes before the United Nations?
Lord Trefgame: My Lords, it is true that the negotiations between the Indonesians and the Portuguese have been going on for a long time. That is why we so much welcomed the move of the United Nations Secretary-General in this matter, which was of course much more recent, and we hope that this will lead the way to a solution.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords—
Viscount Whitelaw: No, my Lords. I was very generous to the noble Lord. Last Thursday when he was not present—I wish that he had been—there was a debate on the report of the Procedure Committee which concerned Starred Questions. That stated that there was no automatic right of the noble Lord who asked the first Question to speak again at the end. Being in a very generous mood, I gave the noble Lord the opportunity to ask his next question but it was against my better judgment. My better judgment would have been to stop him beforehand. I allowed him to go on, and having allowed him to do so I really do not think that I should allow him to go on any more.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, on a point of order, will the noble Viscount the Leader of the House agree—and I was present for part of the debate last Thursday—that it was a widely expressed view, though not a universally expressed one, that those who had tabled Questions should be allowed to pursue a Question if the original Answer was not satisfactory, and that that view was expressed on various sides of the House during that debate?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think that if the noble Lord will read the report of the debate last Thursday, as a whole, he will find that the decision of the House was that there was no automatic right for a Member to have a second question. I think that that was clearly expressed on all sides of the House. Despite that, I gave the noble Lord the opportunity to ask his second supplementary question. I think that a lot of
1012
noble Lords might have thought that I was much too kind to the noble Lord. I thought that I was very kind to him. I hope that he will not try my patience further because if I am too kind the next time I shall know that the best way to proceed will be to be much less kind.

Royal Holloway and Bedford New College Bill [H.L.]
3.3 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Local Government Bill
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Elton, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order—

Clauses 1 to 4,

Schedule 1,

Clause 5,

Schedule 2,

Clause 6,

Schedule 3,

Clause 7,

Schedules 4 and 5,

Clause 8,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 9 and 10,

Schedule 7,

Clauses 11 to 15,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 16 to 18,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 19 to 28,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 29 to 36,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 37 and 38,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 39 to 55,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 56 to 82,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 83 to 89,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 90 to 99,

Schedules 16 and 17,

Clauses 100 to 103.

—(Lord Skelmersdale.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Soviet Union: Relations with the West
3.4 p.m.
Lord Home of the Hirsel Lord Home of the Hirsel rose to call attention to the desire of Britain and other Western democracies to seek better relations with the Soviet Union and the obstacles which continuing Soviet exploitation of

1013
economic and social problems in developing countries and intervention in the internal affairs of other countries have placed in the way of attaining this objective; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will be aware that my noble friend Lady Young is unable to take part in this debate because she has gone to the funeral of the President-elect of Brazil. I am sure that the House would like to take this opportunity to send condolences to the Brazilian people on the loss of a statesman on whom so many hopes were founded. We wish them happier times in the future.
I placed this Motion on the Order Paper to coincide with the early statements at the resumed negotiations between the Soviet Union and the United States at Geneva with three purposes in mind: the first was to give timely expression to the desire, shared in all parts of the House, to join the Russian leaders in the constructive business of peace-making; the second was to analyse the reasons why, during 40 years or so, relations between the Western democracies and the Soviet Union have at best been at arm's length and at worst sterile; and the third was to ask whether we can reasonably anticipate from Russia's new leaders the modification of that communist ideology which has so far included, as part of Russian foreign policy, subversion and on occasions military force in support of an external political aim.
I do not intend to allow myself to be diverted today, although my timing has been immaculate, by the expulsion of the Russian spies by the Foreign Secretary. The Russians will always spy. They will always try to use diplomatic cover. When they are caught, as they always will be, they will be realistic and will inflict upon this country the minimum retaliation. In my opinion, the incident will have no effect whatever on Russian relations with this country. I recall that some time ago I sacked rather more spies than the Foreign Secretary has done. I was amused to find three years later that one of the gentlemen that I sacked from here was being sacked by President Tito of Yugoslavia for exactly the same thing. I am afraid that this kind of incident is one that we have to endure every now and again; but we shall get through it without much harm.
Therefore, I want to begin by asking whether there is anything more that the Western democracies can do to carry conviction in the Kremlin that we understand their preoccupation with the physical security of the Soviet Union within her own borders. Clearly, wherever the fault may lie, the alliance in the last war has not been enough to persuade her that we mean what we say when we say that we want closer relations.
What have the democracies already done? We have signed our name and have adhered to that clause in the United Nations Charter which forbids interference by one country in the internal affairs of another. We regard that provision as the linchpin of international order, and there can be no real peace unless that is observed. It follows therefore that we respect the right of the Russian people to choose their own way of life and to choose their own form of government. That is why we have joined with our NATO partners and our
1014
European partners in a declaration that we shall never countenance any aggression against the Soviet Union with any armed force or with any weapons of any kind, nor against any of the independent countries of Eastern Europe which are members of the Warsaw Pact. Germany, about which the Russians have constantly expressed fears, is equally bound by that NATO pledge. Of course, if NATO were to be first attacked, the Alliance would defend itself with such weapons as might be necessary to repel that aggression. But that is no more and no less than the Russians ask for the Warsaw Pact. If the Russian leaders are dissatisfied with the guarantees for their security which have already been given by the NATO allies, let them table a proposal and it will be considered with every desire to remove their anxieties.
Another fear which has so far adversely affected the prospects of any disarmament agreement is the one that has led the Russians to reject out of hand any formula for the verification on the ground of disarmament pledges given. I shall return to that matter shortly because it is central to the confidence in any disarmament treaty. But I hope that the Russians will now be ready to study very closely the most modern techniques which can be used to facilitate verification—there have been very considerable changes in recent years—and in particular that they will explore the field of opportunities offered by reciprocal undertakings. In my view they could well remove some of the traditional fears and objections that the Russians have held and could hold the key to progress on balanced disarmament and on arms control.
The place for such matters to be canvassed and discussed and decided is the conference table at Geneva. That is where Mr. Gorbachev's proposals for nuclear freeze ought to have gone; that is where the United States strategic defence initiative commonly called star wars ought to go. On that matter, because we have debated it lately, I offer just one or two reflections. Both the United States and the Soviet Union are engaged on the same search for a defensive shield aginst offensive missiles. Both will continue the research. On the most optimistic forecast there is a very long way to go before the technological breakthrough will allow deployment of hardware in space. Before then the Americans and the Russians are bound by treaty to consult and negotiate about the future. My plea is that the discussions and studies should start now on the data available and continue until the question of a defensive capacity is proved or disproved. If ever there was a mutual interest between the United States and Russia I should have thought that that was it.
I derive some encouragement from a paragraph in a document on the strategic defence initiative for which the President of the United States has lately made himself responsible. I think your Lordships will probably have seen it, but a paragraph reads:
"Deployments of defensive weapons would most usefully be done in the context of a co-operative, equitable and verifiable arms control environment that regulates the offensive and defensive developments and deployments of the United States and of the Soviet Union".
It continues:
"Such an environment could be particularly useful in the period of transition".
Let that period of transition start now. The more the

1015
negotiators immerse themselves in the technicalities of such an examination, the earlier they will recognise that the real foundation for mutual security rests not on any technology but on the political will to co-exist.
That brings me to the second part of my Motion. Why for so long have the relations between the Soviet Union and the democracies been so cold and barren? To answer that question will require some plain speaking, but in my dealings with the Russian leaders I have always found that that is better so. Anyhow, it is necessary now because unless the new leadership of the Soviet Union is told plainly of the difficulties in which they constantly place the democracies, we will simply repeat the confrontation, the friction and the frustrations of the past 40 years. None of us wants to see that.
I come straight to the heart of the matter. The only firm foundation for a relationship between one country and another on the international stage is the treaty and the readiness of the signatories of treaties to honour the obligations to which they have put their names. Over the years I helped to negotiate a number of such treaties with the Soviet Union and they had a real potential for reconciliation and for peace. I shall give your Lordships two illustrations. The first is the series of treaties aimed at the pacification of South-East Asia and the second is the Final Act of Helsinki, which was completed under the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Rievaulx, and in which the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, took part.
After many months of work the form of those treaties was agreed; the substance of those treaties was agreed; the detailed machinery for implementing the terms of those treaties was agreed; the documents were signed with due ceremony and solemnity—only for all the prospect and promise to collapse because after a short interval the signatories, other than the Soviet Union, were compelled by the hard evidence to conclude that the deeds of the Soviet Union on the ground were in stark contradiction to the words to which they had pledged themselves in the treaty to honour.
The collapse of these three treaties therefore was nothing to do with technicalities. There is very little difficulty in coming to the terms of a treaty with the Soviet Union. It was due to basic breaches of faith leading to complete loss of trust. That is why in the past 30 years almost everything in this field has gone wrong. With that assessment, all the cosignatories—the Chinese, the French, the American, the Europeans and the Indians—would concur.
In the first case, South-East Asia, North Vietnam, encouraged by the Russians and heavily armed by the Russians, against the terms of those treaties, fermented civil strife in South Vietnam and Kampuchea, and the result was the Boat People. You might think, my Lords, that that was history. Was it not the case that only two months ago the North Vietnamese forces began to push hundreds of Kampuchean refugees over the border into Thailand? Thailand has hitherto been a peaceful country. Now her army is compelled to confront the forces of North Vietnam. That is how the domino theory works: South Vietnam, Kampuchea, Thailand; and who knows where else, because the Chinese are beginning themselves to become alerted.
In the intervals between those two treaties, the signatories, anxious to avoid accusing the Russians of bad faith, gave them in every case the benefit of the doubt, hoping that they would fulfil the terms of the treaty to which they were pledged. They used the interval to help North Vietnam to make permanent Communist gains. Over 30 years, therefore, and over three treaties I have personally seen the communists pursue relentlessly and pitilessly the social and economic destruction of the fabric of those Asian societies. If your Lordships have any doubt about the acute present dangers in that area, ask the Chinese. They are very alarmed that they themselves are now going to find themselves at war.
I turn nearer to home, to the Helsinki Final Act. In that Final Act, the Russian negotiators put their names to two pledges—the first with respect to human rights, and the second (I quote):
"that they would refrain from any form of armed intervention against other participating states".
They then added this:
"Russia would conduct their relations with other states in the spirit of the principles contained in the declaration".
Within two years, the Russian army and air force were in Afghanistan.
Some held that even then, at that time, the Soviets were providing themselves with reasonable words to cover the invasion of Afghanistan. Whether or not that be so, on any count that was a breach of faith and trust with those with whom they had signed the Helsinki Act of Accord. Your Lordships might think that that invasion is history were it not for the fact that the pattern in South-East Asia is being repeated, because the Russians have pushed out with their own forces 4 million refugees who have been forced into Pakistan. That is how the domino theory works.
Recently the Commission for Human Rights in Geneva has condemned Russian breaches of human rights, and I quote, "as flagrant and massive". Coming from them, that is quite something. They have required the withdrawal of Russian troops. I bring this matter up at this moment because the Helsinki conference reconvenes in August. It will be necessary to tell the new Russian leaders in advance that unless they conform to the findings of the commission, it will be impossible to come to a formula to cover up or condone their actions in Afghanistan. They ought to understand that now in order that they may have a chance to modify their foreign policy. It is devoutly to be hoped that before August and before Mr. Gorbachev goes to the United Nations in September, as I understand he may do, the Russian leaders will recognise the untold damage to Russia's reputation which follows such actions against the poor, defenceless countries of the third world. It is not much comfort to countries which have thrown off the yoke of colonialism to find themselves in thrall to the one-party Marxist government in Africa and Asia today.
The words I have used so far have been spoken in the past or present, and deliberately so because the Russian leaders are new. Therefore I want to ask the question, and examine it for one moment, whether we can expect any modification of policy of the past in favour of more co-existence and co-operation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, leaves the past, may—
Noble Lords: No!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord has given way, and I am most grateful to him. I want just to say this: before he leaves the past and goes on to the future will the noble Lord accept that although he had necessarily to make his resumé of that history somewhat concise, he did so to such an extent as to present to some of us a falsification of the facts?
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I think that is, with respect, an intervention which I can ignore.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, I have therefore spoken in the past and the present, but I want to ask the question as to whether we can expect improvement in the future. In the past we have been dealing with the prototype of a communist state, the ideology of which has permeated its foreign policy which aimed at the promotion of communism outside Russian borders, and was ready on occasion to use force at first or second hand to achieve a political end. Some argue that the idealism in the original communist conception was corrupted by Stalin in his crude ambitions for power and empire. There may be an element of truth in that diagnosis.
However, some years ago I asked Mr. Chou En-Lai to explain to me the working of the mind of the Russian communist in relation to Russian foreign policy and negotiations. His reply was interesting and informative. He said that Russian interpretation of communist ideology permitted them to subvert the society and institutions of another country even though they had a treaty of friendship and cooperation with that country. He said that the universality of communism was always the greater loyalty, and added that the Chinese found that inadmissible. The explanation by Mr. Chou En-Lai tallies very closely with Mr. Brezhnev's definition of detente:
"A state of continuing confrontation and struggle which may well need to be intensified"—
a continuation of confrontation and struggle which may well need to be intensified. There in a nutshell is the dilemma of democracy. None of us can think like that; none of us can talk like that, while to a Russian negotiator there is nothing inconsistent at all in that attitude. The ideology comes first.
For the democracies, the question is always insistently posed: how, when the ideology of the fellow on the other side of the table insists that he encompasses the destruction of your way of life, is it possible to think and to talk in terms of trust? Basically, that is what all this is about. Inevitably in those circumstances as the Russians play the game it becomes a game of political chess in which stalemate is the very likely answer.
Is there a chance that Russia's new rulers will modify the application of that doctrine in relation to the foreign policy of Russia? It is possible. For
1018
example, they have had to adapt their military strategy to the fact that NATO has decided to retain sufficient strength to take all reward out of aggression. The Russians have had to take note of that. They will not, because the NATO Alliance is strong enough, attack.
If I may paraphrase public statements as I have heard them emerge from the Kremlin, the paraphrase would run something like this: military confrontation, no; struggle, yes. The first can be significant if it is translated into the hardware of disarmament. There are areas where balanced disarmament could clearly be mutually advantageous. But where negotiation is concerned, continuing struggle is inevitably inhibiting. Past experience will insist, for example, when dealing with disarmament which, after all, affects the life of nations and the security of the life of nations, that there be no room any more for ambiguity in the use of words, that every clause containing an obligation needs to be verified against the action on the ground.
These are elementary things on which, in the name of our own security, we have to insist. It will not be easy for people steeped in the ideology of communism to realise that in future their word is going to be taken as their bond. They have not, up till now, understood in the least what that would mean. As I said at the start, if international relations are going to be satisfying and are to be on any sort of enduring basis, they must rest on treaties honoured and on trust. Nothing less will do.
A number of noble Lords on all sides of the House are ready to give their views on these matters and for that I am very grateful. With that opening, I beg to move for Papers.
3.31 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, in sending our sympathies to the people of Brazil in their great loss.
We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home, for initiating this debate on so vital a subject and also for his opening speech, which set the scene for this important discussion. The noble Lord's Motion falls into two parts: first, the desire which most of us share for improved relations with the Soviet Union; and, secondly, the obstacles—the noble Lord dealt with many of them in his speech—which stand in the way of that objective. These matters have lain at the heart of our foreign policy since the war and the way they develop will decide whether peace is to become more secure or whether war is to become more likely.
We are also very conscious that the Geneva talks which began on 12th March reached the end of their first stage today; and I shall come to that a little later. I believe that there is a genuine desire in this country for a practical understanding with the Soviet Union, an understanding which will lead progressively to a more stable international order. However, this implies a realistic approach and eventually, we hope, the creation of a degree of confidence and the trust to which the noble Lord referred, which has not existed up till now. There is plenty of mistrust, plenty of suspicion and cynicism but very little confidence—the most important factor in securing peace. It is very hard to achieve it. It is very easy to create fear, but very hard to remove it, as history has shown.

1019
The noble Lord referred to the accession of Mr. Gorbachev to the Soviet leadership. It is, of course, a new and important element in the international situation. We are told, and no doubt we shall be reminded by speakers in this debate, that this will make no difference whatever and that the ideological war, with all its appurtenances, will be pursued as before. Yesterday The Times leader, a powerful leader, took that view very strongly. I am a little more optimistic than that. I cannot but think that an able and comparatively young leader from a different generation may in due course develop a new approach. One sentence in his address to the Foreign Affairs Committee in the House of Commons on 18th December gave some hope of this. He said:
"The Soviet Union needs to implement its huge development programmes".
Everyone knows that what he said is true and that the Soviet Union has huge economic problems to resolve.
Commenting on Mr. Gorbachev's visit, Pravda said that,
"Mr. Gorbachev's visit [to the United Kingdom] moved the barometer of relations a little bit towards realism",
and that it has also opened up trade links which,
"would make a major contribution towards the improvement of the overall climate of Soviet-British relations".
We must certainly not forget the possibilities of trade. Of course, the move towards realism mentioned by Pravda applies to both sides.
Things are said and written by Soviet leaders which show that profound differences remain between us. There are many recent examples. For example, the late President Brezhnev said only a few years ago:
"The world outlook and class aims of socialism and capitalism are opposite and irreconcilable".
He was dividing the world into two—them and us. I do not think that he would have been greatly moved by the mixed economy or by the welfare state, which we on this side support. If we are to be realistic, as the Russians themselves advocate, we need to be reminded of this from time to time. However, I think that Mr. Gorbachev is realistic and he will know that we in this country are deeply committed to our system of government.
That is the first lesson which must be learnt. To understand this they must forget about capitalism for a moment—it is a profoundly misleading word, anyway—and recognise that the economic policies of this country are not the law of the Medes and Persians (we have too many sudden changes for that), that we are a parliamentary democracy based on free elections, and that we are not going to abandon that system for anyone or anything. We wish Mr. Gorbachev every success in his enormous task. If he proceeds with the realism that Pravda detected, there is no reason why better relations should not be achieved between us.
Forty years have passed since VE Day and Yalta and the Western allies have accepted since then, as the noble Lord said, that force should not be resorted to in upsetting regimes that we do not particularly like. In Europe, since the lines were drawn, the Russians have observed the same ordinance. There have been strains and stresses, but on the whole peace in Europe has been preserved. Because the Soviet Union no more
1020
wants nuclear war than the rest of us it has not moved beyond the point where war becomes a real risk. The Soviet leaders, or some of them, have certainly accepted the possibility of what is called peaceful co-existence. That is clearly what we should all be working for. However, for it to become a reality both sides must play the game. The Charter of the United Nations must be observed and in the Security Council and other United Nations agencies East and West should be seen to be trying to work together to make the world a safer and better place. So far that has not happened. That, in itself, is a symptom of the lack of trust to which the noble Lord, Lord Home, referred.
Mr. Gorbachev may well be the Soviet leader for a very long time and we must not expect too much too soon. The noble Lord mentioned Helsinki, and he was right to do so. The one great question in our minds is whether Mr. Gorbachev will modify the Soviet attitude to human rights. This was the theme of the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Eastern Europe. As August will be the tenth anniversary of the Helsinki Agreement it was right that Sir Geoffrey Howe should stress the importance we attach to it. I hope that the human rights provisions will not be fudged by either side and that under Mr. Gorbachev we shall see some real advances. Progress on this point and at Geneva will create a new atmosphere.
The noble Lord referred to Afghanistan. A new Soviet initiative here would also change attitudes. Whatever the arguments—and Afghanistan did not pose any threats to anyone—the fact is that the United Nations' report referred to by the noble Lord shows a grim picture of death, suffering and destruction on a huge scale, as well as one of the biggest refugee movements in history, estimated at about 4 million people, or one-third of the population of Afghanistan.
Let me say this. We know that the Soviet Union is apprehensive about its frontiers. It has always been apprehensive about its frontiers. Its history and the dreadful experiences of the last war, with its appalling losses, have made the Soviet Union suspicious. I shall never forget the impression made on me when, with a number of noble Lords and members of another place, I visited Russia a few years ago, and the impression we received when we visited Leningrad and the cemetery where 2 million people are buried. That effect on the people of Leningrad and of Russia remains in the strongest possible way in their minds and in their hearts. It has made them nervous and suspicious. That in itself is a big obstacle in the effort to create confidence, but we must also say in honesty that it is no excuse for the invasion of Afghanistan, and an initiative by Mr. Gorbachev to withdraw Russian troops in a phased withdrawal would be a great step towards reducing international tension.
If there is a weakness in the noble Lord's Motion it is that he has been fairly silent about the policies of the West. Your Lordships would think that the United States and the rest of us are as white as the driven snow. We know that that is not so and that mistakes are made which weaken our case when it comes to human rights. Intervention in other countries as well is an obstacle. It is a fact that the policies of our friend and ally, the United States, in Central America, especially in relation to Nicaragua, have weakened her position. Of course, we recognise her interest in the

1021
area; but her handling of the situation has undoubtedly laid her open to criticism. The involvement of the CIA on behalf of the Contras has been widely condemned in America itself as a deliberate action to bring down a popularly-elected government. The administration may not like that government, but on all the evidence it has wide popular support. Professor Jacobson, a leading Central American expert, said this in his evidence to Congress:
"Nicaragua may be Marxist-dominated and she may be inclined to authoritarianism but she is not yet a Soviet satellite".
The obvious danger, feared by so many in America and by so many in the West, is that present policies will in fact push Nicaragua into the arms of the Soviets and end up by making her a satellite.
There are those who argue that it is better to support Right-wing dictators than risk communist totalitarianism and that there is no other choice. I have heard speeches along those lines made in your Lordships' House. Personally, I see little to choose between a Right-wing concentration camp and a Left-wing concentration camp. Mercifully, that is not the choice before us. If steps are taken in good time, friends can be made of potential enemies, as this country knows from its own experience. If we cease to believe that, then Heaven help us!
The Sandinistas and the Contras represent an aspect of the problem which faces the West, and we must hope that the current argument proceeding in Washington will result in some constructive solution which will lead to stability in Central America. The Government has indicated support for the Contadora group, and perhaps when the Minister winds up he will tell us how they fared at the meeting in Panama on 12th and 13th April.
The noble Lord's Motion also refers to "intervention in the internal affairs of other countries". We know that this goes on to a greater or lesser degree on both sides, save that it is a good deal easier to try in the West on the whole than in the East. On the security side, we have, as the noble Lord said, had experience of this again in the past few days. Like him, I do not propose to deal with it in any detail. It is safe to hope that this incident is not going to interfere with the broader objectives. We know that there are some people in this country who would like to change the system and do away with parliamentary democracy, who perhaps prefer a one-party state or an authoritarian regime. They exist on both sides of the political spectrum, and they work hard to obtain positions of influence in key organisations. They did this before the war, as we well recall.
In my view, it is important that we should know who they are and that we should deal with their arguments. Perhaps we should be more positive and active in explaining the merits or, even more, the goodness of our own system. We should have more faith in our own system. This is a free country, and the extreme Right and the extreme Left enjoy privileges here which they would certainly not enjoy in the countries they purport to admire. But we must not become too obsessed with this subject. The instincts of the British people on the whole are sound, and at the end of the day they show this when they come to voting in general elections.
1022
I now end with two points: the Geneva disarmament talks and the possibility of a summit meeting. The first stage of the disarmament talks ends today, and we would appreciate some comment from the Minister upon their progress. Apart from preliminary proposals, we know that not a great deal was expected at this stage. The propaganda which has grown in the course of the past few weeks has not been helpful. We had the Russian proposal for a freeze of SS.20s until November and the American response claiming that Russia has begun to test SSX.28s. In addition to that, the strategic defence initiative has dominated the scene. One really does have the feeling that a little quiet talking would be much appreciated. I understand that certain aspects of the Russian proposals have been kept confidential. If that is true, then I am very glad of it. Without giving any details, perhaps the noble Lord can confirm whether or not this is the case, and whether there may be progress of which we are not aware in this direction. There will now be a break of about five weeks before the talks recommence during which both sides will be able to make an assessment of the position. I agree with Lord Home's remarks, about the new techniques of verification, which should be a matter of careful discussion—and quiet discussion, if I may say so—in the talks at Geneva.
The final point that I have to make is very relevant to this question of disarmament. That is, the meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan which now seems likely when Mr. Gorbachev attends the United Nations General Assembly in the autumn. One swallow does not make a summer; but the meeting could be a start and could lead to further and more constructive meetings. They could also influence the Geneva talks which, unless they do intervene, could drift on inconclusively for years. The leadership, especially in the Soviet Union, must show that it wants to make a move in the right direction. We all know what should be done. The expenditure of both the Soviet Union and the United States in particular—and the rest of us for that matter—on armaments when each could destroy the other several times over is wicked, especially when we consider the problems of world hunger in Ethiopia and the Sudan, the terrible problems of disease internationally in so many parts of the world, and the immense refugee problem which we recently debated in this House. We know that a reduction of 5 per cent. alone in armaments on both sides could help to go a long way towards resolving these tremendous problems. Perhaps that is too much to expect, but we can at least point the way and hope that a meeting between Mr. Gorbachev and President Reagan will produce some goodwill and create the confidence and trust which, unhappily, does not exist at the present time. We must hope that sanity and common sense will at the end of the day prevail.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I find myself in considerable agreement with a great deal of what the noble Lord, Lord Home, said in moving the Motion which so happily stands in his name today. That is especially so about what he said on arms limitation and in a general way about the desirability of our standing up in the West for our ideals and our policies in what I am afraid is still a kind of continuing cold war, which, in spite of all our efforts, unhappily divides

1023
the East and the West at the present time. With your Lordships' permission, however, I should myself prefer to limit my rather brief remarks to a consideration of the background to the whole problem which confronts us today.
It is commonly said, and it is doubtless true, that our relations with the Soviet Union can never be good in the sense of being in any way normal, if only because of the fact that the Soviet Government officially adheres to the Marxist-Leninist doctrine that any free market, capitalist or even social democratic system is doomed and must inevitably be replaced, as a result of a class war, by some kind of totalitarian system, favoured and encouraged to the limits of prudence and opportunity by the Soviet Union itself.
Though that is true, must we believe that such an intransigent doctrine as that is genuinely held by the leaders of the Soviet Union and that it consistently and alone inspires their foreign policy? After all, the reports that we get are that communism is no longer regarded as a tenable philosophy by the vast majority of Russians, more particularly in the younger generation. On the contrary, all the evidence is that they put up with an oligarchic tyranny partly because they have never known anything else and partly because, I fear, that it is, so to speak, in the Russian character to regard a strong and ruthless authoritarian rule as something acceptable in the nature of things. If we do not therefore believe that Marx-Leninism is solely responsible for the actions of the Politburo, why do they behave as if it were?
The answer, I think, is partly nationalist pride and partly fear. The Russians, though greatly influenced by the West over the centuries, have, with a few exceptions, never liked it or felt themselves to be part of it. Look at Solzhenitsyn or Stalin's daughter. They seem to feel that there is something decadent or corrupt about Western society—genuinely, I think—which must result in its ultimate collapse. That is probably what they mean when they talk about the "contradictions" in the Western way of life. That is the subconscious feeling, I think, of a good many Russians. However backward in many ways, "Holy Russia" must somehow be destined to lead humanity on to better things.
At the same time they undoubtedly fear the West, which was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn; and with good reason. First the Swedes, then the French and twice the Germans—all three accompanied by many European allies—invaded the famous "Rodina", as they call it, on the last occasion occupying most of it, almost succeeding in imposing an alien way of life and killing about 20 million Russians in the process. It is perfectly true that all Western invasions of Russia have in their turn been, to a greater or lesser extent, due to a desire to halt and reverse what was seen as a constant Russian urge to dominate Russia's immediate neighbours—Caucasian, Turkish, Eastern European or Central Asian. But I doubt whether many Russians of any political persuasion would look at it in that way, especially since the West now centres round the immense power of the United States.
They therefore try to take advantage of any weaknesses that they perceive in our system. And, it is
1024
not, after all, as if there were no motes in our own eye. I think that point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. If we reproach them for their disregard of elementary human rights—and the Foreign Secretary has recently very properly, if only indirectly, been doing that—they can point to our vast unemployment, our inner city miseries and violence and our often rather neglected poor. I am told, for instance, that there are no fewer than 30 million Americans now living well below the poverty line.
If we condemn their invasion of Afghanistan, they can reply, however unjustifiably, with Vietnam and possibly one day with some military action in Latin America. In other words, they will seek in such ways to justify their apallingly inefficient system because they fear the results if they do not. It must surely be at least one of our objectives to reduce such fear, if we can, without in any way prejudicing our position. It is not in any case as if threats will succeed in loosening the military hold which they exercise over their unfortunate satellites in Eastern Europe; very much the reverse.
The present parlous condition of the so-called third world, more especially in Africa and South America, is a case in point. It may be that even the Russian leaders no longer have much confidence that the installation of a communist "Marx-Leninist" system in those countries would be to the general, or even to their own, advantage. One has only to see what has actually happened in the countries in which that experiment has been carried out, such as Ethiopia, Vietnam, Southern Yemen, Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Guinea or even Tanzania in a way. Cuba, which has admittedly progressed in some ways from a social point of view, is hardly an exception since it is kept afloat by enormous Soviet subsidies and has in addition a very low standard of living. Libya, of course, for its part disposes of enormous oil monies.
However, the simple fact that the mass of the people in many of the developing countries—perhaps chiefly owing to over-population—are pretty desperate makes dangerous unrest very probable unless steps somehow are taken to improve their lot. Thus the mirage of communism still makes an appeal, rightly or wrongly, the Soviet Union, however absurdly, often being regarded as a friend in need. It is obvious that the Russians will take advantage of that if they can. After Vietnam they chanced their arm to a considerable extent but also got into some difficulties. Now I believe that they are, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Home, said, rather on the defensive and will no doubt be more cautious, though their prospects of profiting from any real disorders will naturally remain.
What should we do? We are faced with a dilemma. Do we automatically take the side of what I might perhaps call the "contras" in any future disturbances in the third world, whether or not we suspect these of having been fomented partly by the Soviet Union; or do we rather try first of all to prevent such situations from arising by intelligent trade and aid policies, and, failing that, try to leave the contestants to fight it out among themselves? Are there in any case, and whatever view one may take on the issue, certain things which the West ought to do, if only in our own interests?

1025
Surely the first thing is clearly to put our own house in order so as, if possible, to prevent anarchy from prevailing in the third world, resulting in some general repudiation of debts and consequently increased economic distress both in the debtor countries and in the lender lands themselves, from which only the Soviet Union can possibly benefit. No doubt, what with over-population and over-lending following the oil embargo of 1973, a completely reasonable solution of this world problem is not now possible. But always supposing that the rich countries of the West were prepared to face a certain drop in their standard of living, funds could, in theory, be accumulated which, if properly disposed of, could result in an increase in trade with the poorer states, and thus possibly both avert or diminish the spread of unrest and result in an easing of the burden of indebtedness.
Our last debate on that important subject did indeed demonstrate, I think, that much aid has in the past been wasted; but that does not mean that real sacrifices on the part of the richer countries are not necessary. For instance, if we just stopped making most of our sugar from our locally grown beet and imported cane sugar instead, there would be a tremendous improvement in North-South relations generally. What, however, I believe most people on this side of the Atlantic—and I think that I have here the support of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn—would in any case hold to be misguided would be attempts to suppress dangerous unrest by physical or military means. It is true that circumstances may arise in which the United States may feel impelled to make such intervention in Central America. That does not look very likely at the moment, but it is always possible. I believe that some persons with snow on their boots have already been discovered lurking in the Nicaraguan jungle! If that should happen, there is obviously very little that we can do about it without endangering the alliance on which our whole future depends. The Russians could not do much about it, either.
However, it is surely unlikely that after Vietnam, any United States Administration, with the consent of Congress, would contemplate any such action elsewhere in the world, even if they should contemplate it there. This is one of the chief points I want to make. I hope, indeed, that most of your Lordships will agree that unrest in most underdeveloped countries is not primarily due to Soviet machinations, though this will certainly help, but it is chiefly an indigenous phenomenon resulting from intolerable conditions of existence which we must do our best, if we can, to relieve.
Of course we must always do our best to counter, and if possible render ineffective, all insidious efforts by the Soviet Government or their agents—and there are many—to encourage discontent in our own or any other countries and to undermine our democratic institutions, whether by direct propaganda or by penetration of such bodies as trade unions, so-called peace movements, or even certain universities and schools. I think that later in the debate my noble friend Lord Mayhew may make some remarks on this aspect, because he is an expert on the subject.
We must also resist, to the limit of our power, any new offensives which the Soviet Government may
1026
encourage in South-East Asia or elsewhere. All I am suggesting is this. What I might call negative efforts in the direction of resisting Soviet machinations, however necessary, are less likely to be successful in the long run than positive efforts primarily designed to make our own system, either internally or in the free world as a whole, at least work more satisfactorily than it appears to be working at the present time.
The second major thing the West could do, and I believe must do unless we are going to run a fearful risk, is, pending disarmament, to bring our conventional defences up to a point at which they might reasonably be supposed to be capable of holding any conventional Soviet assault in Europe until such time as reinforcements could be expected to arrive. This would be on the assumption that for obvious reasons it would not be in the interests of either side to have first recourse to nuclear weapons. In order to obtain the money for such an obvious precaution there must also surely be a reduction in expenditure -on nuclear weapons, such as our own Trident programme, and notably an abandonment of the pursuit of nuclear superiority inescapably inherent in star wars—I repeat that: the pursuit of nuclear superiority inherent in star wars—and even in the determination to match the Soviet Union missile for missile. What on earth is the point of theoretical nuclear equality if one already has complete ability to wipe out the adversary, if necessary, on a second strike? It just does not make any sense.
Unfortunately, at the moment it looks as though neither of these basic moves on the part of the West—that is to say, in shorthand, Brandt and conventional re-armament—is very probable. Thus the danger is that the stresses and strains afflicting Western governments, together with a perceived military weakness on the conventional side, might one day tempt the Soviet Government, more especially in the event of failure at Geneva, to embark on some risky move. However, for the moment, what may we reasonably expect the Soviet Government to do under its new leadership? This is a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. Always assuming that without abandoning its principles (which I do not think it can do) it would, in its own interests, like to reduce tension and hence what might even be held to be a long-term danger to itself, what may it be expected to do?
I may be wrong, but I should expect Mr. Gorbachev, at least pending the outcome of negotiations at Geneva, to be pretty cautious about—to use the words of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—exploiting any economic or social problems that, always failing some initiative such as that I have described, I fear are only too likely to become acute in many developing countries. Soviet aid to Cuba continues to be a considerable strain on the Soviet economy, and though military aid to Ethiopia, South Yemen, Iraq, India and Angola, and possibly also Vietnam, though I am not quite certain whether they will go on giving arms to the Vietnamese, will no doubt be continued. It seems unlikely to be extended to cover other states. In fact, it seems almost impossible that it should be; almost certainly not in Latin America.

1027
Even in Afghanistan we may perhaps expect an effort to come to terms with the Mujaheddin (or some of them) on condition, conceivably, that they no longer receive arms from the West. Perhaps; but I fear that the chances are that the Soviet occupation there will remain a dangerous irritant in East-West relations for many years to come. The only consolation, if consolation it be, is that Russian experience in Afghanistan may dissuade the Soviet Government from embarking on similar adventures anywhere else in the world.
What, then, is the general moral which we should draw? Surely it is that, while we cannot expect to have normal or friendly relations with Russia under Soviet leadership, we can, if we are sensible, at least expect to be able to live with her. By "sensible", I mean that we—and by "we" I mean the whole Atlantic group—must reinforce our own position, both economic and strategic—I repeat, both economic and strategic—in the world, without ever giving the Russians the impression that we aim to place them in such a position of inferiority that they will eventually either have to promote a confrontation or submit to some kind of Western cultural domination. We must never give that impression.
Will they ever abandon or modify their disastrous totalitarian principles and go in for a limited free market economy, as to some extent the Chinese now seem to be doing? I suppose that they will not do this for many years, though it looks as though their system is one day doomed to break down as being so inherently inefficient. However, a reversion to the new Economic Policy, or NEP, which flourished in the early 'twenties, and, as we know, allowed a certain amount of non-state trading, would indeed be a welcome portent. If, by any chance, it coincided with some modification of the existing economic system in the West, that would undoubtedly signal a change in the whole world political set-up. It would be a kind of reversal of values, an Umwertung aller Werte, of which Nietzche dreamt! We ourselves shall not live to see such a development, but perhaps the coming generation may.
4.8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I should like to add my word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for initiating this debate today. My noble friend has of course long experience in the highest offices of the land, including a distinguished record as Foreign Secretary. But he also has been specifically involved in East-West affairs. It was, for instance, in his time at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that the initial discussions leading up to the opening of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe (the CSCE) took place. In his speech at the opening meeting in Helsinki my noble friend—though I am not sure that he was my noble friend then, because I think it was before he returned to your Lordships' House—in July 1973 said some words which are relevant to our debate today:
"good relations depend on trust. What has been so conspicuously lacking during recent European history has been mutual trust, faith in each other's intentions … What we seek is genuine, continuing and increasing co-operation as the normal condition of Europe's life in the future".
1028
The Motion calls attention to the desire of the United Kingdom and other Western democracies for better relations with the Soviet Union. This is, indeed, an accurate reflection of the Government's policy, and I believe it is one which enjoys support from all parts of the political spectrum in this country. We are all only too painfully aware that woven into the fabric of relations between the West and the Soviet Union are questions affecting our security, the stability of our societies and ultimately the survival of the human race.
We cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that, whether we like it or not, the nuclear arsenals of the super powers are sufficient to blow us all to kingdom come. Thus, a great weight of responsibility rests upon the shoulders of the leaders of the United States and the Soviet Union. But it is a weight that we, as a member of the NATO Alliance, are proud to share.
Your Lordships will, of course, be conscious of the recent expulsion of five Soviet officials. I shall wish to return to this matter at the end of the debate. Questions of security, defence and arms control, however, cannot be allowed to become the only ingredients of what is a complex recipe.
In seeking better relations with the Soviet Union, the Governments of the West recognise this interrelationship. The basis on which we are seeking an improvement in relations was set out in the Harmel Report in 1967, which advocated a combination of sufficient strength plus dialogue. This was reiterated in different words by NATO Foreign Ministers in Washington last May which confirmed the continuing relevance of this philosophy to the 1980s.
On the Soviet side, there is a strong element of continuity. Policy develops slowly. We can only balance this effectively in the West if we, too, play a long game. We must be consistent. We must be patient but firm. We must, above all, be realistic. East-West relations cannot develop fast. It was one of the greatest misconceptions of the 1970s to believe, as some did, that the pace could be forced, that the rapid warming-up of relations would have a knock-on effect bringing about equally rapid changes within Eastern bloc societies and in the way policy was conducted by the Soviet Union. High expectations led to disappointments and disillusionment.
In the 1980s, we are more realistic. We do not have illusions about the Soviet Union, but at the same time we recognise that it is there to stay and that we must perforce have dealings with it if we are to carry out the responsibilities to which I referred earlier. The United Kingdom has indeed been active and vigorous in opening up a dialogue with the Soviet Union. Over the last year or so, we have had considerably more high-level contacts with the Soviet leadership than for many years past. We saw a brief visit by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister to Moscow for President Andropov's funeral; and again last month, for the funeral of President Chernenko. Indeed, it was the departure of our delegation to Moscow that led my noble friend graciously to propose that he might postpone his debate, for which we are most grateful to him. And there have been three meetings between my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary and Mr. Gromyko, including the first formal

1029
visit by a Foreign Secretary to Moscow for seven years, a successful joint economic and trade commission last summer, and, finally, the visit of Mr. Gorbachev last December.
High-level contacts like this are never going to change the world overnight. But they do create the opportunity for the fuller understanding which comes through personal contact. Mr. Gorbachev's visit gave an opportunity for parliamentarians as much as Ministers to make their views known. I believe this was of great benefit to both sides. We were given a full and clear acount of Soviet thinking at the highest level; and Mr. Gorbachev returned to Moscow with a wide range of impressions of this country and a sense of the variety which is the essence of our democratic tradition. This can only be of long-term benefit to East-West understanding.
But we should not be lulled into thinking that increases in contacts or deeper mutual understanding are going to change the nature of communism or of the underlying aim of Soviet policy. We must have no illusions in this respect. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister pointed out in her speech to the United States Congress in February, Soviet policy is underpinned by a firm belief in the ultimate triumph of socialism. The Russians continue to make efforts in this direction. They do believe in the ultimate superiority of their political philosophy. Their evaluation is supported, in their minds, by a quasi-scientific theory according to which the wheel of history moves inexorably towards communism—a curious hypothesis because the evidence is, frankly, lacking. Nonetheless, their theoretical certainty about the future is part of the reality we must face in dealing with the Soviet Union. It is a reality which should make us take both pride in, and care for, our democratic traditions.
There are various ways in which the Soviet Union seeks to spread its ideas and to extend its influence; to give the wheel of history a shove in the right direction if it is proving recalcitrant. The Motion today has drawn attention to two of them.
In the third world, the Soviet Union has always sought to portray itself as the true friend and natural ally of developing countries. It has posed as a major world power untainted by Western colonialism, disclaiming all responsibility for the origin of the economic problems of the third world. This posture was never convincing, and is becoming more and more threadbare with the passing of the years.
The Soviet Union has indeed succeeded in gaining numbers of footholds in the third world, in winning influence above all through the provision of arms and the tools of oppression. But as the developing countries have achieved stability and face the real world, aid based on armaments has seemed increasingly irrelevant to their needs. Napoleon said that an army could not sit on its bayonets. Neither, of course, can it eat them. The help which the third world so desperately needs—aid to build infrastructure, to build their economies, to supply their markets—is barely forthcoming from the Soviet Union to any but half a dozen client states who pay for the honour by the strictest subservience to Soviet policy and Marxist-Leninist theory.
1030
The Kremlin's record of economic aid to the majority of the third world is bleak. In 1983, for instance, apart from the half dozen closest allies of the Soviet Union, the rest of the third world actually repaid more to the Soviet Union as debt repayments than they received in aid. So it is not surprising that in the 1980s we have increasingly seen developing countries turning to the West. Significantly the latest country to sign the Lomé Convention is Mozambique; and we hope that Angola will shortly join her. It has been in southern Africa that we have seen most clearly the limits of what the Soviet Union can offer. Provided the West can continue to offer trade and aid on advantageous terms, I believe that this trend will continue. Instability in the third world may continue to offer opportunities to the Russians. But ultimately it will be new prosperity that will help to counter instability, not weapons or, even less, Marxist ideology.
The Motion also points to the problem of Soviet intervention in others' affairs. The Soviet Union, of course, protests vigorously and frequently about the interference of others in its internal affairs. However, when one examines the Soviet record in Eastern Europe and, for the last five years, in Afghanistan, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that double standards are being applied.
Of course, the Soviet Union does have legitimate security interests, and these are recognised and respected by the West. But this cannot be accepted as ranging so far as to allow it free rein to dictate the policies and alignments of other independent countries. The whole history of its Afghan involvement is nothing more than blatant latter-day colonialism tainted with lies and misrepresentation: and the Afghan people have made clear their view of the present situation by voting—to use a phrase coined, oddly enough, by Lenin—with their feet. Nearly a quarter of that unfortunate country's population lives outside its borders.
The Soviet Union is also an assidious propagandist. It puts across its view of the world in unbelievable profusion. For example, it broadcasts for 2,168 hours in 81 languages every week. And a sizeable portion of its national wealth is dedicated to this purpose. There is, of course, no objection to any government putting their views across on the airwaves. To a greater, or mainly lesser, extent we all do it. But in the Soviet case, desire to put over its own case is accompanied by an equal desire not to let the greater mass of its own population hear any of the counter-arguments. It is only those who can understand English, and therefore the BBC World Service, who can hear British views from the horse's mouth. As to the Russian Service of the BBC, this has been more or less continuously jammed. Ironically, it is calculated that it must cost more to jam the reception of this service in parts of the Soviet Union than it does to run the whole BBC External Services. The only jamming device needed in the West against the blandishments of Moscow Radio is the on/off switch.
We deplore this jamming of Western broadcasts by the Soviet Union, and we look forward to the day when there is a greater sense of self-confidence to allow a more open and therefore better informed debate in that country.

1031
There is no objection to Radio Moscow beaming as many broadcasts as are allowed by the relevant international conventions at the West. That is propaganda, but it comes clearly labelled and packaged as such. What is more dubious, and potentially more dangerous, is the funding and encouragement by the Russians of organisations operating in the West which purport to be independent but which are in reality thinly disguised instruments of Soviet foreign policy. The most senior of the international communist front organisations is the World Peace Council but there are many others; and I may touch on some of these in my concluding remarks.
Provided that we are aware of what is going on, I do not believe that these front organisations represent a threat with which the democratic West with its open societies and its free debates cannot cope. Our press are always on the lookout to spot a budding front organisation and a number of papers have a commendable record in bringing their activities and the realities behind them into the public gaze. On occasion the Government themselves step in to ensure that their activities are not given free rein and that this country does not become the unwitting host to major Soviet propaganda jamborees. We have already this year refused visas to senior members of the World Peace Council and the World Federation of Trade Unions. And of course debates of the kind initiated by my noble friend today can play their part in drawing public attention to these issues.
All these factors which I have mentioned form the realities which are part of our dealings with the Soviet Union. I believe it would be naive to expect early or significant changes. And your Lordships have too long an experience of these matters to expect otherwise yourselves.
In the end, we come back to the essentials. We live on one planet with those to whom we are ideologically opposed. But we share a common interest with all fellow inhabitants of this planet in ensuring its survival. There are ties of interreliance between East and West which will only become stronger as we move into an era of faster moving communications and technology. We therefore have real interests in better relations with the Soviet Union that are deeper than the simple Elysian hope of a better world. We cannot afford misunderstandings in a nuclear age. And in order to prevent them we need more frequent communication and the greater understanding of each other's positions—however different they may be. A sustained dialogue based on realism and a dispassionate assessment of mutual interests can and should play its part in fostering this. And it is in this spirit that the Government will continue their efforts, in partnership with their allies and the Ten, to seek a better relationship between East and West.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister why he has adopted such a hostile attitude towards Russia? He is perhaps too young to remember that there was a time in fairly recent years when we were both allies. I had a Russian cousin who fought and died for this country. Therefore, I know a little about it. Why was the noble Lord so hostile? What have they done to us that we have not done to them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I can only say to the noble Baroness that I have to take the world as I find it and not as I would wish it to be.
4.25 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, in her gracious Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Session of Parliament, Her Majesty the Queen said:
"With the allies of the United Kingdom, my Government will contribute to arms control and disarmament negotiations and will work for the resumption of negotiations where these have been broken off. They will work continually for a greater atmosphere of trust between East and West".—[Official Report, 6/11/84; col. 1.]
In welcoming that pledge, I ventured to say in the debate on the Address that there was no more important sentence in the Speech, for it indicated that the Government were ready to take a global view. Moreover, as most of our present-day problems are global problems, they can only be tackled by effective and sustained international co-operation. I am grateful to the noble Minister for his reiteration of the Government's commitment to this policy in his speech this afternoon.
Today, we on these Benches very especially welcome the strong, positive affirmation in the Motion moved by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, about:
"the desire of Britain and other western democracies to seek better relations with the Soviet Union".
Reference has already been made in several speeches this afternoon to the new opportunities before us, at the present time, as a result of the recent change of the leadership of the Soviet Union. I believe that this behoves us to look very carefully at the language we use in the West when we talk about the peoples and nations of the East.
Dag Hammarskjold once said:
"Respect for the word—to employ it with scrupulous care and an incorruptible heartfelt love of truth is essential if there is to be any growth in a society or in the human race. To misuse the word is to show contempt for men. It undermines the bridges and poisons the wells".
That means, I would suggest, that we must beware of false images of the enemy which can be a form of idolatory, and that we must also avoid inflated propagandist rhetoric which is a form of false witness as well as usually being futile.
The noble Lord, Lord Ramsey of Canterbury, once said, in addressing the East German head of state:
"To turn cold war into cold peace is not enough; we must move towards a warm peace".
The Churches in East and West are concerned with warming up the peace by using their unique position to help in bridging the rift which threatens not only the quality of global life, but life itself. However, it is essential to remember, as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury recently reminded the British Council of Churches:
"that unless a bridge is attached to both banks it is a pretty useless edifice".
We can take heart, I believe, from the strength of the multilateral and bilateral links between the Churches of East and West and of their deeper awareness of their common Christian heritage. In 1988 the Russian Orthodox Church will be celebrating the millenium of

1033
the beginning of the conversion of Russia to Christianity. It is a matter of no surprise that they are making their plans in consultation with other Churches, for it is commonplace today for the Russian Church to work with other Churches, both in the World Council of Churches and in the European Council. At the same time there is a continuing dialogue in the theological discussions between the Anglican and the Orthodox Churches, as well as in the Lutheran World Federation and the Baptist World Alliance.
The promotion of greater understanding is integral to Christian ministry, but there is no quick and easy road to success. Even partial reconciliation is inevitably a costly process calling for patience and what the Bible calls "long suffering". The British Council of Churches experienced this recently in the course of a debate on a statement entitled, On Building Bridges in a Threatened World. Eventually the council reaffirmed its commitment to the human rights programme and to the deepening of trust between East and West. It also decided to invite the World Council of Churches to discuss questions affecting human rights in both East and West. I am glad to say that that invitation has been accepted.
Like the United Nations, founded 40 years ago in 1945, the World Council of Churches was formally inaugurated in 1948, after having been in the process of formation for nearly ten years. It so happens that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, the Lord Chancellor, and I were both among the 20 delegates of the Church of England at the First Assembly of the Council in Amsterdam 37 years ago. He will remember, as I do most vividly, that the World Council was far less representative of Christendom than it is today, for now the Russian Orthodox Church is in full membership and the Roman Catholic Church is associated informally in many areas of study and of humanitarian service. If the council betrays some of the weaknesses that are also apparent in a much more representative United Nations, its strength lies in providing a continuing forum where East and West may meet. That may yet prove to be of inestimable value both for world peace and for the reunion of Christendom.
The veteran diplomat and churchman, Sir John Lawrence, estimates in his book called The Soviet State, which Chatham House published last year, that about half of the 270 million people in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics are religious believers. That is a higher proportion of people practising their religion than in this country.
The Keston College Journal, Religion in Communist Lands, has recorded the pilgrimages of several young Russians who grew up in atheist families and who, from Marxist convictions, have slowly found their way to Christianity. One of them wrote to a friend in 1976 saying:
"Russian culture today, while pushing its way out from under the rubble of terror, lies and delusions, has given birth to an intellectual ferment, which neither we nor the world expected".
If we in the West desire better relations with the Eastern nations we must, I believe, keep ourselves informed of such an intellectual ferment and of the considerable number of Jews and Moslems, as well as
1034
Christians, who are professing their faith in Russia today.
I believe that we must also do all that we can to maintain personal contacts and to promote cultural exchange at all levels. I accept what the Minister says about the long-term value of such exchanges affecting the internal policy of the Soviet Union, but if we are concerned with improvement in relations this surely must be an important part of our policy. I believe this includes increased support for the British Council and for the BBC's Foreign Service.
In January 1983 an interdenominational delegation from Russia visited the British Isles, and a return visit is being planned. Meanwhile, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells recently represented the Archbishop of Canterbury at a multi-faith conference on "Peace and the Sacred Gift of Life" organised by the Russian Churches in Moscow. He has recounted elsewhere (and I hope he will allow me to quote) how, on the second day of the conference, he found himself compelled to challenge a Soviet scientist who had been brought in to deliver a blanket tirade against the West. After what he called "an electric silence", the chairman agreed that he would arrange for the other viewpoint to be heard, which it duly was the next day from an American Lutheran bishop. That was a real beginning of the evenhandedness which is the necessary prequisite to the true dialogue of which the Minister spoke in his speech.
Those of us who were born during the first world war and who lived through the second have now lived more than half our lives in the subsequent 40 years during which the United Nations and its agencies have begun their slow growth and service to the world community. I hope that we in this House will have another opportunity when we can reflect upon that experience and express our hopes for the United Nations as well as our anxieties for its future. I say this because Her Majesty's Government are pledged to play a constructive role at the United Nations. It could well be that it will be in that context, rather than in so-called summit meetings, that our desire to seek better relations with the Soviet Union and to overcome the obstacles that have been placed in the way of obtaining that objective will best be furthered.
I should like to end by quoting from a stimulating statement of the Aspen Institute International Group on Managing East-West Conflict, with which leading members of all political parties are associated. It concludes with these words:
"We must be guided by an historical perspective and we must be prepared to pursue our objectives over a lengthy span. Our strategy of sustained engagement should be tested against events but not altered by every circumstance. It must be animated by a profound conviction that human beings can do what has to be done and by a spirit of co-operation in approaching these difficult problems".
I believe that to be a positive and forward-looking approach to this complex question of East-West relations. None of us on these Benches would wish to underestimate the difficulties or the dangers. Nor, as the 40th anniversary of D-day approaches, would we wish to forget the immense sacrifice made in the Second World War by those in both East and West, as we were reminded just now, nor the patient and continuing pilgrimage since 1945 towards that peace

1035
and justice for which we pray each time that this House meets, when (as your Lordships will remember) we ask Him,
"by whom alone Kings reign and Princes decree justice, and from whom alone cometh all wisdom and understanding … that He will send down his heavenly wisdom to direct and guide us in all our consultations".
4.41 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I would like to add my thanks for the wisdom and statesmanship with which the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, introduced this debate. In the interests or brevity, I shall not take up the various points which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester has made, and I rather hope that my noble friend Lord Lauderdale will deal with them later in the discussion. We all hope, of course, that the disarmament talks between the United States and the Soviet Union will bring an arms control agreement with firm verification. We continue with this hope despite the fact that every past agreement, particularly Helsinki, has been broken, rebroken and broken again. We must and will persist in the hope that a new regime in Moscow may emerge which will see the advantages of reducing their enormous arms expenditure and improving the standard of living of their people.
Perhaps the message to Russia from this debate is: "Your sincerity would be less suspect if you stopped training people from the free world to create dissent in their own countries and to destroy their own institutions". Perhaps the message for Britons is: "Study the form of those who seek your votes, whether they be in local government, parliamentary government, institutions or in the trade unions". I would add a regret that the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, who had hoped to take part in this debate and who has great knowledge of trade union elections and the way they go, unfortunately was struck down by the current virus 'flu and went to bed this morning. We also shall miss in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, who has had the same 'flu and went to hospital this morning. He would certainly have added spice and knowledge to the discussion.
The Soviets work through 13 international front organisations. Each one of these has a host of subunits, sometimes hundreds of sub-units, scattered all over the world. I will take the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, who in his opening speech said, "We should know who they are". So I shall briefly list these 13 organisations. I think that they need to be more widely known. They are: the World Federation of Trades Unions; the World Peace Council, which itself has 140 national branches; the World Federation of Democratic Youth, based in Budapest; the International Union of Students; the International Association of Democratic Lawyers; the Women's International Democratic Federation—and your Lordships will notice that they try to bring the word "democratic" into every title; the Afro—Asian People's Solidarity Association; the International Organisation of Journalists; the International Federation of Resistance Fighters; the World Federation of Scientific Workers; the International Institute for Peace, which is founded as a front for the World Peace Council; the Christian Peace Conference; and, lastly, the International Radio and TV Organisation.
1036
Each one of these spawns dozens of others, which contrive in different ways—some direct, some highly indirect and some so obscurely connected that they fool many worthy and honourable folk. All these 13 are Soviet inspired and Soviet subsidised. In 1979 the US Government estimated that the Soviets spent overseas 63 million dollars on international organisations of this type—45 million dollars of which, incidentally, was spent on peace organisations. That sum is now considerably higher. Until 1973, the Labour Party compiled a proscribed list. I think that that did the whole nation a lot of good. It is a pity that the front organisations are now much less well known than they were in 1973. Its abolition under Left-wing pressure was a sad day for all of us. I think it may have led to the giving of ground to the policies of the hard-Left, which is to the detriment of the great and traditional Labour Party which we have known in the past.
I now turn to the question of how you subvert people of different nations. The Soviets do it through instruction in training camps. The USSR gathers and trains students and trade unionists from all over the free world. Within the Soviet Union, the Central Committee of the Communist Party controls two institutions, The Lenin Institution and the Patrice Lumumba University, where instruction is given in all methods of psychological warfare and subversive use of the media, as well as Marxist-Leninist ideology. From there, the students move to training camps dotted around Russia: one in Vaku, one in Tashkent, one in Odessa and one in Simferopol in the Crimea. Other camps exist in Czechoslovakia, in Bulgaria, in Hungary and in East Germany. East Germany, because of its geographical position, has served as the link-up for the students once their basic courses are complete. There are others in countries such as Cuba, North Korea, Lebanon, South Yemen, Libya and Algeria. These are the camps where young people are trained in far more brutal forms of subversion, in terrorism and in assassination. The IRA get their training from these latter sources.
I now turn to the World Peace Council and its links. Until the Labour Party list of proscribed organisations was abolished, it was actually impossible even to be a member of the Labour Party if you belonged to the World Peace Council. How different it is today when the deputy leader of the Labour group in Europe, Mr. Alfred Lomas, MEP, is a WPC member. James Lamond, MP, is the British vice-president of the WPC and at least four other Labour MPs are members. The British end of the WPC is called the British Peace Assembly. Its secretary, Jean Pavett, is a communist with a long history of WPC activity and its president is Mr. Lamond, MP. Its monthly newsheet is edited by a holder of the Lenin Peace Prize, Mr. Gordon Schaffer. It consistently attacks NATO and the USA at every opportunity while accepting the Soviet initiatives in international affairs at face value.
One would have thought that the appeal of such an outfit as this to the average trade unionist would be totally non-existent. This is not true of their leaders, since several TUC leaders are concerned. Among its sponsors, the British Peace Assembly lists such substantial figures as Ray Buckton, of ASLEF, Bill Keys of SOGAT, Ken Brett of AUEW, Ken Gill of

1037
AUEW (Tars), Tim Slater of the Seamen's Union and Alec Kitson of the TGWU who is also a member of the World Peace Council. The man who was chosen last year as general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union was Ron Todd. He is not only CND vice-president—a position, I think, enjoyed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, a little time ago—but he also attended the World Peace Council's Prague Peace Assembly in 1983. It is encouraging that political leaders, including Mr. Kinnock, have recently come out for a re-run of the Transport and General Workers' election which put Mr. Ron Todd in the top position.
In 1984, it was revealed in the British press that the 11-man F and GP Committee of the TGWU had, without consulting its 1½ million members—it is a massive union—agreed to affiliate that union with the British Peace Assembly. Your Lordships will understand how the World Peace Council publications gloated over this move. The vast majority of TGWU members are robust moderates. We saw this in the way that the lorry drivers and the dockers refused to support Mr. Scargill's strike. They would be horrified if they knew that this commitment had been made to the British Peace Assembly. This British branch is pledged by its constitution to support the peace initiative of the Kremlin's World Peace Council.
Your Lordships will remember that it was the World Peace Council which launched the world-wide campaign to stop the USA making the neutron bomb. Following that success, they have now turned their propaganda against Mr. Reagan's decision to go on with the research for what are now called the star wars. One has to admire their astonishing organising ability. When the neutron bomb issue was a live one the WPC showed their ability to get instant demonstrations going in places as far apart as Istanbul, Accra, Stuttgart, Frankfurt, Dusseldorf, Lima, Tanzania and elsewhere. That shows a pretty good organisation, and a pretty good number of cells scattered around, to be able to achieve that at the drop of a hat. The growing influence of the British Peace Assembly is reflected by the fact that 18 trades unions and the Scottish TUC are understood to have affiliated to it.
What about the training and finance for subversion? It was in July 1983 that the NUM decided, under Mr. Scargill's leadership, to send 25 members on an indoctrination course to the International Department of the Higher School of Trades Unions in Moscow. I am quoting from the Socialist Worker of the 9th July. The school has 12,000 students and the normal course lasts four or five years, but the special crash course for Western students is compressed into a month. The school's spokesman, Mr. Zayaesky, has said:
"We have never had a failure yet, and the 25 NUM nominees will all go home with one of our diplomas."
Their expenses of course are fully paid by the Soviet Union.
Three weeks ago the Sunday Express reported that a further 50 young miners were going, with their wives, to the same course. A member of the NUM Executive said that Mr. Scargill had disclosed that he had personally attended the Moscow school some years ago. I read in yesterday's Morning Star that the 50 young miners who have gone on this course are
1038
currently enjoying themselves at Sochi on the Black Sea. This type of training goes on not only in Russia but also in Cuba, where it has been continuing for many years, under Soviet control. Mr. Scargill, who has made many visits to that country, is reported to have arranged for selected NUM activists to attend these Cuba courses. Surely this is further proof, if proof is needed, that the NUM are training and working for a continuing Marxist disruption. The end of the strike is not the end of Messrs. Scargill, McGahey and Heathfield or their trainees. The history of the coal strike has still to be written but I think we all agree that it was the most brutal, divisive and costly strike ever organised.
Last autumn the British press exposed the role of the so-called Peace Fund in channelling finance into the miners' strike. It was no surprise to see that the unions of the Soviet bloc were very well represented at County Hall two months ago when a conference was held. The Soviet Union announced that they had handed over £1½ million to the strike funds. The Libyans said they had made considerable contributions. Mr. Scargill saw a great deal of the Soviet Embassy over many months and it is difficult to quantify the finance that he got from their trade organisations in Britain, or from Soviet bankers and Soviet insurance companies. They would of course have no difficulty in passing money to him. The main leader of The Times on 4th March said:
"at least £4 million in cash filtered out from Soviet sources through Czech intermediaries".
The giving of funds to United Kingdom trades unions may be considered crude; but perhaps more dangerous is the way that the Soviet line is disseminated through friendly United Kingdom journalists into our media. Most senior trade union figures have known for years Mr. Boris Averyarnov. He is the Soviet member of the WFTU's Secretariat, and he comes regularly to the United Kingdom to attend every TUC and every Scottish TUC meeting. He has a close liaison with the industrial correspondent of the Morning Star, Mr. Nick Costello. Of course, one would expect that. Mr. Costello has his own network of sympathetic journalists. It is not the stories in the Morning Star which are disturbing, and even sinister, but the way in which this Soviet disinformation is orchestrated and emerges, often in oblique form, in our serious press, like The Times, the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and their Sunday equivalents.
All sane Britons earnestly hope for a disarmament agreement, with firm verification. If nuclear, chemical and conventional explosives and their delivery systems can retain a rough balance between the Soviet empire and the free world, we may have another 40 years without a major European conflict.
Meanwhile, the Soviets are allotting more and more money and effort to training their agents in subversion and, more recently, in assassination. This debate may have shown the free world just what is being perpetrated, directly and indirectly, by the Soviet leadership and their supporters worldwide. Let us earnestly hope that Mr. Gorbachev will try to rebuild the trust on which better relations are utterly dependent.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to indulge in two introductory observations. The first is that we were able, at the outset of the debate, with comparative ease to dispense with the customary congratulations. Obviously, the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, is an exception. He has the highest respect of every Member of your Lordships' House and when he speaks we listen, because of his clarity, his experience and his understanding. It can be left there for the moment.
The other observation I wish to make is that I hope I may be excused if I do not remain until the end of this debate, which may last for a long time. I have no long-standing engagement, no dinner function and, obviously no longer a luncheon function. Indeed, any kind of function I try to avoid to the best of my ability. But as the day wears on I find myself confronted by a variety of ailments, for which even the medical profession has found no answer as yet. It requires a little concentration on my part simply because of anno Domini. I do not myself understand what anno Domini means, but I have read about it in some periodicals and I believe that it has some reference to old age, although when a matter of old age is referred to me, I resent it very much indeed. There it can be left.
So far we have had speeches from at least seven or eight distinguished Members of your Lordships' House. I make no complaint of any of them. They have confirmed our sentiments, our principles, our innate convictions, our life style, our basic and fundamental beliefs and what-have-you. We are all very glad to have these matters confirmed to us. Indeed, what has appeared to me in most of the debate is that we are convincing ourselves, but failing completely to do anything to convince the Russians, which is the purpose of the debate.
What is the purpose of the debate? It is to prepare the Committee of Ten, or something of that sort, with the United Kingdom leading the other nations when we meet some of the Soviet leaders at Ottawa and discuss the Final Act of Helsinki or something of that kind. At any rate the intention is to try to make some progress. That is the purpose of the debate; but very little has been done in that direction so far this afternoon, except to confirm our own conviction that we are on the right path ourselves. But we have to do more than that. We have to convince the Russians and their satellite countries that they are on the wrong path. But if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, I do not think that by talking about their misdemeanours, and appearing to be condemnatory of their activities in general, we shall make a great deal of progress.
The fact of the matter is that we must recognise that something happened very many years ago in 1917, when there was a revolution. It was not at all the kind of revolution that I had envisaged years before when I joined the independent Labour movement of the time. Our idea of a revolution was to protest against social injustice, injustice about unemployment, injustice about the slums, injustice about the poverty trap, injustice about the class divisions of society and so on and then, as a first step, by democratic means to seek
1040
access to Parliament. We did not bother much about the Lords at that time. In order to do that we had to have a democratic complexion out of which would develop the kind of society we wanted; a rather better society than had existed before then.
That was our conception of revolution; but the Russians had a different idea. For many years they had been seeking revolution by means of assassination. They sought to destroy many of the tsarist dynasties. They were engaged in war with many other countries—with Austria and with their hereditary enemy, Germany, and they had very little respect for the United Kingdom after what had happened in one war that occurred, in which we were not altogether successful despite the efforts of the Duke of Wellington. They had that situation to contend with.
But a revolution occurred, and it would be wrong for anybody in your Lordships' House or outside it, or outside the political fence, to ignore the fact of that revolution. Something fundamental occurred, and it is the fundamental issues that have to be dealt with. What are they? There are some Members of your Lordships' House who think that the fundamental issues are of a military character, and I shall come to them a little later on. They are very important, but they are not fundamental issues at all, and neither are the social issues. For example, when we talk about developing trade with Russia, providing them with grain when they need it, coming to some financial arrangement with them, developing their industries, even in Siberia, and allowing some Scottish manufactured articles to go to Siberia, will that convince the Russians that they ought to adopt a different policy and change their fundamental principles? I regret to say that it will do nothing of the sort.
Please understand, my Lords, that in saying what I have just said I do not accept a single one of those issues, but what is the main one? I come to it right away, because it must be dealt with, whether we like it or not. There is a fundamental conviction in the West—in the United States of America, in Canada, now even in Spain, partly in Turkey and certainly in the United Kingdom and the countries surrounding us in the European sphere. We have built up and developed a natural law which is, to a large extent, ecclesiastical or theological in character.
Most of us have read the famous constitutional book by Herbert Agar, written many years ago about the American Constitution, and have read about Washington and how he began to develop a natural law based on evangelism or congregationalism, founded on a supreme being and creation as in the Old Testament and partly in the new Testament, with Jefferson, Adams and Lincoln following. We understand that in the West there is a fundamental issue. Our social activities, our life-style and even our financial transactions are based on natural law and there is an element of theology within it which we cannot ignore.
But I ask your Lordships to look at the other side of the picture. There was in 1917 a revolution which not only disposed of the tsarist dynasty; it also put power in the hands of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. But it also did something more. It accepted something that we had never accepted, and even now we do not

1041
accept it. There are some of us who are inclined to accept or to support in a modified form the sense of creation by a supreme being. These are the two fundamental issues. There are some exceptions, but taking Western countries in general we accept as our natural law, which determines our lifestyle and our general conduct, the creation by a supreme being as appears in the Old Testament and in the New Testament. On the other hand, the Soviet Union and her satellites condemn it utterly and will not accept a single word of it. These are the irreconcilable differences between the two super-powers. On the one hand, there is a super-power and on the other a collection of super-powers, some of them not as super as they would like to be. How are we to deal with that position? What will happen when the committee goes to Ottawa?
I recall a debate that we had at the beginning of April, in which the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, took part, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke on behalf of the Government. I regret that she is not present this afternoon. I understand that she is on a Foreign Office activity which she is probably doing very well. But I recall her statesmanlike speech when the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster, spoke. Incidentally, I accepted all the sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Buckmaster. I recently wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and told him that I intended to speak in this debate and that I accepted his sentiments, though I did not accept that he presented any constructive proposals. I regret that. But that is the trouble with most of us; we talk all around the subject and about every sphere, but we neglect to deal with the fundamental issues.
I come back to that with all the strength in my possession. There is a fundamental issue which divides us. On the one hand, we accept a natural law based partly on theology and, on the other, there is a complete rejection. How are those divisions to be reconciled? Will anything that is said this afternoon reconcile them? Not even the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester could say anything about that, except, if I may say so with respect, to indulge in a number of idealistic observations.
That will not be enough. We have to face the facts. How can we convince the present leaders, or the new leaders—Mr. Gorbachev, or whatever you call him. He is a very nice gentleman; he pleases even Mrs. Thatcher; and anybody who can do that must be very nice. I mean no disrespect to Mrs. Thatcher. But the point is that, in spite of the new leadership, the new dispensation, does anyone really believe that the Russians are going to change their policies and their convictions, simply because of the idealistic proposals that we have heard this afternoon? Of course they are not. I wish they would. Why, if even the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, cannot convince them, I do not know anyone who can. After all, he was one of the best Foreign Secretaries we ever had. He knows all about diplomatic activities, even the diplomatic tricks; he knows them all. The noble Lord cannot convince the Russians. If he cannot do it, can anybody else do it? I do not see anybody around me, distinguished
1042
though the company is, who could do it. Of course you cannot do it, simply because these fundamental issues which divide us are irreconcilable.
If only the Russians would come along and say, "Well, we think there is something in this idea of a supreme being and therefore we do not object to religious worship in our country. We will not impose any difficult rules and present difficulties to those who want to worship in chapels, churches, synagogues, mosques and all the rest. We will not do that. We are going to be free after this. They are going to be free. We are going to allow them to emigrate. We are going to allow them to unify their families." What if they said that? But are they going to say it as a result of what happens this afternoon? Why, of course, not. They will not say it even at Ottawa. I wish we could be sure they would. Why do I say that they will not? I rely on the expressions we have heard this afternoon. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said it; the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said it; and what is more important, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said in the debate at the beginning of April that we have a long way to go. How right she was. What a long way we have to go, just as the Bolsheviks had a long way to go; but they got there, regrettably—it was not good for the world. But what are we going to do about it? We have to come to some conclusion and although I could talk a long time about it, I have said enough. I shall say just a few words more.
What is the answer to all this? I do not like saying it. I detest saying it. I wish I could not believe it. I wish I had never even thought about it. I wish it had never been presented to me. There is a history about it. About seven years ago I conceived the notion, after a visit to NATO with a number of my colleagues here from both sides of the political fence to discuss defence. When I came back I suggested that we should create a Defence Committee to study defence. It was done. I went to all the Chief Whips about it. I was told, "You must not interfere with our affairs; no, no, that is for us." So I decided to do it myself. I formed a group and it became one of the most important groups in the House—and paid, by the way. After six-and-a-half years of it I resigned and the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, took it on. The noble Lord deals with it professionally and writes articles about it. I do not do anything of that sort, but I attend it sometimes. It is doing excellent work, particularly due to the labours of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, and also the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who now, because of an ailment, is unable to attend your Lordships' House. He did excellent work in this connection.
What is the answer? It is this. Either we convince the Russians that their fundamental issues are no longer fundamental, that they must accept many of our views which are theological in character, accept our life style, our natural law and the prevailing activity surrounding it—either they do that or else, sooner or later, there will be war.
What is to prevent that? Here I come to the main point. I do not like war. I have read too much about it. Many of my family suffered from it, and still do. I do not like it. I have read too much about it. I hate the sight of it. I care about it, even though I was at the War Office and the Ministry of Defence. I heard too much about it. I remember the First World War and all that

1043
that meant, and many other wars. I do not like it a bit and neither, my Lords, do you like it.
What is the answer? I want to say this as succinctly, as definitely and as specifically as is possible—it must be a constructive deterrent. It must be strong, no matter what it costs, with all the missiles you can find, with all the aircraft you can find, with all the new technological devices you can find, in order to make the Russians understand that if they start any nonsense, they will catch it. They caught it before. Let us no forget they lost 20 million men. If they start any business, even if it is the first strike or the second strike, we should be forced to retaliate. I would rather that we should not. If only we can convince the Russians that unless they change their style a little and become a little moderate, allow people to leave the country occasionally and provide a little more freedom—unless they do that, we are going to increase the deterrent and make it impossible for them to force us to surrender. This is our policy.
There is nothing else we can do. All the fine words we have heard this afternoon will butter no parsnips, much though I like to listen to them; how important is rhetoric, particularly when one does not have the facts at one's disposal? I prefer the facts; they are much more important. I ask the Government to deal with the facts when they go to Ottawa and to ask these questions. Why do you prevent people from emigrating? What is the reason? Why do you force people into exile? What is the reason? Explain the reasons for this sort of attitude, this beastly, cruel and despicable attitude. Why do you do these things? We want freedom for everybody and justice for everybody in Russia, or wherever they may be. Why do you do these things? Those are the sort of things that our representatives should be saying in Ottawa when the time comes. If we do not get the right answer, we have something at our disposal—an effective military deterrent.
5.17 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking three noble Lords who have just spoken; my noble friend Lord Home for his wisdom in introducing this interesting debate; the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, for his kind and interesting remarks about the Ottawa Conference which he rightly drew to the attention of your Lordships; and my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing for what I thought was a masterly intervention about Soviet influence on the British trade union movement and other organisations in this country.
It was my noble friend's speech which I believe was the answer to a number of interventions that have been made. I think in particular of the intervention by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, when she asked: why are we so hostile to the Soviet Union? I think also of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester who seemed to indicate that we might be indulging in inflammatory rhetoric. What is at issue here is not rhetoric; it is the facts. My noble friend introduced a large number of facts which concern us a great deal.
Of course we are in favour of building bridges, as the right reverend Prelate indicated; but bridges to what, my Lords? To what side of the Soviet Union? Of course we are in favour of peace and detente, but on whose terms? On terms, obviously, that have to be
1044
negotiated, but not on terms of capitulation. Of course we do not ignore the threat from the extreme right or from fascism but we have to face the fact that the ideals of fascism, if that is what they can be called, are not presented to us with the force backed up by a super-power and a nuclear power.
My noble friend indicated some of the problems presented by what is known as the Front Organisation. I should like to say something about Soviet involvement in terrorism. We know very well where the Soviet Union stands on terrorism. They used to favour it outright in our countries as well as in third world countries. It has been part of Bolshevik ideology since the very beginning. As Leon Trotsky said:
"It kills individuals but it intimidates thousands".
It was done openly in Western Europe right up to the 1950s. We remember the murders of various anti-Soviet emigres in Germany in that era. Indeed, it happened at the hands of the Bulgarian Secret Service, I am convinced, as recently as 1978, when Mr. Markov was murdered a few hundred yards from where we are sitting now. In my mind there is no doubt that that was done by the Secret Service of the East. But at the moment encouragement of terrorism is the policy of the Soviet Union.
At the Soviet Communist Party Congress in 1976 Mr. Brezhnev said:
"Our party supports and will continue to support people fighting for their freedom. We act as we are bidden by our revolutionary conscience and our communist convictions".
The problem is that one man's freedom fight is another man's terrorism and the action of the Soviet Union has been particularly dubious and ambivalent when it comes to the support for the Irish Republican Army. Soviet publications regularly present the crisis in Northern Ireland as a popular uprising of an oppressed colonial community against British Imperialism. In February, 1983 an Isvestia article claimed that Protestant colonialists were carrying out genocide against the Catholic community, and shooting at living targets had become the common practice of British Tommies. The World Peace Council which my noble friend referred to, has issued statements condemning Britain's continuing military occupation in May 1981, at the time of the death of hunger strikers. The World Federation of Trade Unions in Prague has issued statements backing the demands of H block prisoners. Its newspaper Voice has been reproduced putting forward H block demands.
So we find that the Soviet Union, while its links in supplying arms to the IRA may be tenuous and have not been proved, although I daresay there is some evidence not releasable to this effect, nevertheless conducts a thoroughly inflammatory policy encouraging that organisation to carry out acts of terrorism—and these are people who claim with pride that they tried to kill the Prime Minister of this country and members of our Government.
I move to the question of espionage which was particularly in vogue this morning. I fear that Soviet espionage will become a more difficult subject as the years pass. In introducing the debate, my noble friend indicated this was something that had always gone on, and of course he is right. There will always be spying,

1045
and I daresay we do our fair share. But I believe it is rather more than a game. It is becoming a more serious game than it used to be. The weakness of the Soviet economy allows them to drift further and further behind the West in terms of technology, and not only the United States of America but also Western Europe. For the Soviet bloc espionage is now becoming an economic necessity because it is the only way in which they can keep up to some extent with scientific progress.
We see this in the statistics of Soviet representatives expelled from our countries. We all remember when my noble friend was Foreign Secretary how 105 Soviet representatives were expelled in 1971. There was then a lull, but in 1983 seven were expelled from this country and a further 64 from European Community countries. There had been a sudden resurgence of activity by Soviet agents in this country, not only diplomats but the representatives of commercial organisations. Unfortunately, it looks as if this is starting up again.
I am afraid this indicates that the Soviet Union is unable, with its system, to keep up scientifically. This may be having an effect even on their military capability. Therefore, they are determined to make up the back-log by unacceptable means. I must congratulate my right honourable friend in another place for the swift action that he has taken in making sure that the people carrying out these activities must leave the country and not come back; and, indeed, not return to the countries of any of our allies.
I am sure that we are in favour of trade, but we are not in favour of theft. We are in favour of scientific contact, but we are not in favour of plagiarism and not in favour of allowing the work of our brilliant scientists to be taken away by others and marketed without permission—I speak there of industrial espionage—or of allowing our defences to be put in jeopardy by espionage.
Of course, this Motion refers to interference. It has been suggested by some speakers that we are being a little hypocritical because we all interfere. There is an ideological conflict in process. We interfere in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union by encouraging Soviet emigres. I have done my share of that myself. But the difference is that we do not encourage terrorism. If one of my many Eastern European friends came to me with the idea of taking violent action against the governments of Eastern Europe, I would say, no and do my level best to prevent him from doing so, because that is not the way to carry on the conflict between East and West. I wish the Soviet Union would understand that.
I am sure we carry out espionage in Eastern Europe, but we have fewer chances to do so. As has been pointed out by my noble friend, there are severe restrictions on the movement of British and other Western representatives in the Soviet Union, far more strict than those prevailing in this country and the Western world. Of course, we have to face it—we have so much more to steal. There is very little in the sphere of Soviet scientific achievement that we would want to steal. This is why the activity of the East is becoming so much more intense, why it amounts to severe interference, and why it must be stopped.
1046
Interference will continue and should continue, I believe; but it will be interference by words, not by bullets, and not by unacceptable espionage. We shall not found groups who try to subvert the Soviet system. We should not do so. We should expect them to exercise similar restraint. But as Mr. Brezhnev made clear in 1975 when he signed the Helsinki Agreement, the very epitome of detente, the conflict of ideas will continue. We can only hope that the inevitable interference in future will be kept within the bounds of decency and proper conduct between countries which maintain normal diplomatic relations. We can only hope by that means we shall be able to maintain peace between ourselves and the Soviet bloc, and in the meantime may the better system win.
5.29 p.m.
Lord Greenhill of Harrow: My Lords, the House will be grateful for this debate, and in particular for the persuasively argued speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. His speech was impressive, all the more so because it was based on a lifetime of experience of Soviet negotiations. I hope that it will be noted by the Soviet Embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, and drawn to the attention of Mr. Gromyko who cannot doubt the bona fides of the noble Lord, and who has never concealed his personal respect for him.
I believe that it is the right time to take a hard look at relations between the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union. I want to confine my comments to this bilateral question. A new leader, younger and unfamiliar, has been unanimously installed by the Politburo, although it is perhaps worth recalling that if he was a British civil servant, he would have only five more years to serve before retirement, or if he was a director of ICI, a somewhat shorter time. But his accession to supreme power has, as far as we know, been achieved without the conspiracy and bloodshed which once attended this event. It will doubtless be followed by appointments of younger men all down the line, and a profound generational change will take place in Soviet administration.
The House will recall that hopes rose on Stalin's death. Sir Winston Churchill warmly and loudly expressed them. Hopes rose again at the appointment of subsequent leaders, even with Mr. Andropov, whose earlier career gave no grounds whatsoever for confidence. On each occasion those hopes were dashed, but the fact that hopes rose on each occasion is an indication of the persistent desire in this country for better relations with the Soviet people. It may be said that this desire is misplaced, but it certainly strongly exists.
It must be admitted of course that British visitors to the Soviet Union have always shown above-average gullibility. Members will recall that H. G. Wells said of Stalin that he never met a man more candid, fair or honest, that no one was afraid of him and everyone trusted him. This gullibility remains. We hear even now Russian trade unions equated with our own trade unions. But the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev brings for the first time a man who does not warily look back at the first days of the Bolshevik revolution or to the crisis years of near defeat at the hands of Nazi Germany. Is it therefore right that once again we should try to change the climate of United Kingdom-USSR relations? I believe it is.

1047
Nevertheless, it would be hopelessly optimistic to expect the Soviet Government to change their ways in the short term, unless there are totally unforeseen and dramatic changes in international affairs and, less likely still, in Soviet domestic attitudes. But dramatic changes have taken place elsewhere. For example, I do not imagine that many people anticipated the remarkable changes which have recently taken place in China.
The Soviet record of hostile subversive action towards this country is incontrovertible. No doubt noble Lords will correctly emphasise this—the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, has already done so—calling attention to infiltration into national and international organisations. My own official career has confirmed it again and again. Anyone who attempts to deny it is not living in the real world. I will not try to catalogue it; the important thing is its extent and its success. It is an integral part of the Soviet system and has been for three-quarters of a century, or even longer. It is absolutely right that we should at all times firmly maintain our guard and be extremely hard on those who abuse our hospitality. This is not over-reacting; it is plain good sense.
But should the weight and seriousness of this evidence require us to keep at arm's length contact with the Soviet Union? Should we, in addition to exercising prudence and watchfulness, deliberately minimise contact and exchanges of all ideas—cultural, industrial, personal and so on? I certainly think not. Should we not seek to establish relations over as wide a front as possible? I believe it is right that we should do so.
There is no doubt that there is a strong desire also on the part of the Soviet people to get to know their opposite numbers in this country and in other countries outside their borders. This desire is increasing all the time. The spread of the means of international communication permits it, and will increasingly permit it, and effectively restricts the ability of the British and Soviet Governments to prevent it, even if they wish to do so.
What is the right policy for Her Majesty's Government during the period while we wait to see if the change of leadership and the development of world events is going to lead to the modification of the rigid and basically hostile intent of the Soviet Union? There is nothing spectacular that we can do, but there are patient and persistent steps we must take which perhaps one day in the future may bring advantage to our two countries. These steps are not inconsistent with the policies of our allies and can be taken in harmony with them, and always within our defence allowances. What are these steps?
First, the starting point must be the Helsinki agreements and the outcome of the meetings held in Belgrade, Madrid and Stockholm, and of the important meeting in Ottawa to which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, referred. The documents which flowed from those meetings are important and the Soviet Government is theoretically committed to them just as much as we are. They give us an entré;e into important areas for mutual discussion if not agreement. We must take advantage of this entré;e and develop our contacts over as wide an area as possible.
1048
We must be on speaking terms from the heads of Governments downwards. We must speak directly, frankly and unambiguously. If there cannot be agreement, there must be no misunderstanding as to our views and purposes. In this way only will dangerous miscalculations be avoided and common ground sometime surprisingly be found. It was largely the links established by Henry Kissinger with the Soviet Government that prevented the Middle East crisis in 1973 developing into something much worse.
Secondly, we must develop mutual trade. Trade with Russia has been a will-o'-the-wisp for many years. For example, promises were made during the Wilson and Callaghan Governments, but they were not fulfilled. When Mr. Gorbachev was here recently he was very specific, and his words have been repeated again and again in the Soviet press. We must press hard to see if there is a genuine opening.
Thirdly, the Russian and East European services of the BBC must be given priority. If there is a conflict of resources within the External Services, the Russian and East European services must prevail, and failures of audibility, too long tolerated, must be eliminated. As noble Lords have said, the Russians continue to spend huge sums on jamming our programmes. We must spend money to frustrate them. I know that it is considered important and desirable to maintain the individuality of the BBC services, but I should like to be certain that suitable and sensible co-operation within the western European services of our allies is not neglected for inadequate nationalistic reasons.
Fourthly, cultural contracts must be encouraged, exchanges must be balanced and the risks carefully weighed. Conferences of professional people, of religious leaders, must be held and Round Tables, as organised by Chatham House, for example, must be continued. From these much can be learned and much can be taught.
Fifthly, we must develop our studies of Russia and the Russian language. The Russians devote an immense amount of effort to studying the ways of the West, and shape their policies accordingly. In this country this work has been neglected in recent years, though I understand that it is now being revived.
There is nothing new in what I am saying. Noble Lords will think of other possibilities, but none of these steps implies that we are unaware, incautious or heedless of the dark side of Soviet policies which so many speakers are emphasising this afternoon. If we go forward steadily and with determination, as I suggest, we shall reduce the risks to ourselves and, fortified by the contacts made, will be in a position to take advantage of any improvement, however unlikely it is, in the international climate.
Finally, I should like to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that we should put our own house in order. The most fertile ground for subversion is economic distress. The infiltration of Cambridge University in the 'thirties was a direct byproduct of it. A prosperous population in this country, with a wide area of agreement in all ranks of society, is the best protection against it.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, it is quite right that it should be my noble friend Lord Home

1049
who introduces this debate since, as he told us in his autobiography, he devoted some years to the study of Soviet policy and programmes in a way that few other modern statesmen have done. This, of course, enabled him later, when Foreign Secretary, to combine realism with understanding in a way which made his foreign secretaryship such a success. For example, it enabled him to avoid that exultant enthusiasm about the Soviet Union during the war which is difficult to understand when read about now; and at the same time also to avoid that sense of hurt anger and surprise which characterised so many when, in 1946, it was discovered that the Soviet Union was the same as it had been in 1936 or in the 1920s.
The terms of this Motion are also, of course, rightly balanced. All sane people desire good relations with the Russians about whom, admittedly of an earlier generation perhaps, they have read so much in great works of literature. All sane people would like to travel in the Soviet Union with the ease with which they travel in Germany or France; stopping perhaps at some attractive manor house which they suppose looks as though it might have come from Turgenev. How attractive that prospect would be. All sane people naturally desire a cut in the arms budgets of the world, or at least some amelioration of the cut-throat balance of nuclear weapons and conventional weapons; but how can any of this be possible if those elaborate measures of subversion and intervention are going on which have been so admirably and bravely chronicled in speeches this afternoon by my noble friends Lord Orr-Ewing and Lord Bethell, whom I congratulate very warmly?
There is a natural sense that with the arrival of Mr. Gorbachev there is a new opportunity. But unless Mr. Gorbachev turns his attention to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing talked about then not only is an amelioration of our relations with the Soviet Union unlikely but, indeed, it should not happen. Mr. Gorbachev, as we know, inherited a great many things, among them what the Economist referred to as a peace offensive—a good 20th century expression which George Orwell certainly would have liked, and, perhaps, invented.
The way to judge the consistency of this peace offensive is partly to use our experience of similar occurences in the past and partly to bring into the discussion what we know of Soviet ideology. We have had in our experience several such peace offensives since 1917 in relation to the Soviet Union. There was the period in the 1930s when Mr. Litvinov was seeking a collective security pact with the Western democracies but when, at the same time, agents of the Third (Communist) International were seeking to establish spies in the best universities in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, mentioned, and afterwards to implant them, like mothballs in wardrobes, throughout our most secret institutions.
Then, after a short gap between 1939 and 1941, about which it is not considered as a rule proper to speak, there was another period of exultant enthusiasm about the Soviet Union. That was understandable because of the blood lost by Russians under the impact of the German invasion. At that time we were totally unthinking as to what the Soviet Union was up to as well as fighting the Germans. The consequence, of
1050
course, was that the Soviet Union got away, literally, with murder throughout Eastern Europe.
That period of conciliatory relations came to an end in 1946. Most people would say that it came to an end with a speech which was made by Stalin in the so-called elections to the Supreme Soviet in February 1946 when he made more or less the same speech—saying that the Soviet Union needed a period of peace—which the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, quoted Mr. Gorbachev as having said recently. So much, therefore, for plaints that the Soviet Union needed a time of peace in which to recover. In fact, between 1946 and 1949 the Soviet Union was devoting most of its attention to building up its nuclear capacity.
Then, again as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, mentioned, there was a period after the death of Stalin when we had high hopes of his successors, Mr. Malenkov and Mr. Khrushchev. For all their terrible careers under Stalin there was for a moment the possibility that something positive might transpire. Noble Lords will recall the spirit of Geneva in 1955 and the visits of Mr. Khrushchev, Mr. Malenkov and Marshall Bulganin in those years. But what happened? Mr. Khrushchev turned violently away from efforts to subvert Western Europe—giving that up as a bad job—and turned his attention to the underdeveloped countries. In a speech on 6th January 1961 he made it absolutely clear that in future there should be immense attention payed by the Soviet Union to assisting wars of liberation in the third world. It was at that time, I think, that the Patrice Lumumba College, to which my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing referred, was founded.
There was a fourth period of peaceful coexistence in the early 1970s when President Nixon and Dr. Kissinger made a large number of concessions to Mr. Khrushchev's own successor, Mr. Brezhnev. Noble Lords will recall how at that time the United States ceased completely the construction of its intercontinental ballistic missiles, abandoned any effort to keep up with the Soviet Union in chemical warfare, did not even build the anti-ballistic missile site which it was entitled to under the ABM Treaty, and went several times to the Soviet Union and discussed with Mr. Brezhnev every subject under the sun.
The consequence of that was the remorseless buildup of Soviet conventional weapons, the establishment of a large Soviet navy capable of operation on all the oceans and, so far as we could see, a more considered investment in international terrorism and support for wars of liberation, particularly in Africa, than we had seen before. So we are entitled to look on peace offensives with a good deal of suspicion.
Then there is the approach of ideology which we should also use in relation to the peace offensive of the Soviet Union. My noble friend Lord Home and my noble friend the Minister, Lord Trefgarne, touched on that. There is not much more I would say had it not been for the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, wondered whether ideology had not been over-emphasised and whether perhaps what we are seeing in the present policy of the Soviet Union is a revival of Russian power politics. I think the approach of ideology cannot be under-estimated. It is not simply that the unspoken assumptions of Soviet leaders are

1051
those of Marxism-Leninism; it is that, as a learned general in the Soviet Union recently put it, Marxism-Leninism constitutes a kind of compass which all good communists should be guided by.
There is also the fact that the 1977 constitution of the Soviet Union specifically mentions on numerous pages the importance of Lenin. Indeed, it defines in Article 28, I think, that the proper definition of Soviet foreign policy is the Leninist policy of peace. If you look at what Lenin said about peace, you will come across some surprising things. Lenin thought that peace could be defined as, "partial conflict", and went on to justify every kind of intervention and act of subversion of the kind which my noble friend Lord On-Ewing has mentioned. Subsequent Soviet leaders have had no hesitation about emphasising their reliance, in their moments of hesitation, on Marx and Lenin, so we should have no doubt that Marxism-Leninism is the determining factor in Soviet politics in a way that does make it almost impossible to imagine we could reach lasting agreement with that government. That is a point which my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has also made.
The fact is that given the difficulties of an intellectual nature which we have with that Government we must, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, implied, gird ourselves for a long conflict. We have to be prepared to study, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and my noble friend Lord Home mentioned, and we have to be prepared to be patient perhaps over many years. We certainly have to be prepared to put our own house in order so that our technological, economic and social successes are admired and continue to be—as indeed they are—an attraction for all who live in communist states east of the Iron Curtain.
It seems to me that we also have to make it essential for Mr. Gorbachev or his successor in the long run to ask himself whether, in fact, Marx is an adequate guide to how to run an economy in the 20th century, as Mr. Deng Xiaoping has done. We have to create circumstances whereby he or his successor asks himself whether Lenin is the appropriate guide to tactics in the latter part of the 20th century, much less the 21st. We have to make Soviet leaders wonder whether this paraphernalia of subversion, which we have heard described so vividly today, is actually worth the candle since on so many occasions it causes such bad relations with the West. We have to try to create indeed the circumstances in which one Soviet leader, in the end, begins to try to make out of Russia a country again rather than a cause.
5.56 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, I think we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for starting this interesting debate. It is significant how many noble Lords seem to have accepted what I understood to be the principle he was putting forward about the nature of the Soviet Government from the start: that it is by its nature a propagandist state; it believes that it has a cause to promote throughout the world; it believes that it is the ultimate destiny of the world to come after greater or lesser, more or fewer upheavals under communist rule,
1052
and that it is the duty of the Soviet Union to assist in that process. In holding that view the Soviet Union does not consider itself bound by any treaty obligation that conflicts with that ultimate view.
We may deplore that very much, but I think it is no good our pretending that that is not the situation. That is how the Russians view the matter. In their view, they have a higher duty than that of keeping any particular treaty they may have signed; they believe they have a duty to promote world communism as and when it seems appropriate. If that is so, what are we going to do about it? I must say I thought my noble friend Lord Shinwell was right to drive us back all the time on that question. We can go on indefinitely examining Soviet philosophy, but in the end we must try to answer the question: "Well, if this is the case, what do you do?"
If my analysis is anything like right, it might appear at first sight that it is no good doing anything at all, but I think the evidence is against that. We are approaching the Ottawa conference, one of the series that runs from Helsinki through Madrid, Belgrade and so to Ottawa, where certain ideals of behaviour that are supposed to be common to East and West are upheld, where an attempt is made to see what progress has been made in getting the observance of human rights.
Is it any good persisting with the Helsinki idea with the Soviet Union? I think it is. In particular, those courageous people in the Soviet Union and in other smaller countries of Eastern Europe who are prepared to be dissenters, who express from time to time their disagreement with the tyrannies under which they live, certainly want to see the spirit of Helsinki kept alive and to have the opportunity to record their protests and the opportunity to contrast Soviet practice with what it is supposed to be bound to by the Helsinki agreement. I think we have to keep the Helsinki idea alive, as a sort of standard as to what not only our behaviour but Soviet behaviour should be. At the same time—and here I must say how strongly I agree with my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow—we must keep alive cultural activities, trade and every other normal activity with the Soviet Union.
It is foolish to be euphoric and imagine that because there is a new leader, or for some other reason, we can enter into a period of ease, comfort and good will between ourselves and the Soviet Union. It is also an error to suppose that we cannot live a more or less normal life with them; and that is what we must endeavour to do. We do not know what the future will bring. I wonder how many people 10 years ago could have given anything like an accurate forecast of what was going to happen in China in the past 10 years. There would be very few; and very few would be bold enough to say what they think will happen in the Soviet Union in the next 10 years. I would have said that on any analysis of what the future may hold a combination of standing firmly by the Helsinki ideals and trying to maintain a normal relationship with the Soviet Union is what we must work for.
Among the normal relations, I am afraid there must be the fact that we must give proper attention to our defence and we must continue the process of arguments about possible disarmament because that is now part of the normal process of living with the Soviet Union—part of the normal process of East-

1053
West relations. But I think that experience tells us that any agreements that we make with the Soviet Union must either be of the kind that can be selfpolicing—and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Home, pointed out, with modern technology it is going to be easier to make agreements of the kind where we can know whether they will be kept or not—or we must get agreement from the Soviet Union about verification by both sides. We must not, on the one hand, throw away the whole idea of disarmament as a vain, optimistic delusion, nor must we imagine that we can go in for it without adequate safeguards. If we proceed on those lines, I think that we shall at least be gaining time, we should be able, one hopes, to make ourselves more prosperous—as has been said, to put our own house in order—and we should be able to get into a world where there is less irritation and ill-temper all round.
But we are dealing of course not only with relations between East and West but with attempts at subversion by the Soviet Union. The noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, gave us some accounts of subversion. I am bound to say that I began to think after a time that I may hesitate even to open the pages of the Daily Telegraph lest I be seduced into too favourable a view of the Soviet Union. Who knows who they may have got hold of by this time? When we are talking about subversion at home, I think that we must beware of exaggeration and of seeing difficulties all the way. If we are concerned about subversion at home, the answer is of course that we must see that our intelligence services are efficiently organised.
While we are on that, we might as well remember that we have at the moment an extremely clumsy Act—the Official Secrets Act—on which a good deal of our legal procedure for dealing with subversion is based. It is an Act under which it may become increasingly difficult to get convictions, whatever the facts are, because juries are beginning to feel that part of the Act is rather silly. It is high time that the job of bringing that Act up to date was got on with. I think that it rates almost as far back in the list of Government pledges as the pledge to do something about the rating system. I hope that before long they will give us an Official Secrets Act that will be of use in combating such dangerous subversion as there may be.
I want to say a word about subversion throughout the world and to touch on a point about which not much evidence has, I think, been given. Communism in whatever part of the world it appears does not grow suddenly out of nothing. Charles Dickens in A Tale of Two Cities remarked that the English upper classes seemed to think that the French Revolution was a harvest that had grown without ever being sown. I think that that is an error that we sometimes make about the appearance of Communist movements in various parts of the world. But in Cuba before there was Castro there was Batista; in Nicaragua before there were the Sandinistas there was Somosa; and so in every part of the world.
One lesson that we have to learn from that is—and when I say "we", I mean we in this country and our allies, and particularly the United States with which the power to deal with these matters chiefly rests—that we must be extremely careful not to go making friends
1054
of tyrannies on the basis that they claim to be saving us from communism. In the years leading up to the war any scoundrel in a minor European country could get favour in some quarters by saying that he was protecting his country from communism; and the various forms and shades of fascism sprang up in Europe then.
Again, in Africa there would not be so much concern about the possibility of the spread of communism if there were no such thing as apartheid. One may argue as to exactly which happened first or what ought to be the policy of the South African Government at the present time. But the existence in Africa of a form of government which is based permanently on the assumption that people of black race are not fit for citizenship is asking for trouble. If it is continued it will mean probably a very rapid spread of communism throughout that continent. It will be no good our lamenting the dangers then.
Britain by itself does not have the power to do very much, but we and our allies—so far as we can influence the policy of our allies—must make it clear to the world that NATO is solidly opposed to racial discrimination of any kind, that it is opposed to any form of tyranny and that it will not give excuse for the emergence of communism by previously tolerating the tyrannies to which communism is so often the reaction. That is part also of what has been called putting our own house in order. We need to see that this country is free at home from the reproach of racial discrimination. We need to see that there is greater justice in its social system. If we do those things, we shall be in a stronger position to resist the spread of communism throughout the world and to face the Soviet Union without misgivings and with the feeling that we are standing up for something that is worth standing up for.
I have always believed that, whereas diplomacy—by which I mean the day-to-day and week-to-week handling of particular problems—is a highly complicated matter, requiring special skills and arts, the basic principles of foreign policy are gigantlically simple. What the facts of the time are saying to us in the West is simply this: make sure that you have the strength and the wit to defend yourselves and make sure also that what you seek to defend is worth defending.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, especially on this occasion, as I find myself in total agreement with what he has to say about stiffening up our intelligence services and the Official Secrets Act. Like other noble Lords, I wish to express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for having opened this very important debate. I confess that I share his sense of gloomy realism, no doubt in his case sired by wisdom out of experience.
Perhaps I may follow up the theme of my noble friend Lord Bethell, since he takes the point that because the Soviets have drifted far behind the West the backlog will be taken up by unacceptable means. I should like also to concentrate upon the subversion of our trade unions, about which also my noble friend Lord On-Ewing spoke. Bearing in mind the point that

1055
here is an integral part of the Soviet system, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, I believe that such subversive activity can only intensify the situation, notwithstanding however many trade agreements, cultural exchanges, meetings of Church leaders, or what-have-you may ensue. This is because the Soviets have drifted behind the West. Thus there will be, and will have to be, a relaxation of central party control to enable the Soviet economy to absorb and exploit the computer revolution.
This relaxation of central control cannot afford any improvement of relations or any crumb of comfort for the West; quite the reverse. If they weaken their power base to strengthen their economy, if they opt in favour of the reduced cost of arms limitation instead of that symbolic pinnacle of alternative cost, the strategic defence initiative, it can only dictate an intensification of their expanionist and interventionist external policies—those, indeed, identified by this Motion. There can be little doubt that Soviet domestic policy will move in this direction to ease the intolerable burden of arms, to remove inhibitions to the exploitation of the computer revolution, as they must, and to raise their living standards.
The antidote, the counterpoise to any weakening of central power shall assuredly be an intensification of external policy, both in the developing countries and by subversion of our trade unions. These are highly vulnerable areas in which we in the Western democracies have already invited and suffered massive exploitation by our own inertia and weaknesses.
That this should be so, and assuredly so, rests upon the Soviet political preconception that domestic policy and external policy are inseparable, for the twin pillars of the system upon which the whole edifice of the Soviet constitution of 1977 rests are the achievement of the fundamental long-term objective of world socialism and the maintenance, the safety and security of Russia.
Since 1961, at all events, the external policy has been overtly expansionist and interventionist. Thus, as in the case of other noble Lords, I say that it is up to us to look to our own salvation, put our own house in order, keep it on order and remove the temptation to exploit this particular weakness; otherwise we shall gaze at the embers of our heritage while the hearthrug is stolen from under our feet.
The schools of indoctrination and subversion of our trade unions, which are in Moscow and elsewhere and to which reference has been made, have been set up to operate, and indeed operate, in accordance with Article 28 of the 1977 convention, to which my noble friend Lord Thomas of Swynnerton has just referred. Article 28 contains a new chapter, Chapter 4, on external policy. It links peaceful co-existence with the ideological struggle to consolidate the position of world socialism.
According to current dictionary usage, socialism is the first phase of communism; communism is a social system replacing capitalism; capitalism is a social and economic system based on the exploitation of man, replacing feudalism and preceding communism; and peaceful co-existence, is that phase in the class struggle between socialism and capitalism in which coercion
1056
and compulsion are ordained to subvert capitalism. Liberation movements in all the socialist countries are to be supported. If only peaceful co-existence meant what the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, thought it meant; but it does not.
On the use of words, on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester waxed eloquent, one wonders where he has done his homework. The 1977 constitution reflects external policy as settled as long ago as 1961. It is obvious that so-called peaceful coexistence has absolutely nothing on offer to the Western democracies. An intensification of economic sabotage of the Western democracies by subversion of the trades unions is to be expected—this, because it is wholly cost-effective. At what cost to Moscow did we lose the docks to Jack Dash and the car industry to Red Robbo? At what cost to Moscow did we suffer the winter of discontent; the dreadful miners' strike; other dreadful activities, including the bombing of the firms in Western Germany, which supplied coal to the National Coal Board, and the sabotage of the NATO supply lines and pumping stations?
Article 28 subversion matches the manifest creed of Mr. Scargill, Mr. Benn, Mr. Skinner and the other militants who, in December 1984, called for a general strike over the heads of the TUC. The heady scent of power at the barricades, a power which they could never find at the ballot box, led them yet again to seek to set up their worker state along the lines of a Clause 4 sister republic of the Soviet Union, justifying, as an intensification of the class struggle—and how often we heard this on television—that tempting dream apple of their Marxist eye, and so end bicameral government under the Queen in Parliament.
It was the loyalty and the commonsense of the moderates, in the rank and file membership of the trades unions and on the TUC, that saved the day. Such is the innate greatness of our people, irrespective of any political affiliation, or none, who rally in times of crisis.
Let us ask some questions. Why did 25 NUM officials attend a special concentrated indoctrination course at the Moscow school? Why did Mr. Scargill visit the Soviet Union in 1982 and again this year? Where did he receive his training, his expertise, and the reserve funds to conduct his campaign of terror to overthrow the Government, to organise direct control, civil disobedience with treasonable overtones, leaving some 1,400 police officers lying injured in the course of duty and a horrifying catalogue of criminal convictions, some 10,000 in a year?
Charges of murder, threats to kill, unlawful imprisonment, criminal damage, conspiracies, arson, burglary, theft and grievous bodily harm do not arise in context with an industrial dispute. This was no industrial dispute. It was an exercise in subversion and an extension of Soviet external policy. No Administration, Conservative or Labour, other than this Thatcher Administration, would have had the courage to trust the people or the will and tenacity to meet and repulse this challenge. Such is the debt which the moderates in the unions and in the TUC, and, indeed, the people of this country and any future Administration, shall owe to this Government, whether they like it or not, in perpetuity. When this Government dismantled the militant trade union wigwam set up in

1057
the gardens of No. 10 to restore the functions of government to Parliament, it was (was it not?) inevitable that the red bull would search for some pretext to charge. Its horns may be crumpled, but it is not dead; and it will seek some other pretext to charge again.
The subversive activities of the Soviet Union in our trade union affairs may only be contained by our own firm domestic policies and foreign policies backed up, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said, by credible, balanced and verifiable deterrence. We must be vigilant to maintain our intelligence services. The appointment of Sir Anthony Duff in this regard is not without significance.
In our domestic policies, it is also essential to restore and maintain constructive consultation and dialogue between the moderates in the trade unions and the Government, in particular consultation on the compilation of those central- registers without which the presumption in favour of postal ballots may not be implemented. It is fair to assert—and I do assert—that Moscow can never win on a properly conducted secret ballot. We owe it to the moderates to devise, in consultation, acceptable supervisory procedures. This room in our house has not yet been put in order.
In conclusion, let us not forget what lies behind the brutal conflict, the struggle for the minds of men. Let us not forget for one moment that the Kremlin is not just anti-Christ but anti all religion: and let us implement the recommendation of the Swann Report so that the collective act of daily worship under the Education Act 1944 shall be non-denominational and an undogmatic approach to religious education. The hope for better relations with the Soviet Union is muted by the knowledge that its external policies shall surely shift towards an intensification of the very obstacles to which this Motion refers.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the powerful speech of my noble friend. I trust that I shall be to a certain extent complementary in my remarks. Our thanks are very much due to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for raising this important matter and, indeed, for introducing the subject with such clarity and setting us on a good road.
It is now nearly 70 years since the Bolsheviks showed their implacable opposition to freely elected parliamentary government by forcibly preventing the first assembly of the only properly elected parliament that Russia has, ever had. Since then, the Bolsheviks and their successors have gone to extraordinary lengths to preserve the tyranny that they have developed, including mass murder by Stalin in the 1930s; the creation in recent years of wildly excessive military power, with a massive overkill in nuclear capability; as much neglect of the everyday wellbeing of their people as they can possibly get away with; and the use of every means that they can devise to subvert the ordered government of all other countries, especially those that are making a success of parliamentary government and endeavouring to enable all their peoples to benefit from the gifts of modern science.
While it is easy to understand that other would-be tyrants in free countries—like, perhaps my noble friend would say, Mr. Scargill—seek to learn from
1058
friend Lord Campbell would say, Mr. Scargill—seek to learn from Soviet example and to act as fellow travellers, it is indeed disturbing that so many well-meaning persons in the target countries allow themselves to be conned by the propaganda laid before them. This is mainly because of the skilful and heavily financed Soviet campaign of subversion to which we have all been, subjected for nigh-on three generations, and to which many noble Lords have already referred. It is also, I suggest, because of apparent reluctance by the Governments of the target countries to take sufficient positive action to refute the false propaganda, although it was clear from what my noble friend the Minister had to say in his opening speech that the Government were only too well aware of it. I do not think, however, that enough effort is spent in trying to refute the false propaganda.
The overall plan for subversion can be deduced from a detailed study of Soviet writings over many years. This shows that their objectives include influencing world opinion to believe that United States and NATO military and political policies are the major cause of international conflict and crisis; to demonstrate that the United States is always an aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic power; to isolate the United States from its friends, especially in NATO; to demonstrate that the policies of the United States and other NATO countries are incompatible with those of the under-developed nations: and, perhaps most important, to confuse public opinion concerning Soviet global ambitions.
Consistent application of measures to implement these objectives, especially since 1950, has meant that many people who recognise the threat of the Soviet tyranny are nonetheless unreasonably uncertain of the aims and intentions of the NATO countries generally, and in particular of our American allies. A good current example of how this works is the propaganda related to the proposed strategic defence initiative, which has been cleverly nicknamed the star wars programme, making it sound unpleasantly futuristic for a start. Efforts, with varying success, have been made to show this as a nasty new idea which the Americans are bound to misuse. So far as possible, no mention is made of the nuclear defensive measures already taken by the Soviets.
Of course, if, after research, the strategic defence initiative is shown to be practicable, much of the current Soviet nuclear superiority would be negated. Hence their need to spread myths about the project. No doubt if the myths do not stick, the Soviets will turn to another of their tricks—that of using forgeries of imaginary United States and NATO documents, as they have done from the 1920s to the present day. Besides spreading myths or, as the Soviets themselves call it, dezinformatsia, which is aimed at the gullible, there is another aspect of subversion—the training of would-be tyrants. That matter has been very well expounded upon to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing. Therefore I shall not touch on it further.
From these schools come yet more fellow travellers. My noble friend touched upon this matter but I should like to make one particular point. I should also like to say how sad I am that the noble Lord, Lord Chapple, is not with us this evening because this is a subject

1059
upon which he could expand. As your Lordships probably know, the Soviet dominated World Federation of Trade Unions was first set up in 1945 and was denounced in this country in 1948 by the TUC chairman at the time, Mr. Arthur Deakin, as:
"Nothing more than another platform and instrument for furtherance of Soviet policy".
Its headquarters in Paris were chucked out in 1951 for subversion; they were moved to Vienna where they were chucked out again in 1956 for similar reasons; and they are now in Prague. The British view was re-emphasised in 1958 by the late and much lamented Lord Feather. However, what is now happening—and this is what my noble friend was talking about—following the meeting in February at County Hall, is that a group of very senior trade union leaders including Jack Jones as chairman; Jim Slater of the National Union of Seamen; Alan Sapper of the ACTAT, a recent TUC chairman; Douglas Grieve of the Tobacco Workers' Union, and the conference secretary, a Mr. Tom Sibley, whom the World Federation of Trade Unions itself appointed, seems to be trying to reinstate the WFTU in this country. What is so sad is that the top trade union leadership in this country up to and including 1958 was definitely and firmly against any such move because it recognised this body for what it was. It is disgraceful that the modern, senior leadership should have taken the line that it has taken.
My noble friend Lord Bethell touched on the IRA. If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like briefly to do the same but from a slightly different angle. I found the Provisional IRA connection with the Soviets most interesting. The Official IRA have for many years been supporters of the Soviet tyranny but they gave up the arms struggle in 1962. When the shooting started in 1969 it was the Provisionals who entered the battle, but they had no arms and they needed training. By various means the Soviets arranged for those deficiences to be made good, but they had a harder task in arranging for the Provos to be swiftly politicised. It was uphill work with their Billy Kellys who would never be heavy Marxist thinkers. Moreover, it had to be done on the quiet to spare Irish-American feelings. In the United States, for example, there was no calling the free Republic of Ireland "a fascist state designed for privileged capitalist sycophants", as they did at home. However, that was over 10 years ago and the politicisation is now, sadly, complete, even if the Irish-Americans still do not appear to realise it.
I have touched on only some of the aspects of the subversion campaign to illustrate its deadly nature and I have endeavoured not to go over ground—more than to amplify certain points—that other noble Lords have covered. However, there is one area which has not been touched upon and that is the employment of what the Soviets call agents of influence, especially journalists and politicians who are used to spread the propaganda in their own words. An example of such a person was a French journalist named Pierre Charles Pathe who operated in the 1960s and 1970s until he was caught. He began in the early 1960s with a confidential journal, writing under the pen name of Charles Morand and then in the mid-1970s he had a
1060
bi-weekly newsletter entitled Synthesis which was circulated to 139 senators, 299 deputies, 41 journalists, 14 ambassadors, but only seven private people. What was the target of that bit of misinformation?
The use made of these people is clever, because although they are given a general line they are allowed to write their own articles and the only check they undergo is the reading of their articles by the Soviets who, if they do not like them, say so. On the whole, they are left to get on with it. I sometimes wonder, when I read all types of newspapers and magazines in this country, how many of our journalists are perhaps agents of influence. It makes one think.
With that background, what hope—it may be thought—have we of persuading the Soviet tyranny to abandon these "obstacles", as the Motion describes them, to our seeking better relations with it? Indeed, in an excellent leading article entitled, "Once more to Geneva", on 9th March, The Times warns us not to have too much hope, and many noble Lords have done the same. However, I would on the whole agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in particular and certainly another noble Lord whose name does not immediately come to mind, that for the sake of the peace and wellbeing of the world as a whole, we must try. I believe that the only way is constantly and systematically to expose the subversion for what it is, to expose the total failure of the Soviet tyranny and its subordinate little tyrannies to provide an alternative system of government which gives its citizens proper freedom; and to demonstrate to a much greater degree than we do the good points of our freedom which we take so much for granted.
In this connection the Sunday Times had an interesting article on 20th January last showing the good news about the United States, which was most enlightening. While, of course, in a free country one must never let governments feel smug, it is necessary from time to time to rebut the heavily financed Soviet propaganda, especially in the way in which we can in Britain, with good news of the remarkable advance of the wellbeing of the average citizen over the last 40 years. That was created by the work of all political parties which—most importantly—have been kept up to the mark by the constant threat of electoral defeat.
Thus I conclude by imploring the Government to ensure that the realities of the subversion campaign are given wider publicity and by appealing to the media men, from time to time, to give wider publicity themselves to the advances made in this country in the past 50 years due in the main to the effective working of true parliamentary government.
6.39 p.m.
Lord Moran: My Lords, I am glad that this Motion has been introduced by my old chief the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. All of us who had the privilege of working for him when he was Foreign Secretary remember him as Foreign Secretary with affection and respect. I am taking part in this debate tonight because I lived three years of my life in a communist country. When I was ambassador in Hungary I dealt almost every day with communist officials. I was able to study the workings of a communist regime over a considerable period and I

1061
travelled widely throughout Eastern Europe. As a result, I came to certain conclusions which I think are relevant to this Motion.
It seems to me self-evident that it is in our interests to have the best practicable relations with the Soviet Union and with the countries of Eastern Europe. The Russians are undoubtedly one of the most gifted and remarkable peoples in the world, and, to a large extent, so are the peoples of Eastern Europe. We ought always to remember that Europe includes the countries of Eastern Europe. We often talk about Europe as if it meant only the countries of the Community, but it does not; it includes those other countries as well. We ought also never to forget the terrible sufferings of the Russian people during the second world war—sufferings which were on an altogether different scale from our own and which certainly account in part for the Russian obsession with security. Indeed, only the other day Mr. Sherbitsky, after seeing President Reagan, referred to that experience. It is never far from their minds.
But all these countries have communist regimes, and those regimes seem to have two characteristics above all. First, they rest on force—on the secret police and, in the last resort, on troops. When the Russians suppressed the Hungarian uprising in 1956, the Soviet commander in Budapest said that the Russians would stay in Hungary "till crayfish whistle and fishes sing". There is an element of permanence about their thinking in this matter. The other characteristic is that the regimes regard themselves as permanent—in their own language, as "irreversible". It follows that no opposition and no serious dissent is tolerated.
Solzhenitsyn, among others, has told us what that means in practice in the Soviet Union. I do not want to weary your Lordships with details about which we all know, but when one travels over a border crossing in Eastern Europe at most of the frequented posts the paraphernalia of repression is kept discreetly out of the way. But once I took some of my family on a less frequented road from Czechoslavakia to Austria, where they were able to see at the border the whole apparatus of watch-towers, searchlights, sand raked to show footprints, machine guns, killer dogs—all there in evidence and all designed to keep the people in the Soviet and communist paradise and not to keep people out. Your Lordships may remember the poem of Hilaire Belloc which begins:
"There is a wall of which the stones
Are lies and bribes and dead men's bones".
That wall, or a wall like it, surrounds not only East Berlin but the whole area covered by the communist countries. We ought never to forget the way these regimes treat their people. I am, therefore, particularly glad that on his recent visit to Eastern Europe the Foreign Secretary sent a signal to the brave men who are holding up their heads against very difficult circumstances. He sent a message that they are not forgotten by the Government of this country.
In their dealings with the West these regimes follow two contradictory policies. On the one hand, they seek to have cordial intergovernmental relations with Western countries by high-level visits, by trade, by cultural exchanges and the rest. On the other hand, they follow a policy which they themselves regard as more important but which they describe as "the
1062
unrelenting struggle" against what they call "bourgeois or imperialist systems". This is the class war in its international context. The party ideologists call for the liberation of the workers from bourgeois rule, the "sharpening of the ideological struggle", and they claim, as the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, that socialism and capitalism are irreconcilable. They deal with Communist Parties in the West and also with the Communist Party of Great Britain. What they have in mind is not just a competition of ideas but the promotion of revolution; that is, the subversion and ultimate destruction of free societies.
In Hungary, when I was there, the first of those tasks—the task with the friendly face—fell to the Government, which, in a communist country, are subordinate to the Party leadership, and the second to the party itself. When I was having conversations, which were often friendly and constructive, with communist leaders, it was a slightly errie thought to me that they probably believed, though they were too polite to say so, that I and people like me ought to be in the Lubyanka or its equivalent. I believe that they will continue to try to carry out this dual policy, the main thrust being the party thrust, but it is fair to say that in my experience communist leaders are also nationalists as well. The withering away of the state predicted by Lenin still seems to be quite a long way away.
In the light of today's events perhaps I should say that the regimes have a third string to their bow as well. That is the operations of the KGB, the AVH and all the other similar organisations. The Russians have a mania for spying, and in Soviet embassies a straight diplomat enjoys a rather rare distinction.
I agree with almost everything that has been said in this debate by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, in his powerful and closely reasoned speech. We have to deal with these regimes as they are and to recognise that we are, willy-nilly, engaged in a contest between two conflicting sets of values—a contest that may last for many years. Here lies the difficulty. We cannot, sadly, trust communist regimes, but they exist. If we keep our nerve, keep our eyes open and are consistent and resolute, we can deal with them.
This must be done on the basis of real detailed knowledge of what they are. The Prime Minister spoke in Washington two months ago of the need for
"more knowledge of the people you are negotiating with; more understanding of their concepts and their ideas".
I am certain she is right about that, but this knowledge and understanding comes only in part from talking to the communist leaders and more from studying what they say at party gatherings and write in party organs, where their true aims tend to be apparent.
In a democracy there are almost limitless opportunities for self-deception and wishful thinking, for believing that things are as we would wish them to be and not as they really are. My noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow mentioned H. G. Wells' extraordinary remarks about Stalin. Stalin was known in the second world war by many people in this country as "Good old Joe". Something of that same attitude can be seen in the aspects of the Ostpolitik of the Federal Republic of Germany.
There was a good deal of rather unreasonable euphoria when Mr. Gorbachev was elected as First

1063
Secretary. We obviously hope that he will bring changes which are satisfactory and make it easier for us to have good relations with the Soviet Union, but we have to remember that he was the protéé of Andropov and that he was nominated for his present post by Gromyko. I think that we should not be too sure that there are going to be profound changes. We ought to remember what Lenin himself said to the Bolsheviks in March 1918: "Lose your illusions‡" There is little problem about this when the Russians are being thoroughly unco-operative; as for example at the time of the shooting down of the Korean aircraft. The danger arises when there are more encouraging signals coming out of Moscow.
There was a similar period during the early years of the 1970s when I was in Budapest. That was the period of dé the Minister has reminded us that there were a good many illusions and exaggerated hopes cherished at that time. The Western view of dé certainly that we wanted a genuine easing of tension, finding ways in which we could live together in a nuclear world, and generally to turn swords into ploughshares. But the Eastern view too often was that this was a convenient way of lulling the West into insensibility while the Soviet build-up of arms continued.
A good deal has been said by noble Lords in the debate about Soviet propaganda and the Minister, in particular, said some things which were very pertinent about it. These tremendous campaigns to which we are subjected are an enormous, prolonged party-concerted operation. Your Lordships will remember the remark of the beaver in The Hunting of the Snark when he said, "What I tell you three times is true". This is the maxim of the Soviet propagandists except that it is not three times but 3 million times. They have I think had marked success in establishing the vocabulary of many international exchanges. Words like "détself; "peaceful co-existence", "imperialism"—in the modern, United Nations sense—and "colonialism" were all originally inventions of agitprop and they have even tried hard to shanghai the word "peace". They use words to veil reality.
To give your Lordships only one example, they describe themselves always as socialist countries and never as communist countries. They use, too, a special jargon which is understood by the initiated but which it is hoped misleads the ingenuous foreigner. When I was in Budapest, I made myself a key to the correct understanding of many of the phrases that were used every day. I noticed for example that, in describing a meeting, communiqués or party newspapers would always use the phrase, "standpoints were identical", which I realised meant that the two participants agreed; or, "standpoints were close", which meant that they disagreed. My key went as follows: that "détente" meant Soviet policy towards the West; the "irreversibility of détente" meant the total victory of Soviet policy and the collapse of its opponents; the "leading role of the working class" meant everything run by the party; "the principles of mutual respect and non-intervention", meant, "We can subvert you but you must not subvert us"; "the lessening of international tension" meant "gratifying unawareness
1064
of the West of the continuing growth of Soviet power"; and "forces hindering détente", usually meant people like you and me, my Lords.
We just have to stand up to this propaganda onslaught, which most recently has been directed against NATO's two-track decision and is always seeking to divide the West. The Minister spoke about our broadcasts and the jamming of them; but I believe that a good deal of information filters through despite all the barriers which the communist regimes erect and one encouraging thing is that internal propaganda by the régimes to their own people meets in my experience with almost universal disbelief.
How should we, who believe in compromise and truthfulness, deal with communist regimes, which do not? I think, first, that we should decline to accept their pretended division of functions and not allow them to come with friendly overtures to the front door while they are creating mayhem at the back. We have to make it clear to them, I think, that there is a price to be paid when they behave badly and this may encourage them to rein in the militants. Secondly, I think it is always a mistake to make unilateral concessions. We see this, above all, over intermediate missiles where we allowed them to establish their own intermediate missiles in Eastern Europe without putting our own there, too. As a result of that, we had enormous difficulties in trying to rectify the balance. But I am sure that we should respond to any genuine moves, and if the pressures on Mr. Gorbachev to try to increase efficiency and production and to give more to the consumer in the Soviet Union lead him to make genuine offers in Geneva or elsewhere, then we should respond to them at once.
I believe that any progress will probably be gradual and we should never stop explaining to our Western publics what it is all about. Furthermore, we must be clearer and blunter about the true aims and objectives of communist party members. Too often, they are allowed to get away with maintaining that their aims are quite other than what they actually are. I agree very much with what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Stewart of Fulham, that we do make it easy for them if we support brutal, Right-wing regimes in Latin America or elsewhere, and I am sure that we should not do that.
These regimes are not totally rigid. They too have intractable problems: such as a low and falling birth rate, agriculture, which is a disaster area in the Soviet Union; problems concerning productivity and housing, which is very bad almost everywhere in the communist world. There are problems with alcoholism and the underlying attitudes in Eastern Europe which remain very much in favour of the West. These are all serious matters although I do not think that they are quite as desperate as they were represented in The Times of yesterday.
Essentially, I believe that the view of communism formed in Catalonia by George Orwell 50 years ago is right; but change and evolution are not at all impossible and I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, that it is very hard indeed to predict the future in a country like the Soviet Union. Would anyone have believed five years ago that we should see four secret policemen in a communist country put on trial publicly and condemned to long

1065
prison sentences? Although nothing was said about the people who must have given them their orders, nevertheless that is an enormous step forward to anyone who knows these countries. We have, I am sure, to negotiate firmly and honestly with the Communist regimes. We must not get too cosy with them so that we discourage the courageous dissidents; but I am sure that there is no need for despair. Truth, freedom and justice are on our side, and if we are calm and patient, and remain strong, I think that we can look ultimately for a happy issue.
7 p.m.
Lord Bauer: My Lords, the distinction of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, and the significance of his Motion make it unnecessary for me to add to the tributes already voiced. Acquisition of client states by fomenting discord is a commonplace of history. In the context of the third world, the pertinent question is: why is the climate so hospitable to Soviet efforts? Ordinary people there are certainly not hostile to the West and its products. They are eager for Western watches, transistors, drugs and bicycles. Nor is poverty the explanation. It is the relatively prosperous, urbanised and articulate groups with Western contacts who most readily embrace the communist creed: politicians, media men, professional people and the politicised media. They dominate the politics of the third world, especially in Africa and Asia where there is a wide discrepancy in political power between these groups and the inarticulate and ineffective rural majority.
The ruling groups have only the haziest notion about Marxist-Leninism. But they realise that it is both a system of ideas and a political programme. They welcome a programme which promises them even closer and more lasting power over their subjects. It is highly relevant to this debate that for many decades a flow of misinformation emanating from the West has reached the third world, about the Soviet system, but primarily about alleged Western misconduct. Noble Lords have emphasised Soviet propaganda. But a few examples which I shall give suggest that it is hardly necessary for the Soviets to turn the third world against the West by subverting it. We do it for them.
Imagine the reaction, my Lords, of an educated third world reader if he knew that the last major work by the Webbs, founders of the LSE and entombed in Westminster Abbey, is entitled, Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation. Alternatively, imagine the reaction of a student audience of Harold Lash—acclaimed on both sides of the Atlantic—on reading that Vyshinsky was,
"doing what an ideal Minister of Justice would do, if we had such a person in Great Britain";
or on reading that Dr. Kingman Brewster, professor of law at Harvard, President of Yale, United States Ambassador to Britain and now Master-Elect of the oldest Oxford college, proclaimed that he was appalled and ashamed that nowhere in the United States could black revolutionaries expect a fair trial. And it was not a Soviet spokesman, but C. P. Snow, who wrote that,
"in overall strategy the socialist economy has been a major success. That is, it has produced national wealth, not only in the Soviet Union, but in other socialist countries, very fast; almost certainly much faster than it could have been done under capitalism".
1066
More effective in the context of this Motion has been the persistent denigration in the West of the West's conduct towards the third world. It is not in Pravda but in the Guardian that we read:
"A quarter of the world's population lives, quite literally, by killing the other three-quarters".
We read also of,
"social cannibalism which has reduced over three-quarters of mankind to beggary, poverty and death, not because they don't work but because their wealth goes to feed, clothe and shelter a few idle classes in America, Europe and Japan".
In the same vein Professor Ronald Sider, a prominent American clergyman, writes:
"It would be wrong to suggest that 210 million Americans bear sole responsibility for all the hunger and injustice in today's world. All the rich developed countries are directly involved we are participants in a system that dooms even more people to agony and death than the slave system did".
Such fantasies are regularly taken up by third world politicians supported by the West, and they are often advanced in publications or on platforms provided by it. Kwame Nkrumah was, until his downfall, a very influential African leader, widely praised in the West. He wrote:
"The colonalists took our lands, our lives, our resources and our dignity … It was when they had gone and we were faced with the stark realities, as in Ghana on the morrow of our independence, that the destitution of the land after long years of colonial rule was brought sharply home to us".
In fact, before the British there was not a single cocoa tree in Gold Coast Ghana, nor a network of roads and rail. When the British left there was a huge cocoa acreage, all of it in African hands, as well as an effective system of transport communications.
Julius Nyerere, President of Tanzania, is a venerated world figure. On a state visit to London in 1975 he said:
"If the rich nations go on getting richer and richer at the expense of the poor, the poor of the world must demand change".
In reality, when the West first established contact with his country, it was an almost empty region, thinly populated with tribal people exposed to Arab slavers.
Both Nkrumah and Dr. Nyerere received much aid from the West. This did not endear the West to them. Much the same can be said about Mrs. Gandhi.
The West further undermines its own position by much exaggerating the importance of third world countries of no strategic significance and no economic or military power beyond that conferred on them by the West itself; witness Ghana and Tanzania.
My Lords, while the West must resist Soviet attempts to seize real strategic vantage points, we should nevertheless consider primarily what can be done to make conditions less tempting and less propitious for such attempts in the third world.
We should systematically assist those governments who promote a society to which the Soviet system has little appeal. This means, broadly, a society in which person and legitimate property are effectively protected and in which individual economic initiative is given scope, including freedom to develop external commercial contacts. We should also try to expose and refute promptly patent and damaging falsehoods such as those I have mentioned. Several noble Lords have referred to this in the context of Soviet propaganda; we should also think about it when such

1067
opinions emanate from the West. This would involve close scrutiny of the largely Western-financed official international organisations, some of which serve as platforms for virulent abuse of the West.
But much the most important task is, alas, also much the most difficult. What is it that has happened to us in recent decades to make us succumb to totally unfounded feelings of guilt, to accept the most outrageous, evident and damaging falsehoods, and to defer to rulers who treat their people with contempt, brutality and even inhumanity, and who have no real power except that conferred on them by the West? It is as if some invisible monster had ravaged our self-confidence and our ability to observe and to reflect.
I cannot conjecture about the prospect of improvement in this immensely complex realm. The changes I suggested earlier may make a modest contribution to wider improvement. What can be expected, however, is that if the West regains clarity of thought and self-confidence, this would improve relations with the Soviet Union. Present and future Soviet leaders will know better where they stand in their relations with the West. They will be less tempted into adventures. And more confidence and intellectual poise in the West may well affect the conduct of the Soviets towards the people under their control. Here lies the best hope for the objective envisaged in the Motion of my noble friend Lord Home.
7.12 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in the last two hours we have heard from the Benches opposite a series of profoundly depressing and doomladen speeches. I am not challenging the facts put forward by, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, and yet I think we have had an unduly depressing impression. I do not recall any reference in any of these speeches to the successes of the democracies over the last 30 years in meeting this challenge of Soviet subversion.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester urged us to be guided by historical perspective, and I do think we need to try to get a more balanced view by considering how we got here and what this challenge was like before. If we look back, for example, to the challenge of Soviet subversion after the war, no one can deny that that challenge was far stronger and the difficulties of handling it far greater than they are now. I recall that at the time I was a junior Minister at the Foreign Office I was given a budget out of the secret vote and told to try to develop some counter to Stalin's worldwide campaign of subversion and propaganda.
In those days the image of the Soviet Union was different. Many people looked on the Soviet Union not as an oppressor but as a liberator, as a champion of colonial peoples against imperialism, as the great protector of working-class rights and standards of living. In those days the western communist parties were far stronger, far more loyal to the Soviet Union, much more dynamic and much more united than they are now. In those days it was not only possible but it seemed likely that there would be communist takeovers in France and Italy, and even here in Britain, which has always been the least vulnerable to Soviet subversion of all the major European countries. Even here we had 30,000 members of the British
1068
Communist Party; they even got votes; they even had two Members of Parliament in another place. The outlook in the third world at that time was very discouraging and disturbing. It seemed impossible that we could give independence to the British Commonwealth countries, to India, to Malaya, to Ceylon and Burma, without the Russians coming in somewhere.
The noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, gave us a very accurate and interesting summary of the front organisations, but of course in those days they were fresh. In those days quite sophisticated people thought they were not just instruments of Soviet foreign policy—as they were and are. Quite sophisticated people thought of them as great gatherings of people of good will, peace lovers, women, trade unionists, and so on. Today we have a very different and a much more encouraging picture. You would never have thought it if you had listened to the stream of speeches we have had from the doomladen Cassandras on the Benches opposite. Today we do see, as I say, a very different picture. Today in Europe the challenge to the status quo is not the challenge of communism in Western Europe; it is the challenge of western ideas in Eastern Europe. The whole picture has been changed. In the third world, I grant, there is Cuba, there is Ethiopia, there is Aden; but in the entire British Commonwealth I can think of only one country which succumbed. That was Grenada, and we know what happened there.
The Russians claim today to have 80 million members of communist parties throughout the world, but 75 million of them are in communist countries—30 million are Chinese—which leaves just 5 million for the non-communist world. That is just a claim, and it includes wholly disloyal communist parties such as the Italian Communist Party. It includes both halves of the discredited and demoralised British Communist Party. Sometimes I think the British Communist Party is becoming so small that it is only a matter of time before those of its members who are MI 5 agents form a majority in the party‡
I agree entirely with the criticisms that the noble Lord who introduced this debate in a weighty and fascinating speech makes of the Soviet's handling of its relations with the other governments. Of course I agree, but again I would beg that we compare this with its handling of non-communist governments in the past to see what the trends are, and, as the right reverend Prelate said, to apply some historical perspective.
To find the high watermark of Soviet misbehaviour in international affairs you have to go back to Lenin's time. In 1919, Lenin formed and dominated the Comintern, the organisation of all the world's communist parties, and he issued a manifesto calling on,
"the proletarians of the world to wage resolute struggle for the dictatorship of the proletariat for the victory of Soviets in all countries".
That is not Mr. Gorbachev's language, anyhow. The fact is that in the subsequent 65 years there has been a steady playing down of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the establishment of Soviets and a steady increase in normal government-to-government contacts with non-communist countries. In the 1920s,

1069
Stalin watered down the aim to socialism in one country and, as fascism threatened the security of the Soviet Union, Stalin began establishing contacts with non-communist governments and changed the role of foreign communist parties. As Trotsky put it very well at the time:
"Stalin has transformed the foreign communist parties from vanguards of world revolution to pacifist frontier guards of the Soviet Union".
That is not a bad description of the active pro-Soviet communist in the peace movement in Europe, and since Stalin's death the process has gone on. I recall a British parliamentary delegation which visited Russia and talked with remarkable frankness with Stalin's successors, with Malenkov and Molotov. I recall we urged them to abandon the Cominform in the interest of good government-to-government relations; and shortly afterwards, for whatever reason, they did in fact abandon the Cominform.
I recall a frank talk with Molotov in which I listed all the methods of intervention in the internal affairs of this country to which we objected—all of them. I will not go into it now, but he robustly defended them all. He said that they were legitimate, by which I think he meant legal. But when I review that list today, I see that although Soviet conduct is bad—and I am not saying it is not—and although intervention in our internal affairs continues, the list is nothing like what it was. The degree of intervention is not what it was, partly because foreign communist parties are much weaker than they were and partly because the Soviet Union is giving increasing priority to its security interests over its ideological objectives and is cultivating more normal relations with foreign Governments—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? Does he really imagine that the miners' strike is the sort of thing that happens without Soviet intervention in the internal affairs of our trade unions?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I attended carefully to the noble Lord's speech and, of course, I agree. I shall come later to the miners' strike. But if I may say so, the noble Lord was very undiscriminating. Did he not suggest that the Red Front in Italy and Baader Meinhof in Germany were Soviet led? I shall come to this point later, but in the meantime I want to say this. I believe the danger of putting all this emphasis on Soviet led subversion is that it distracts attention from those subversive activities which are more dangerous and do not owe their origins to the Soviet Union.
I come now to the sabotage of NATO installations, which the noble Lord mentioned. He did not give any reason for thinking that they were Soviet led, Soviet encouraged or Soviet directed. My information from NATO itself is that it is not so done and that the Italian Red Guards are not Soviet led. I hope that the Government, when they come to reply, will also answer the point that the IRA is Soviet led. If it is true, as alleged by some noble Lords opposite, it is of extreme importance, and perhaps we can have that matter cleared up.
But, generally speaking, we have to distinguish nowadays between subversion that is Soviet led and
1070
the much larger problem of subversion which has other origins. For example, let me take the Socialist Workers' Party and Militant. They are not socialist led, and they are subversives. The newspaper Militant very seldom mentions the Soviet Union. When it does it attacks the Soviet Union, it attacks the Vietnamese Government and it attacks the French Communist Party. The Socialist Workers' Party is the same.
In my day, the Marxists who infiltrated the British Labour Party were Soviet led. In my day in the Labour Party we had strong leadership and, as the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing, said, we had a list of proscribed organisations and any member who belonged to one of them, any crypto-communist and any fellow traveller, was out on his neck. Quite right, too‡ Today the Labour Party has no leadership at all and no proscribed list, and it has not had leadership since Gaitskell's death. The result is that, of course, it has a serious problem of Marxist infiltration. But my point is this. These Marxists are not Soviet led, and noble Lords opposite must make these distinctions. If they are to find out the reason for subversion and how to handle it, they must know where it comes from and all about it.
There is still—and, again, I address myself to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway—a residue of pro-Soviet Marxists in the Labour Party, in the NUM, in the Scottish TUC and in the peace movement. But they do not dominate those organisations. Here, again, I quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord On-Ewing. He rightly said that British communists and fellow travellers and the pro-Soviet Marxists dominate the British Peace Assembly. That is quite true. But they do not dominate the more important parts of the peace movement. They belong to, but they do not dominate, CND and END. Therefore, their influence in the peace movement is a great deal less than it was after the war. This is the truth. What is more, there is great difficulty for pro-Soviet communists in combining their role as communists, as militant subverters of bourgeois democracy, on the one hand, and as leaders of these broad groups, on the other. For example, in the CND there are one or two—only a few—pro-Soviet communists. They get into grave difficulties.
Some time ago, as the Liberal Party's defence spokesman, I made public the fact that CND's liaison officer with Liberal CND—the man who briefed them and gave them information material—was an able and active member of the Communist Party. After the usual cries of outrage about McCarthyism and witch-hunting, which tell old hands that they have hit the target, this man, Mr. John Cox (for it was he) wrote to the Guardian as follows:
"I never did anything to breach the trust placed in me by CND members. If Lord Mayhew or any other cold warrior can cite a single instance in which I abused this trust for party advantage, they should say so openly".
My point is that this illustrates the extreme difficulty of combining the role of what Trotsky called a pacifist frontier guard of the Soviet Union with the role of a genuine Marxist communist. If Lenin had read Mr. Cox's letter in the Guardian, I venture to say that he would have turned in his mausoleum.
Finally, I ask why the Soviet Union has been losing the battle of ideas—because, whatever impression is given by noble Lords on the Benches opposite, we have

1071
been winning this battle. It is almost no exaggeration to say that we have won the ideological battle against Soviet communism in Europe. Why has it happened? Mainly, it has been done by the Russians themselves: by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, by the suppression of Hungary, by Khrushchev's great anti-Stalinist speech, by their economic failures and by Afghanistan. Mostly, the destruction of the Soviet ideological challenge has been done by the Russians themselves.
But do not let us forget the credit due to the democracies for the resilience of our political and economic institutions, for the formation of NATO and for its maintenance. These have helped, too. The British Foreign Office helped. A little department called the Information Research Department, which was my major achievement after the war, helped, too. It quietly spread around the truth about Soviet slave labour camps. It coined the phrase "Soviet imperialism". I think that all helped, too.
But I wish to try to counter the atmosphere of extreme depression which has descended on this debate as a result of some of the speeches from the Conservative Benches. By its nature, the Conservative Party is not closely acquainted with subversion. It attacks it vigorously, but its shots are fired from a very long range and, sometimes, they fall wide. But the fact is that this Motion and some of the speeches seem to under-rate the power and success of the democratic idea in these last 30 years. They seem to me to exaggerate the extent of Soviet-directed subversion and to under-rate the importance of subversive activities which are not attributable to the Soviet Union.
There is a problem, and I do not deny it. We certainly must not relax our efforts, and we need to continue exposing, refuting and ridiculing the dwindling ranks of the pro-Soviet Marxists in this country. But we do not need to change course. We do not need new methods of repression—certainly not. We do not need any restrictions on our civil liberties—certainly not. We can defeat Soviet communism by playing it long, playing it cool and sticking to our principles.
7.29 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, stimulating and encouraging and I think we should admit that he has recalled us to a sense of proportion. We all know that the Communist Party's overt activities and arithmetical strength have declined almost everywhere in Western Europe and in some other parts of the world too. But what has risen is a fantastic spread of gullibility. One of the most pregnant phrases in this debate so far came from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, with his vast Foreign Office experience, when he said that he found that there was an "above average gullibility" in British visitors to Russia.
I must begin by offering an apology to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester because I did not hear all of his speech. If what I am going to say about what was told me he said is inaccurate, I shall gladly give way and I hope he will correct the record. I am told that he said that religious observance in Russia is today higher than it has ever been. I do not know whether he said that and I shall gladly give way if he did not.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: My Lords, I was quoting from Sir John Lawrence's book, published by Chatham House last year. What I said was a direct quotation from him.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am much obliged to the right reverend Prelate for correcting my misinformation. All I can say is that I was once a member of Chatham House and, although I have and had great respect for some of the scholarship of that institution, I do not think it is infallible. If Sir John Lawrence says that religious observance in Russia is greater than it ever was, one must ask: How long is "ever"? So far as I am informed, the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate is severely restricted in the publications that it is allowed to produce and in the training of priests it is allowed to supervise and conduct.
On the subject of historical perspective, to which the right reverend Prelate also referred, I think it is only fair and proper to say in this context that the story of the Orthodox Church over the centuries has been one of resistance to tyranny, whether by the tsars, the sultans or the Soviets, through very nimble footwork and adaptation. Very often there is coded language in what the Orthodox leaders say which is not always comprehended in the West.
One critical component in all mere propaganda is double speak and another is selective distortion. The Soviet Peace Programme affords ample examples of both. Let us take the phrase "peaceful co-existence". I now quote from the Soviet Philosophical Encyclopaedia, published in Moscow in 1964:
"The peace struggle is inseparable from the fight for socialism".
Mr. Brezhnev has been well quoted this afternoon, but there is one other quote which I think it is a pity to miss the chance of using. He said in 1969:
"Times of peace offer favourable conditions for promoting the revolutionary liberation movement".
But perhaps as good a quote as any I have found in the material which I have been citing comes from Mr. Vadim Zagadin, deputy head of the International Department of the Communist Party of the USSR in July 1983. I quote:
"Communists in the West must mobilise the peace movements for the struggle against imperialism".
This last quotation is pure Leninism, and we have had some very interesting and useful tactial advice given to Marxists by none other than Lenin himself. He recommended the use of what is called in Russia "Palijelsme Duraki"—"useful innocents", sincere, well-intentioned people who may unwittingly "do our work for us"; that is, to do the Marxists work for them.
They have found a happy hunting ground in Christianity itself. The penetration of the churches was entrusted as a specific task to a body called Orginform, whose first director was an apostate orthodox priest, Vassili Gorelov. It established training schools in Moscow for the service of North America, in Latvia for the service of Western Europe, and in Constanza, in Romania, for dealing with Islam. Out of all that arose the Christian Peace Conference, established in Prague in 1958, an ideal instrument for exploiting the heresy, so beloved of sincere do-gooders, that activity is the same thing as action; it is certainly easier than deep, disciplined prayer.

1073
As a religion of many paradoxes Christianity has lent itself to every kind of distortion. Christ's Easter greeting "Peace be with you" is turned upside down to imply political and international peace—rather than inner personal peace that passes human understanding. It is of course, by what I would call the Christian peacemongers, forgotten that the founder of our religion did say:
"I came not to bring peace but a sword".
At first such inversions do not seem greatly to have troubled the early Christian Peace Conference folk, but within five years of its foundation a sadly disillusioned vice-president, Mr. Richard K. Ullman, was writing:
"We had better admit … that our Eastern brethren are being used for communist policy, and through them we are being used in the same way".
That comes from Dilemmas of a Reconciler, published in 1963. No doubt he was referring to the various national regional committees of which Britain has one, although out of deference to the cloth I do not propose to identify several of its members whom I happen to know personally.
Although the founder of Christianity said:
"My kingdom is not of this world",
the Christian Peace Conference was within seven years of its foundation proclaiming—and I quote again:
"We Christians demand"—
not pray—
"demand that the Western nations and the USA pay for the stimulation of the economy and the industrialisation of the third world without strings".
That is a far cry, one might say, from that eminently capitalist parable of the talents.
There are fascinating overlaps—I shall not put it more strongly than that—which are traceable between the Christian Peace Conference and the World Council of Churches, in which the right reverend Prelate had some involvement, I am quite sure genuinely innocent, but not in the communist sense. He himself described the World Council of Churches as sharing some of the blemishes of the United Nations, but he found it a useful forum. That organisation, for better or for worse, boasts more than 300 churches as members and these churches are said to "represent"—I quote official language now—some 400 million Christians in more than a hundred countries.
Both the Church of England and the Episcopal Church of Scotland belong. I am a regular communicant of both, but they do not represent me. I am only sorry that some money I give no doubt finds its way to that quarter.
I have studied the founding documents of the World Council of Churches, which describes itself as a fellowship of churches accepting Christ as God and Saviour. But of its seven officially listed functions, only one is to spread the Christian religion; in other words, evangelism. Some four relate to conference and committee get togethers. One, tucked away among the others, refers to "world conferences on specific subjects as occasion requires". You can make that mean anything you like, and they do. Commissions are established to study church unity in terms of, guess what? Theology? Morals? The sort of study which
1074
ARCIC, the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Conference, goes in for? Not a bit of it. Church unity is to be studied in terms of political, social, racial and other factors; not, however, of faith and order. Its central committee is authorised to issue statements on, "Any situation or issue"—all this in the name of a religion whose founder said, "God is a spirit and they that worship Him should worship Him in spirit and in truth".
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I really must object to this very one-sided attack on the World Council of Churches. This is not the moment to make a detailed speech in reply to my noble friend here in our House, but I would simply say that I very much hope the noble Earl would not seriously wish the Church of England not to be part of the World Council of Churches. I have been a delegate to a World Council of Churches Conference, and so has the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, who knows a great deal more about the whole subject than I do. I just want to register the other side: I am very glad indeed that the Church of England belongs to the World Council of Churches.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells for saying what he has said. It is now in the record, and I am happy to have been able to give way to him and will do so again if he wants to interrupt me further. Personally, I regret the membership of my church in this body because of some of the things said and done by those who speak for it.
I was going on to say that there are fascinating overlaps which extend between the Christian Peace Conference, the World Council of Churches and its British counterpart, the British Council of Churches. This is funded by member churches. If my information is correct, something like £160,000 was voted towards it in the General Synod a month or two ago.
I am surprised at what one can learn by reading the available documents; I got them in the House of Lords Library. As I read them in a book edited by the late Bishop Bell who, as an editor, would have made sure the material was correct, the functions of the BCC do not seem to include evangelism. They refer much to stimulating a sense of social responsibility. I must say I am inclined to read that as some sort of theological bastard of Beveridge, but this leads straight to the politics of charity.
The British Council of Churches has a division called Christian Aid, whose director in 1978 told the Lambeth Conference:
"Taking the gospel seriously means we are obliged to engage in revolutionising those social and economic structures which deny food, shelter, water and clothing to 600 million people".
That does not sound to me to be the language of the Gospel, but I may have misread it.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, does the noble Earl know the Magnificat?
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I recite it more than once a day, as it happens, but I do not regard the Magnificat as a social revolutionary document. It is a religious document. It relates to the life of the soul and

1075
response of a soul to God's call. With all respect to the right reverend Prelate, that is how I see it.
When we hear these kinds of statements from, for example, a director of the British Council of Churches, I just wonder what the Russians would think of them, and what the Ethiopian Marxists would think of them. What about rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and rendering unto God the things that are God's?
The British and World Councils of Churches give grants to persons who, as I think we all know, are or have been engaged in terrorism in Africa. Under its racial hat, Christian Aid used to support—I do not think it does now—an organisation called the Race Today Collective, in Brixton, whose declared aim was to incite West Indians to revolution. It boasted of a so-called political victory and the,
"crushing defeat of a well deployed police army",
when more than 300 police were hurt in the Notting Hill Gate carnival in 1976. It likewise gloated over some 17 police injured on a London march in 1981.
I am not trying to say that all these exhortations that come and are circulated through the British and World Councils of Churches, let alone the Christian Peace Front in Prague, are directly Soviet inspired in any precise sense. What I am saying is that they fit neatly into the Marxist purpose of the "fight for peace", of the Marxist aim to destroy the opium of the people by destroying the church from within, the Marxist purpose to overwhelm other social systems by penetration under the pretence of competitive coexistence—all this by upending Christ's Easter message of peace into a struggle against imperialism.
What is the moral of all this? I believe it is in sound Christian realism to be as harmless as doves but as wise as serpents, seriously to eschew wishful thinking and to enjoy liberation from gullibility.
7.48 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells perhaps I may register my protest against the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his calumny against the absolutely magnificent work being done by Christian Aid throughout the developing world, particularly in areas where there are disasters and distress. I have seen it with my own eyes and I feel insulted on their behalf.
The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, was surely right to have initiated this debate, to which he has contributed his past great experience. Nevertheless, he should be taken to task for phrasing the second half of his Motion in such negative and one-sided terms. If he were to take a neutral stance we could substitute the words "United States" and "America" for "Soviet Union" and "Soviet" and still have a suitable Motion for debate.
The speakers in today's debate could be divided into hawks and doves, although perhaps confronters and conciliators would be a better description. It is interesting to note that they do not divide neatly across the House. Doubtless the confronters would describe the conciliators as stooges or gullible; equally, the conciliators might be rude and call the confronters warmongers. That is a much hackneyed word and I
1076
would rather just call them pessimists. I am delighted that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, fitted more into the conciliatory category.
Much could be done by this country to improve relationships with the Soviet Union, even though we may condemn some of its world-wide activities which have been so fully detailed by many noble Lords. I suggest that many of those activities could be held to be in retaliation or to forestall similar American backed interventions.
There are many popular movements in different parts of the world which are attempting to throw off oppressive and reactionary regimes and introduce, for example, much-needed land reform or greater popular participation in government. The Soviet Union feels, I believe, that it has a genuine ideological identity with such revolutionary movements. It does not need to foment them. It is poverty and oppression that are the incentive to revolution, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, pointed out, and I was delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, also supported this theme.
One has to ask: how mischievous is it to support genuine movements for liberation from tyrannical or oppressive regimes? Nicaragua is a current example where this has occurred, and the Soviet Union has kept a very low profile. On the other hand, there are cases where democratically-elected regimes have been overthrown by counter revolutions overtly or covertly supported by the United States' CIA—Chile being the prime example. There is a dark side to the case of the West.
It is true that the Soviet Union backs some very doubtful horses: Syria, Libya and Ethiopia for example. Sometimes this is done for strategic reasons, but so too do the United States and ourselves support some thoroughly oppressive and undemocratic regimes, also for strategic purposes—for example, Turkey, the present Government of Chile, and the Philippines regime of President Marcos.
British and American influence is spread thickly throughout the world in both military and economic terms. Does this preclude attempts by the Soviet Union to achieve international gains? The power game is not a polite one. Surely our overall aim is to avoid war and to live in peace with our neighbours, to increase trade and cultural and scientific exchanges, and to encourage free movement across frontiers—a notorious deficiency of the Eastern bloc, I might say, which is surely harming them in the long run.
Medical and scientific meetings are valuable not only in their own right but also as a means of increasing international understanding. This was brought home to me recently when I had the privilege of representing this country as an observer at a joint Inter-Parliamentary Union and WHO Conference in Thailand on Health and Development in South-West Asia and the Western Pacific. I was delighted to see legislators at that conference from countries which have no diplomatic relations. Delegates from North and South Korea, China and Vietnam were sitting in the same conference chamber and rubbing shoulders at the less formal events. The fact that possible enemy countries had common problems and that their representatives were approachable human beings must have reduced the tension between them.

1077
It is in that context that I should like, finally, to put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—and I have given notice of it. Is there any likelihood that co-operation in the field of medicine and public health between the United Kingdom and the USSR will return to the level envisaged in the Anglo-Soviet agreement of February 1975?
In the preamble to the agreement, it is stated that the two Governments wanted,
"to promote the further development and extension of co-operation between their countries in the field of medicine and public health".
When the agreement was renewed in 1983 it was stated that the two Governments were,
"convinced of the important role of scientific and cultural links between the peoples of the two countries as a means of promoting mutual understanding and confidence".
Sadly, however, events in Afghanistan and Poland (which I regret as much as any noble Lord—the Soviet Union has lost many friends here) have been given as reasons for curtailing such exchanges. But surely if medical exchanges are of value at all, this will be so just as much after the invasion of Afghanistan as before. If the Government really are convinced,
"of the important role of scientific and cultural links between the peoples",
then exchanges should be increased, and not decreased, at times of tension. Consider how much may be achieved when, for instance, a Russian kidney is flown to Britain for transplant, as occurred in September last year, or a British kidney is flown to the Soviet Union. It is surely wrong to use this form of exchange as a political weapon.
Finally, I should like to put one further question. In a Written Answer on 14th February the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said (at col. 379 of Hansard):
"Although political factors — have had their effect on cultural and educational exchanges — the improvement in the East-West political climate should permit some increase of exchanges in coming years".
If the Government believe, as I do, that exchanges are important, could they not make moves to reactivate them now and not just wait for "coming years"?
7.56 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, when I was a very young man in the 1930s I had one or two acquaintances and friends who were communist-inclined; it was quite fashionable in those days. I did not share their views, and in order to try to educate them I used to question why, if Russia was such a wonderful Utopia, it spent so much money on propaganda, why it did not open its closed frontiers, and why it did not say, "Come and see". My friends always looked a bit glum after that; they could not give an answer.
I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for initiating this debate. I cannot think of anyone more apt to do so.
When I woke up one morning and heard on the radio that we were now the allies of Stalin, whose purges in the 1930s made Hitler look like an amateur, I remember saying to somebody, "We will win the war but we'll lose half of Europe". I was ticked off for saying that, but I believe it was a fair enough comment.
1078
I never usually quote any of my own speeches, but on this occasion I should like to quote something I said on the subject of foreign affairs in this House in 1957:
"Foreign affairs can cover a wide field, hut I doubt as to whether any nation in the history of the world has so completely dominated this field as does Soviet Russia today. Every speaker in a foreign affairs debate must of necessity return to the enigma of Russia. as from Europe to the Far East the monstrous Punch and Judy show is performed with the genie in the Kremlin pulling the puppet strings".—[Official Report, 1 2/ 3/5 7; col. 148.]
I have not altered my opinion since then.
I should like to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who pointed out that many communists are not Marxist communists—but in that I see quite a danger. Why such people can be communists but do not want to be Marxist communists is because they are unwilling to associate themselves with the cruelties perpetrated by the Soviet regime. Therefore, they hope, or they think—I am sure with sincerity—that with a pure form of communism they will reform the world and make it a happier place. Of course, that is quite impossible because if it were not for capitalism the rest of the world would starve even worse than it is starving now. As we know, before the First World War Russia was the greatest grain exporter in the world and today it is the greatest grain importer.
I want to speak about Africa, of which I have had some experience. I shall not bring South Africa into it because I was hoping that my noble friend Lord Kimberley would speak about South Africa; but he does not appear to be here. A long time ago I was extremely keen on the information services and the external broadcasting services. I initiated one or two debates in this House on this subject. I begged the powers that be to give more money to the external broadcasting service because I considered it to be of extreme importance in combating communism in the undeveloped countries. My arguments fell on deaf ears. At that time the external broadcasting services were costing only £3 million. At the same time Russia was spending £500 million, with the result that it captured Africa. With illiterate and semi-illiterate people, broadcasting and, today, television is of extreme importance. I have been a soldier myself, although a very junior one, but I have always said that the pen is mightier than the sword. If you can capture the minds of men you will capture the world. The Soviets knew that and acted accordingly.
We made a great many mistakes in Africa in those days. We gave the Soviets an almost open hand to take control of Africa. For instance, when we scuttled out of our responsibilities in Africa the Prime Minister of the day said that we had freed 700 million people. Not all were in Africa and he was probably thinking also of India. We gave them freedom but I am afraid that we did not give them the freedom that many wanted. Many of them found themselves under their own leaders but in extremely corrupt and tyrannical regimes. They would have been far better off under the impartial justice of British administration and they would have been able to think somewhat better for themselves; but they were completely mesmerised by Russian propaganda, as were their leaders.
Finally, we sold the pass to Russia when we applied for sanctions on Rhodesia at the United Nations The United Nations at that time was infiltrated by Russia, and many of our former colonies were members of it

1079
and followed Russia. Many international lawyers, and lawyers here, said at the time that the imposition of sanctions was illegal; but I do not want to go into that as it is all history and we cannot undo what has been done. Once you have imbued something into people's minds, certainly into Africans, it is very difficult to undo it. In some ways we must admire the Russians for being so much cleverer than us on this indoctrination. We are very bad at that.
The amazing thing is that the Russians obtained this vast power and influence in Africa without firing a shot—not officially, because we all know that Russia works through mercenaries like the Cubans, and so on. It is an amazing achievement but it was to a great extent helped by us and by some of our media—no doubt unwittingly. The other aspect, which I believe the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, had something surprising to do with, was when we gave £.15 million to the communist regime in Mozambique during the trouble in Rhodesia. I think that the right honourable lady, Judith Hart, was Minister for Overseas Development.
I should like to say a word about the invasion of Afghanistan. It was, as far as I am aware, the only time apart from in Europe where Russia used its army. That invasion came as a great surprise to many people but we must remember that two years previously Russia had put one or two of its men in the Afghanistan Government, or in high places in Afghanistan. We should not have been as surprised as we were. We should have tried to stop the war. I know that there was very little we could do, but if our intelligence had been better we might have been able to discourage the Russians from going to war because from Afghanistan's point of view it has been an absolute disaster. I do not see what we can do about it now. However, we do have one hope. I had the honour last autumn of entertaining some people from the commercial side of the Chinese Embassy. I understand that China will not agree to any new treaty with Russia unless Russia pulls out of Afghanistan. I sincerely hope that that will come to pass.
I should like to refer now to the new Russian leader, Mr. Gorbachev. I see a glimmer of light there. He is, I believe, the youngest leader of Russia since the Bolshevik revolution; or rather, since Stalin. Therefore, I see some light, but I cannot see Mr. Gorbachev doing a great deal until the old guard fades away. The Kremlin is very conservative in its way. I think that even Mr. Andropov saw the weakness in the Russian economy and was trying to do something about it, but he did not last long enough to achieve any change. I think it will help that Russia's economy is very much overstretched and inefficient. They have made vast promises of great financial help to the African states, but this has never been forthcoming. All they have provided are arms, and I think the African states are becoming a little restive about that.
I should like to raise the question of South Africa for a few moments. The new developments in South Africa have rather taken us all by surprise in the past few months. The South African Government has become a lot more co-operative; the franchise is now larger, and they are being very reasonable over Namibia. I do not think Russia wants that. It has been
1080
rather a shock to her. She would rather see South Africa at loggerheads with the West. I think the men in the Kremlin are very worried.
I understand that Soviet Russia is trying a new form of propaganda in that they are saying that the two super powers—the United States and Russia—should now look after the 205 lesser powers, to lead them in the right way, and they will not alter their wishes in any way. That is complete nonsense. They are really suggesting that the United States and Russia divide the world into two halves. If that is the propaganda that they are going to indulge in it must surely be a trick because it would be completely out of keeping with their whole attitude.
It would be disastrous if Russia ever got control of the minerals in South Africa. If they did, unemployment would probably treble in the West, and especially in this country because, as we all know, there are certain minerals there which are vital for our industry. I hope that this new leader will try—he will have to wait until the old guard go—to have better relations with the West. If that happens, this will be a far nicer world to live in, without the blackmail of the atomic bomb that we always have to put up with. If we ever try to check Russia in any way, there is always that blackmail.
Before I sit down, I should like to take up some remarks of the right reverend Prelate. I know he is not here, but I am not going to say anything which would annoy him. I understood him to say that half the population of Russia were now practising Christians. The population of the whole of Russia is 270 million. I understand that nearly half are followers of Islam, and it is not so far ahead when that population will be larger than that of European Russia. What I should like to have asked the right reverend Prelate was: if there are that number of Christians in Russia, where on earth do they worship? Before the Revolution there were over 900 churches in Moscow alone. Now I understand that there are only 60. That applies throughout the Soviet Union, so I should like to have heard his explanation of how there are 135 million practising Christians in Russia.
My Lords, I have spoken for too long, I think; but I should like to repeat that I see some hope with this new leader.
8.16 p.m.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, I am very glad to support my noble friend Lord Home's Motion. I think it is most important to improve our relations with the Soviet Union and to have a constant dialogue with the Russians on all current international questions. But we really must not be bamboozled any more. I propose to embroider this theme.
In my 38 years as a diplomat I served in five countries neighbouring on Russia and also dealt with the USSR and with communist policies generally for a number of crucial years in the Foreign Office itself. My first visit to Moscow was with Anthony Eden in 1934. Hitler had left the League of Nations and was rearming, and the problem was to draw Russia into a more effective system of collective security. It was obviously in Russia's interest too, and the atmosphere was quite good. I remember we went to lunch with

1081
Litvinov, the Soviet Foreign Minister, at his dacha outside Moscow. The door was opened by Mrs. Litvinov, who turned out to be a Londoner. She greeted us warmly with the words "Well, fancy you coming to lunch with a horrid old bolshie like me". We went in laughing and the atmosphere never declined.
To cut a very long story short, we brought the Russians into the League of Nations and we had a certain amount of co-operation with them in those years, until the Spanish Civil War and Munich, which was an awful calamity. Please note carefully that it was in those years of reasonable relations that the Soviet Union recruited in Cambridge Burgess and Maclean, Philby, Blunt and certainly many more of our countrymen. They also penetrated Spain in a big way, and the amount of communism they were able to introduce in parts of Spain certainly contributed to the rise of Franco. I am not saying anything on Franco's side in this, but there are things to be said on both sides.
Come forward, my Lords, to the last part of the war and to the terrible aftermath. We were allies with Russia and we really tried our utmost to help the Russians. Our people at home really wanted to believe in Russian friendship. Mr. Churchill and President Roosevelt got to know Stalin quite well and could not easily believe he would be as mistrustful after the war as he had been before. We hoped to co-operate in a post war settlement of Germany. But note carefully what happened: it was in those years that the USSR reneged on the Yalta and Potsdam agreements and they forcefully communised Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Albania, Romania and Bulgaria, and we only just saved Greece.
They had previously absorbed Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the Soviet Union. They had a good shot at the Finns, but the Finns were too tough for them. They communised East Germany, contrary to all the agreements we had made with them. If it had not been for the Marshall Plan, OEEC and NATO, for all of which we must be greatly indebted to the Americans and to our great Foreign Secretary, Mr. Ernest Bevin, and I must say also to the generous bipartisan support from Mr. Churchill and Mr. Anthony Eden in Parliament, I think Stalin might well have communised the whole of Western Europe. I know that he intended to do that. There really was a cold war, but it was Stalin's cold war and definitely not ours.
In the 1950s the scene changed again. Stalin died in 1953. A new era opened. B & K travelled all over the place, if your Lordships remember. We were extremely glad to see them and we all tried hard to open the way for better times. But then what happened? That attractive wolf in sheep's clothing, Fidel Castro, replacing an unpopular and brutal dictatorship, was established in Cuba and became a centre of support for subversive moments in Latin America, led by brilliant guerrilla leaders like Che Guevara. When the French had to withdrew from Indo-China, another brilliant guerrilla leader, Ho Chi Minh, communised North Vietnam; and, finally, in spite of the agreements which we had made and about which we were told today, conquered South Vietnam, where the Soviet Union has now one of the biggest and
1082
best naval bases in the Pacific. Attention has been drawn today to the domino effect, which is now going on in South East Asia. Incidentally, the Soviet Union also got a naval base in India from which area we had withdrawn. Does not all that call for some reflection?
In the 1970s, we had the heady period of détente. We are greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Moran for the fascinating description that he gave of the misuse of those attractive phrases by the Soviet Union. Having lived for years behind the Iron Curtain, including in Hungary, I listened with fascination and agreed with everything that he said. But, unfortunately, the Helsinki agreement did not carry us very far on human rights behind the Iron Curtain. President Carter was bamboozled by the talk of detente, which he construed quite differently from the correct way that my noble friend put it. The Europeans were in a mess and were bamboozled also. In those years, the Russians secured communist control of Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Libya and South Yemen. They have a naval base in Aden now and they have troops on Socotra Island—something that we never achieved. Now of course there is Aghanistan. They also laid the groundwork for extensive penetration and subversion in Central America which, if it now succeeds, would change the balance of power in the world. We really have to watch that situation, although like the mass of my countrymen I do not like it.
Over 50 years the Russians have taken advantage of every improvement in our official relations with them to recruit agents among us, to press forward insidiously to get influence and even control of more and more countries in the outside world and to undermine Western influence there. It is what the French call un recul pour mieux sauter, and we have to look out for that. They have built up a world-wide fleet, far too big to be purely defensive. Their very high level of armaments, both conventional and nuclear, hangs like a dark cloud over Europe and over all their neighbours.
It is extremely important to negotiate an understanding to limit or reduce the arms race. We cannot do that from a position of inferiority. Any act of unilateral disarmament on our side would be entirely counterproductive and probably very dangerous. I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, is not present to hear me say that. I speak from great experience of dealing with these people. The conclusion of this short review of our era is, I think, very clear: try to be friends with the bear but do not let him hug you. That is very dangerous.
Now we have this new leader in Russia, Mr. Gorbachev, with a far more agreeable and forthcoming personality than his predecessors. How ought we to handle our relations with him in the light of our previous experience over the years? I think that it is extremely important—but extremely important—to lose no opportunity of settling outstanding problems with the Russians. Let us get our official relations on the best possible basis. I agreed with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, said about getting the widest possible contacts. Let them go on with the scientists and everybody else. Let them get to know lots and lots of

1083
Russians. I think that the Russians have more to learn—and, in a way, to lose—from contacts with us than we have from contacts with them.
We should realise the importance of "the idea". I agreed very much with what my noble friend Lord Mayhew said. I do not think that we have to be ashamed of what we have done. We have done a splendid job in Europe. But the force of "the idea" is something that the British underrate. We underrated the force of Hitler's idea. That was a great error. We never believed that he would start extermination camps; I could not possibly believe it. With the Russians also their ideas are very important.
I remember once going to a dreadfully boring dinner party in Warsaw and sitting opposite General Spychalski who was the principal communist in the Polish army. After a time the dinner got too boring and I fixed the general with a beatling eye and said, "Now look, General, there is something I don't understand about what you do". "Why, what's that?". "Well", I said, "you purvey politics to the Polish army, don't you? If we purveyed politics to our army, they probably wouldn't fight. How do you explain the difference?" "Ah", he said, "you haven't understood the position at all. You see, your secret weapon is the atom bomb but our secret weapon is 'the idea'. We believe that if you combine a million men together with the same good idea they will fight even better than if they had an atom bomb". That was a jolly good answer. I just say to your Lordships that we have a very, very good idea in our democracy and it is reasonably successful. I wish that we had less unemployment; it is dangerous. But our democratic idea is something that I think we have to propagate and to bear in mind in our relations with the Soviet Union and the satellites.
It is amusing to recall that General Spychalski was later accused—not so much later—of having co-operated with me and the American ambassador to produce a counter-revolution and introduce a regime of priests and landlords. I had already left Poland. I was not a Catholic, although I belong to the Church of England, and I had never owned a square yard of land, so I thought that this was a big joke. But General Spychalski was condemned to 10 years in prison, and I was careful not to go back to Poland. When Stalin died, he was let out after three months, and he became Minister of Defence and later was President of Poland for years and years. That shows your Lordships what communist justice consists of.
I think that we should do our best to get to know Mr. Gorbachev. I think that Mrs. Thatcher's line was quite right: "We think quite differently about a lot of things but we can do useful business together". Even little problems which remain unsettled have a way of causing enormous damage over the years. I think that we should do what we can to settle them. We should always be polite to him, and we should try never to snub him or brush his suggestions aside without consideration, or at any rate not more than we absolutely have to, so long as our own people are not misled or bamboozled by it.
Any summit meeting should have the most careful preparation; and let us have no leaks about this. One cannot negotiate or settle delicate questions if every
1084
move is published and perhaps misrepresented in the media. I think it would be very dangerous not to make an absolutely major effort to settle this dreadful problem of disarmament. I was at the disarmament conference in 1933. I think this is one of the most difficult subjects that can be approached. The balance of weapons and missiles and the control of any agreement reached is extremely difficult and important. The rule should be totally secret negotiations and absolutely open agreements.
I think it would be wrong to expect Mr. Gorbachev to make big changes in policy at once. He has to work with the existing Politburo, though he is sure to make changes in its composition when the new one is elected next autumn. Some members have died; others are clearly old enough for retirement. He has great internal problems to solve but I do not believe that we should count on their being so great as to force him to change his foreign or armaments policy unless he wants to and can carry the Politburo with him in doing that. On this I agree with what my noble friend Lord Moran said. I thought yesterday's leader in The Times was substantially true but slightly overdrew the picture. It was too highly coloured. All the same, I think that we should get Mr. Gorbachev used to having constant contacts with us and try to build up mutual understanding.
A great deal has been said about subversion. I am extremely concerned about it. However, I do not propose to repeat everything that has been said. I shall go straight on to say that I think we are faced with a renewed period of subversion in the NATO countries and no doubt outside. We have to be careful about this. I have been very struck by the coal strike and by some other matters. The instructions for communists, or communist agents, abroad used to be these. First of all, you collect reliable cadres. Then you train them in subversion; but, more particularly, you train them to come together suddenly at certain points where they can make trouble or join in trouble, and always to blame the police and the authorities. These used to be the standard instructions.
I do not know what the instructions are now in the schools which have been established all over the communist area. It is a matter of great concern. However, the instructions that I have mentioned correspond exactly with what has happened in some cases about which we have heard. My mind goes back to the Grunwick case. I think of the troubles that Mr. Eddie Shah had. It is monumentally clear that Scargill and his merry boys were carrying out some kind of policy based on that line of thought. I think it is dangerous. We have to watch it. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mayhew that we do not know how much of it is communist; some of it may be Trotskyite. I entirely agree with him. There are cross-currents now in the extreme Left-wing which are very difficult to follow.
This brings me to my next point. I am sure that it is essential that our intelligence authorities should study most carefully what is being prepared and what is going on, look out for other attempts at subversion or terrorism, and make sure that we defend our democracy by all possible means. If telephones have to be tapped, so be it, so long as it is under proper control. I welcome the Interception of Communications Bill

1085
which was recently laid before your Lordships' House. We must not be too wet to defend our democracy. Once one has lived, as I have, in places where truth, mercy and justice have all been abolished, one feels very strongly about this. The basic principle is that the defence against subversion has to come primarily from secret intelligence organisations—and I say "secret". We absolutely have to have them.
This brings me to my next point. Our intelligence organisations, by which I mean MI5, MI6 and GCHQ, and I suppose the Special Branch of the police, really must be protected against unauthorised publicity. How can they work effectively if their personnel, premises, safe houses, activities and methods are written about by investigative journalists, broadcast by "Panorama" and Channel 4, written up in books by well known communists like Philip Agee, and so on?
The "Panorama" broadcast, describing our intelligence organisations in detail, some two years ago, was an absolute scandal. The Channel 4 broadcast last month, giving fascinating but very damaging publicity to our intelligence organisations by a shameless renegade, Ms. Massiter, and others, was even worse. There is at present no effective legal means of stopping this. I agree with what my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham said about this. His remarks hit the nail on the head absolutely squarely.
Make no mistake about it. Because our defence against subversion, spying, and terrorism depends upon these intelligence organisations and the police, they are obvious targets for Soviet and militant Left-wing attempts to undermine them. We should certainly doubt the real intentions or loyalty of all those who seek to damage their effectiveness and secrecy.
If we are at all correct in expecting an upsurge of Soviet penetration and subversion now, we must take early steps to defend our intelligence organisations. We need a much better and more sensible Official Secrets Act, as the Government and your Lordships' House recognised in our debate of 20th March. We need better legal provisions and procedures which will make it impossible for people like Ms. Massiter, Channel 4, "Panorama" and Philip Agee to get away with it without effective prosecution. And we must protect the police against the innuendoes of the Left-wing militants like Arthur Scargill and others.
To conclude, I urge that we take every possible step to promote good relations with Mr. Gorbachev's Government. We must urgently take effective measures to protect the anonymity and secrecy of our intelligence organisations which are our primary defence against any subversion drive. In the next one minute I want to look forward. The wind may be blowing in the wrong direction. However, if any of your Lordships have sailed a yacht you know quite well that if you cannot go straight you turn to the right and tack a little, and then you turn to the left and tack a little. This is an occasion when some tacking in European diplomacy is required. I should like to see us take advantage of the present situation to strengthen Europe. Let us join the EMS. Let us build up Europe. We shall need a stronger Europe to face a stronger Soviet Union in the future. We should take advantage of the present situation to go forward with a positive policy on that line.
8.39 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, as has been said, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for introducing this wide-ranging topic for our debate, and for his own speech, based, as it was, upon practical experience of almost unique length in this field.
I should like to comment from quite a different point of view. My only claim is a long academic study of this subject. From it I derive a feeling that had the Motion been mine I should not have framed it quite in these terms, for this reason. It distinguishes between the desire, which we all share and which has been generally expressed, that we should seek, where possible, better relations with the Soviet Union. However, there exist certain obstacles to progress in the way, largely of Soviet activities, subversion and so on, which other noble Lords have detailed. This is, I think, a false dichotomy. It is rather like saying, if contemplating a weekend guest, that you would quite like to have So-and-So to stay—he is a nice chap and you would like to get on with him—were it not for his habit of spitting in the soup, seducing the maid, or whatever it may be. You have to take nations as you have to take people—as a whole.
The conclusion, I believe, that one must reach after the Soviet phenomenon, that has now gone on for a very long time, is that the external activities of the Soviet Union are part and parcel of the Soviet regime itself. They are not separable from it. Therefore, as long as the Soviet regime continues to be based upon the doctrines of Marxism-Leninism, one simply has to take for granted that they will behave in this way. The reason is this. Whereas we keep trying to find ways, whether through the reduction of armaments, through the conclusion of treaties or through economic means, by which a greater measure of stability can be brought into the world (we would all feel happier if we thought that the newspapers for the next 10 years would have nothing in them but trivia and that the international situation would suddenly stabilise and give us no cause for sleepness nights), the Soviet Union has been committed from the beginning to an entirely different view of the world.
It is a view in which stability is not something to be sought, a view in which the world is seen, as other noble Lords have said, as a struggle between two different conceptions, this struggle being partly waged by the traditional means of diplomacy, armoured strength, or a combination of both, and partly by a correct appreciation of what are the great social movements in the rest of the world and the extent to which they can be used to forward the purposes of Soviet diplomacy and the ultimate coming of the world communist state to which they look forward in some far distant utopian future.
This seems to be an answer to a point that was forcefully made by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that we on this side are alarmist. I agree with the noble Lord that one can easily overlook the ebb and flow and that the relations of forces, in Soviet language, look different from year to year and decade to decade. There, I would agree with him, but not, I think, with the point that he made, the perfectly correct point factually, that a great many of these movements or organisations that worry us are nowadays not directly

1087
controlled or even directly inspired by the Soviet Union and that in some cases—for instance, in the case of most of the organisations that are broadly styled Trotskyist—they are actually hostile to the Soviet Union, at any rate under its present rulers. Although all that is true, it does not make much difference. The fact is that if there is brought into our affairs disorder and industrial strife and if we are inhibited from deploying weapons that we believe important for our own defence, then, whether it is a communist party, a communist front organisation, a Trotskyist party or even, if you like, an idealist movement like CND professes to be, the result, from the Soviet point of view, is exactly the same. The West is weakened and their relative power is enhanced. That is why I do not find the consolation that the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, finds in that particular line of argument.
There is, of course, a very important reason why the Soviet Union will not be satisfied with that, why it will always try and, no doubt, is trying now, to draw back into its orbit even movements which, in their own language, objectively give them an advantage. The reason is that it is clearly important, or could be important in certain international circumstances, to be able to ask a movement of this kind rapidly to change fronts and to seek a different objective. If one looks back to the 1930s, to which reference has been made by the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Greenhill, and others, one has some admirable examples of exactly this. The line that was propagated by the Kremlin and accepted by Soviet communist parties at that time varied a great deal. At one moment it was to bring about some kind of anti-Nazi alliance. But as soon as the Soviet Union, for reasons we need hardly go into in this debate, decided that it would do better to come to terms with Nazi Germany, the whole of that propaganda effort was switched off, and propaganda against the war-making machine, the military preparations, and war conducted against Nazi Germany by Britain and France was turned on.
It is true that when this happened—there have been other examples—a certain number of people were shed. Far more people have passed through the Communist Party, certainly in all Western countries, than have ever belonged to it at any one time. But it is still clearly thought by the Soviet Union advantageous to have available to it in key countries organisations which will react very quickly to what the Soviet Union thinks is a major threat. In the field of armaments someone mentioned the campaign against the neutron bomb and the campaign against NATO's two-track decision. It may occur in diplomatic terms, There has always been—understandably if you like, if you place yourself in the Kremlin's position—a fear of the coming together of the main non-communist powers in workable alliances. In the case of NATO there have been efforts, and no doubt this will continue, to make ourselves suspicious of the United States or indeed, in so far as the Soviet Union has access to people in the United States, to make the United States less confident of its European allies. We must expect, in other words, that there will be a constant combination of straightforward power politics diplomacy, as has always run through the ages, and this particular advantage which the Soviet Union enjoys of having movements which help it to tilt the balance in its favour.
1088
The difficulty, as pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, and others, is that in a competition of this kind, although we should like, of course, to do our best to cultivate movements on the other side of the Iron Curtain that look to Western ideals for inspiration, democracies start at a considerable disadvantage. We cannot, without bringing in oppressive measures, prevent a great deal of this activity. If we have repressive measures, civil libertarians and others who might otherwise be suspicious of the Soviet Union and its friends may flock to its banner whereas the Soviet Union can and does act, together with its neighbouring countries, as the noble Lords, Lord Hankey and Lord Greenhill, reminded us, in that way. Therefore, there is a disadvantage in that competition.
Since we still need to make or to attempt to make agreements, the question that we must ask ourselves is on what basis those agreements can be made and in which directions we should look for progress. It may have been thought—and I believe that this is one of the main examples of the way in which, whereas the West's policy has fluctuated, Soviet policy has been constant—that the great change made in the world for mankind, the invention of nuclear weapons, would itself create a great change. Everyone agrees that it has created a great change for us. Deterrence by bombers was more frightening than deterrence by dreadnoughts. However, deterrence by nuclear weapons gives us far greater qualms of conscience, and understandable qualms of conscience, than deterrence by manned aircraft.
On the Soviet side, however, this vision—if you like, this apocalyptic vision—of the possible destruction of humanity, which is brought before us with some constancy by certain noble Lords in this House, never seems to have made a very deep impression. The nuclear weapon has somehow or other been absorbed into their political and military doctrines and the language of military writing—textbooks. The language of diplomacy is not very different now from what it was before these awesome weapons came upon us. Therefore, we cannot expect fear to be the solvent, although that does not mean that, for reasons which others have gone into, an attempt to seek some kind of armaments agreement is not still the first of our priorities.
The other and longer-term question is, if not the transcendence by fear, then the transcendence by love. In other words, can the common humanity which has been raised and which is talked about in relation to cultural and scientific co-operation and exchanges, can that sense that we are all human beings, somehow or other bridge this frightful gap? I think that in the long run, but only in the very long run, that is our only hope, because I do not believe that the Soviet Union, until it has found a different way of articulating its beliefs, a different relation between Government and subjects, or, if you like, between rulers and people, can be more than a dangerous and difficult adversary in world politics. However, it is tremendously important when we look for signs that this is happening that we should not let ourselves be carried away too easily.
I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate is no longer with us because in his speech I thought that he blurred a very important distinction between the Soviet regime and the Russian people or the peoples of

1089
the Soviet Union. When he talked about (and I believe this to be a correct observation) the growth of interest in the practice of religion, the right reverend Prelate did not sufficiently make it clear that this was not something which was encouraged by the official, recognised Orthodox Church, but was the work of believers who were doing it against a background of very intense and at times dangerous persecution. That has been amply documented by Keston College itself, to which the right reverend Prelate referred.
The right reverend Prelate was answered from a Christian point of view by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. However, he also—and this is the only matter which justifies my dwelling on the point—talked of an increase in Jewish observance. I know enough about my co-religionists in the Soviet Union to know that, while it is certainly true that there has been a revival of interest in Judaism, in the Bible and in Hebrew, where that is followed through it leads to very intense and at times deadly persecution. It is not lawful to prepare people for the rabbinate, to teach Hebrew, or to circulate the Hebrew Bible. Anyone who does any of those things is liable to find himself in very severe trouble.
Therefore, although we may talk about the revival of religion in the Soviet Union and look to that perhaps in the long run as a bridge between the Soviet Union and the West, bridging what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, called a basically theological gap, it is not something that we can consider at the moment except in terms of admiration for those whose faith is strong enough to stand up against persecution. The fact that a small, tolerated, state-controlled, Orthodox Church has meetings with churchmen from other countries does not by any means obviate the truth of these remarks.
Finally, we have been asked to look at the matter in historical perspective. For a child, historical perspective may be a matter of months; for an adult it may be a matter of years; for a nation it may be a matter of centuries. In the past we have had religious wars, some of which are still unresolved on their edges, between Christian and Moslem, between different branches of the Christian Church, and between Moslem and Hindu on the Indian sub-continent. Those are not matters which come to a head and which are somehow resolved by a treaty or an agreement in a matter of years or decades. They are matters which continue and which can and do cause loss of life and conflict. It may well be that the phenomenon of the Soviet Union—this curious unity that has Come about between a regime which holds itself partly by force and partly by presenting itself to itself, if you like, as the embodiment of a world cause—may go on, alas!, long after even the youngest of your Lordships has passed from the scene.
Our problem—the problem of Her Majesty's Government and of our allies—is how, recognising the difficulty that this presents, they can still manage to extract from it that minimum of agreement, contact and co-operation which will at least keep our descendants alive to see the change when it happens.
8.59 p.m.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Home has performed another service of many services in a long lifetime of fairly selfless services and
1090
with his unique experience has given us all a great deal to think about. I am on the side of those who believe that, while the new talks are important—and talks are always important for all the good reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and others mentioned particularly to prevent misunderstandings and possible mistakes—nevertheless the Russians are not likely, as noble Lords have made clear, to abandon their doctrines. They will, whatever they agree at the conference table, continue to interfere, and, if possible, to swallow any other parts of the world where opportunity presents.
It is nice to hope that they now have accepted coexistence of their part of the world with the rest, but, as has been pointed out clearly, there has been no evidence that is so either in the areas of armed expansion and intervention or in the areas of subversion, misinformation and propaganda. I believe that the dangers for this country are propaganda, disinformation, subversion and causing trouble wherever possible. There is certainly no sign of diminution. Although there are many other countries where the dangers are greater than in the United Kingdom, there could be a danger in under-estimating the dangers in the United Kingdom.
The first reason I believe that the danger should not be underestimated in the United Kingdom lies in the appalling performance economically of this country under governments of all parties throughout the 1960s and 1970s, so that we are today down to No. 16 in the order of wealth per head in the world, where as in 1960 we were still No. 3. That is the main reason we have even higher unemployment than some other European countries. That is why our social services are inadequate and are constantly criticised as such. That is why our education is not what we should like it to be, and is constantly criticised as such. This soil is fertile soil for sowing seeds in almost every sphere.
The second reason why we are perhaps more vulnerable than we realise is that the interference in this country is not as easy to see as it is in a number of other European countries. It is not labelled "Communist"; indeed, the Communist Party of this country has little influence and its name tends to be counter-productive.
I do not believe because of the second reason that the public as a whole have any proper understanding of the network of Soviet organisations operating under the guidance of their international department, nor of the resources that the Soviet puts behind its subversive campaign. My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing gave the House the tip-of-the-iceberg picture, as it would take far too long to give the full picture. Nor do I believe that the public have any real appreciation of the conditions in Russia, whether or not the leading article of The Times yesterday went a little over the top. One of the reasons they do not have a clear appreciation of the situation in Soviet Russia lies in the fear of expulsion of our correspondents if they report even that part of the truth that they are able to observe.
With better understanding by the British public both of what goes on here and of what goes on there I should feel a lot happier about our defences against subversion and propaganda. I hope that this debate will have encouraged the Government, the media and all responsible people to make more efforts to ensure

1091
that more of the public in our free society, which must remain free, are aware of what is going on.
The network of front organisations is confusing even to those who have tried to study it. Reference has already been made to the hijacking of words—the words "world", "international", "democratic"; and, more particularly, "peace". How can the public be other than confused—to take the peace area alone, and the same is true in nearly every other area—when they read about the activities of the World Peace Council, the International Institute of Peace, the British Peace Committee, the National Peace Council, the British Peace Assembly, the All-British Liaison Group, the Peace Pledge Union, the Authors for World Peace Appeal, the Artists for Peace, Science for Peace, etc? Let me hasten to add that of those I have mentioned the National Peace Council and the Peace Pledge Union are certainly not front organisations. Most of the rest are, or are very heavily infiltrated by, front organisations, particularly the daddy of them all, the World Peace Council.
I wonder how many editors, let alone their correspondents, know the network of front organisations and their subsidiaries. The same potential for confusion exists in education and in students' organisations, trade unions and with many professional organisation titles. How many editors know? How many people invited as guests to conferences in organisations know who they are supping with? How many reporters know what they are reporting on?
Tens of millions of pounds or even hundreds of millions of pounds must come—and there is evidence that they do come—mainly from the Soviet Union not only to maintain the fronts, but on top of that to feed funds into the critical organisations of our country in order to reach positions of influence. As a result of our freedom, our country abounds with critical organisations. What better way to get elected to the council of any organisation than to be able to secure funds in one form or another? What more fertile soil for sowing seeds of trouble could at present exist than the more disaffected and demoralised areas of our teacher and student population? There the front organisation, the International Union of Students, is the centre of a similar array and network of satellites.
On the apparent tacit assumption that many of us are hell-bent on war, part of our teaching profession at this time has decided, notwithstanding centuries of experience, that a new discipline called peace studies should be taught. I am all for new disciplines in areas where scientific change or the advent of computers makes that obviously necessary, but the causes of war have been taught as objectively as our excellent teaching profession can do in history, geography, English literature, politics and economics for centuries and the causes of war that have been written about have been various. But behind all the causes there has always been a common theme: that whoever the aggressor was he thought he could get away with it; because his intended victim, whatever the reason, for aggression—whether it was religion, economics or social, or whether the aggressor was an adventurer or a desperado—looked too weak in will or substance to inflict any painful damage.
1092
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made an eloquent impassioned appeal for the maintenance of deterrence. Can there be any real doubt, from recent examination of peace studies (to which my noble friend Lady Cox and Dr. John Marks, among others, have made such a contribution) that the objective of much, not all, of the peace studies is to increase the pressure to disarm at home and thus to make us potentially a more tempting and weaker victim? Even where such peace studies seem to have a multilateral disarmament bias, I wonder if those who support them realise that the only pressure that they are effectively exerting is on our own defence at home because of the nature of the Soviet system. This must be known by some who advocate peace studies and encourage them. I do not myself believe that peace studies can be, or should be allowed to be, a single subject because I do not believe that it can be taught objectively and independently in that way. It needs to be taught in the old time-honoured way.
I do not want to over emphasise the point made by my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing about the very healthy period which lasted the whole time between 1933 and 1972 when known communist front organisations were proscribed by the Labour Party and when membership was deemed to be incompatible with membership of the Labour Party. But it is terribly important. I would also underline the TUC decision taken to withdraw from the World Federation of Trade Unions in 1949. I trust and hope that there will be no risk of their rejoining; although there are more and more contacts with members of WFTU and WPC by unions and union leaders. The point is that, since the end of the proscribed period, these front organisations, which had had a very lean time, have flourished again. They have become much stronger, much more active and much better supported. The situation therefore has become far more dangerous since the Labour Party has swung to the left and removed proscription.
Today, some Members of Parliament and trade unionists, both wittingly and unwittingly, are fostering the purposes of the front organisations. To add to what my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing has said, there is, I believe, a 20-strong Parliamentarians Committee for Peace which sits under the chairmanship of James Lamond, MP. It is pledged to support the initiatives of the World Peace Council. Do the public realise that 20 MPs, not sitting as communists but sitting as socialists, today in the Socialist Party are pledged to support the initiatives effectively of the Soviet Union? I look at members of the Labour Party opposite whom I have known for a very long time in many different contexts. I ask them whether they really can feel happy about this and whether, in the interests of the preservation of democracy and peace, they have not got to do more about it. Do they not feel the eyes of Attlee, Deakin, Bevin, Gaitskell, Carron and others boring in on them?
I wish to say a quick word on the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. This, of course, is not a front organisation, and it has a wide and varied membership of all sorts and kinds of peace-loving people, which I hope we all are. But I wonder whether they realise how strong the Left-wing influence has become, At this hour, and with 15 minutes on the clock, I shall not go

1093
into that further; but there is no doubt about the strength of the influence of the Left in high places and about the sympathies of those who are really controlling the policy. I just hope that the many noncommunist members of CND will resist the influence of the Left in the movement, which is currently of such obvious delight to the Russians.
I hope that this debate will have made a contribution towards alerting more of the public as to what is going on in our free society. I hope, too, that on some other occasion we can help to draw a clearer picture of life in Russia today, and in Russia as it is seen by those who still get an opportunity to go there. I have not been there myself, but many of my close business associates have, some of them very recently. Some of them get an opportunity to see a wide area of Russia from East to West, and to travel.
I believe that it is questionable as to whether The Times article which has been mentioned today really does overestimate the situation. The stories that certainly I have heard right up to date tell of the appalling, virtually pre-tsarist conditions, with mud tracks through the villages, poor housing, a desperate economy, and prostitution on a large scale in the towns, as well as the other things that have been mentioned during this debate, with evidence of the military everywhere—hundreds of them. One middle-aged and very able director to whom I spoke the other day thought that they looked as though they were on a war footing, the whole aspect, other than in the military area, looking shabby in the extreme, with the terrifying proportion of the richer part of the economy depending on maintaining 15 per cent. of the GDP spent on military weaponry.
I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that I believe we should not underestimate their technical ability in that military area. By concentrating upon that area with all their technical resources in some respects they are ahead of us and in others they are not far behind. But outside the military area, I doubt whether The Times leading article is in any sense an exaggeration.
If every editor or director-general of TV in our free country would study not only this debate but would read, if he has not already read, the excellent book written by our retiring Ambassador from NATO, Sir Clive Rose, called Campaigns against Western Defence, and if they would take every opportunity to make a greater effort not just to give equal time to two points of view, one of which comes from these many front organisations, but to look at whom they are reporting and to guide their reporters, I would feel happier that the in-roads of this subversion would make less headway.
9.18 p.m.
Lord Kagan: My Lords, I have lived in Russia, in Stalin's Russia, for three years, and The Times article is not an exaggeration. The key to better relations with the Soviet Union is a strong Britain inside a united, strong and independent Europe, and a self-reliant Europe. Although this would involve a small surrender of sovereignty to the EEC, it would be a small price to pay to avoid the alternative, which would be "Finlandisation".
1094
The Soviet leadership are chess players, my Lords; they are not poker players; and chess is a pragmatic game, not an ideological game. The assumption that ideology and doctrine rule Moscow is misleading. Russia is an empire; power is its main purpose; security and survival its main concerns. Ideology is merely a tool, a weapon in the armoury. It is retained so long, and only so long, as it serves to maintain or expand power; it is changed or abandoned when it does not.
If Russia ever faced a choice between losing power or abandoning ideology, ideology would be abandoned. The army is the most effective and efficient part of the Soviet state. A Napoleon could emerge. Bolshevism is as relevant to fundamental communism as the Inquisition was to Christianity. It is easy to be misled. At the moment, I think that the Soviet leadership does not any more consider western capitalism as its most dangerous adversary, nor the EEC nor the USA. It becomes a threat only when it weighs in behind the real challengers to the Soviet empire, to Soviet supremacy, and these are, in their view, in the Far East: China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and the emerging Asian economies.
China has a population four times the size of Russia, a massive, docile manpower; it is modest in consumption of its own resources and urgently in need of technological know-how. Japan has a most efficient and effective economy, desperately short of raw materials and space. Over the horizon is Siberia, abundant in raw materials, abundant in space, one person per square kilometre, and that person is not even Russian. If a Japanese imperialist ever dreamt about the ideal world, he would imagine Japanese technology, Chinese manpower and Siberian resources and space. He might pray for it, and the Russians wonder whether he would fight for it. This is the real fear of Russia, and this it must prevent at all costs.
Yet there are signs of closer co-operation between Japan and China. They are each other's biggest trading partners. Did not the Weimar Republic, the German Reichswehr, when it was barred by Versailles from developing tanks and aircraft, do a surrogate operation with Russia? We remember Marshal Blücher, a truly Russian general with a truly Russian name, reorganising the Russian tank forces. Might not Japan's military, barred from atomic weaponry, have thought on these lines? Generals can and do talk over political barriers, because they talk the same language. In fact, long after Hitler came to power, the German Reichswehr still co-operated with the Russians.
The second danger is of course an internal one. The Kremlin, Moscow and Russia are the heart and core of the Soviet empire. The Moslem and non-European minorities in the Soviet Union are increasing in population and influence at a decisively faster rate than the European population, influenced if not pulled by Moslem fundamentalism and fiercely resisting "Russification". In the year 2000, it is expected that the non-European elements in the Soviet population will overtake the white European population of mother Russia, both in number and in influence, thus challenging their supremacy. Anybody who has lived in Russia will not hear it debated in Russia, but is well aware of it.

1095
The third danger are the republics acquired, or so-called liberated, after Yalta: the Baltic states, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania and so on. These were shotgun marriages which were accepted, even if not blessed, by the west. These nations proved to be reluctant brides in bed, with great expense, little joy and even less loyalty and fidelity—surely, a doubtful asset to the economy and a great liability to the Soviet Union in times of crisis.
Then of course there are the economic problems which are massive and which have been stated so well by other speakers. Russia has enough problems in her hinterland not to look for any more enemies in the west because it is desperately in need of their friendship and their neutrality. Time was once on the Soviet Union's side. It is not any more so. China is developing rapidly. German industries work very largely for orders from behind the Iron Curtain. Europe is the only continent which can offer the know-how and the manufacturing base to satisfy Russia's huge needs. Finland has been kept as a shop window. Russia is its biggest customer. It chooses not to interfere in the domestic pattern of Finnish life. The Russian message is: "We do not want to fight you. We want to be your trading partners. We want your goods. Our colossal markets will be your future jobs. We do not even want you to take sides. Was Switzerland or Sweden so unwise to stay neutral? Did they damage their nations by it?"
It is a very seductive appeal. Giscard d'Estaing, before Mitterrand, nearly fell for it. He was the first to visit Russia after the Afghanistan affair started. But unless Europe is very strong and very united, it could easily become "Finlandised" and totally lose its independence. It must, it can and it will become too strong to be swallowed. It is not happening yet because of the American shield which, as was said earlier, is the only thing that stands between us at the moment. But sooner or later Russia might offer the USA an accommodation.
They will point out: "We have no real conflict with you. We will get out of your backyard. You will have total control over South America. There you have all the oil you need, all the resources and all the markets that you need. If we stop interfering, there is nobody left to oppose you there. You will be in control. All we ask you is to leave us alone and, in effect, decouple Europe from yourself. The Atlantic should be our frontier of influence. We do not want to occupy Europe. All we want is to trade with it. We are complementary and we need Europe's know-how, its technology and its manufacturing base. We are a market and we need it as a customer for our raw material. Look at Finland! Look at Hungary! We are even encouraging their movement to the incentive economy. Our quarrels are with the East. We have no quarrel with Europe." That will be the Soviet message.
I wonder what will be the USA's response to it. Mr. Gorbachev is going to Washington. Isolationism is latent in America, and Europe is rampant with anti-Americanism, largely fostered by Soviet influence. "Yankee go home" is plastered all over Europe. The help and investment of the Marshall Plan can be measured only by the amount of abuse that the
1096
Americans have had for it. A potential future Labour Government here say quite clearly, "We will send your cruise missiles packing—your protective umbrella". The response might well be, "Don't bother. We will go home and take with us the hundreds of thousands of Americans who do not want to be in Europe at all, and keep the 60 billion dollars a year it costs our taxpayer to keep them in Europe to protect you. If you don't need us, we don't need you. You can look after yourselves. After all, you have a population of 250 million, you have sophisticated know-how and advanced technologies. You can stand on your own two feet, or perhaps you deserve to go down on your own two knees. And instead of living in each other's pockets we will be good and distant friends". With Oscar Wilde, they might say to Europe, "Well, sometimes God punishes us by granting us our wishes".
That could happen; and if this country in a United Europe would make it its top priority not to wait for it, to become strong enough and independent enough to be the third world power, which it can be, it would be nearly as strong as the United States of America and definitely much stronger than the USSR, and a partner, a third world power, and possibly a deciding factor in contributing to the peace of the world. It is possible that even in the counsels of the Kremlin a strong Europe would be preferable to a weak one.
In 1936, when Hitler was plainly preparing for aggression, we disarmed. Now when you talk to the responsible Germans they say, "Why did you let us down, we who cautioned Hitler and tried to defy him, by encouraging and proving him right?" The Soviet Kremlin has factions. The faction which wants peace, particularly with Europe, would be strengthened by a strong Europe and not by the attraction of a vacuum and a weak Europe.
9.32 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, like others in your Lordships' House, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel for this debate and for his introductory speech. Towards the end of the debate it seems that the most suitable role for me would be to add a few observations on two subjects: first, comparisons in the handling of information; and, secondly, attempts to influence the education of young people.
The present Soviet leadership could significantly improve relations with the West if they were to give up or to relax some of their past practices. They will doubtless continue to disagree with the West on methods of government and on what they consider to be in the best interests of their own people and of other peoples in the world. But they do stand to benefit from straightforward dealings and reciprocity with the West in their daily business; for example, in trade, culture, transport and tourism.
Let us first consider the handling of information. Here the Soviet Government, in the Helsinki agreements, gave the impression that they were about to adopt a new attitude. It is now 10 years since the Helsinki Final Act was negotiated. Far from implementing the freer flow of information, the Soviet authorities have continued to restrict the circulation of

1097
Western newspapers such as The Times, the Financial Times, Le Monde and Corriere della Sera to a total circulation of about 8,000 in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. The only significant British exception is the communist Morning Star. Almost half of its print run is taken up behind the Iron Curtain. This provides an effective subsidy without which it would have collapsed financially in Britain long ago.
The situation is as bad in broadcasting. There are about 3,000 jamming transmitters in the Soviet Union alone. It has been estimated that together they cost more than the combined budgets of the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty.
Still on this subject of exchanges of information, I would draw attention to the supply of books and other materials free of charge to British schools by Novosti Press and by the Soviet Embassy in London. These include Soviet News, Soviet Weekly, New Times, Sputnik and Soviet Woman. These books and papers purvey propaganda only. They are vehicles for disinformation, and many criticise the West. If the Soviet leaders are serious in wanting better relations, they should provide reciprocity in the form of freedom for British publishing houses to distribute books in Soviet schools.
In the meantime, we should ask ourselves: does it matter that the democratic countries of the West lay themselves open to direct or indirect Soviet infiltration? By its nature democracy must be vulnerable. Its precious and cherished attributes of tolerance and freedom of speech are inherently open to abuse. The challenge to us is to protect and maintain these attributes against those who would exploit them. The most effective way of doing so is through education, to give our young generations the opportunities to think critically and to provide them with balanced information about world affairs, the nature of Soviet policy and the realities of life behind the Iron Curtain. This will enable them to put issues of defence and deterrence into a well-informed context. Then, without being complacent about our own economic and social problems they may also appreciate and wish to preserve those aspects of our way of life and national heritage which are worthwhile and which help to preserve freedom.
So I turn to my second subject and examine attempts to influence education in the West and in this country in particular. I start by referring to the International Union of Students, the IUS. Like several other organs of the Soviet front system, such as the World Federation of Trade Unions and the Christian Peace Conference, the IUS has its headquarters in Prague. It campaigns against NATO, but not against the Warsaw Pact. It campaigns against Western but not Soviet nuclear weapons. It takes a special interest in the alleged violations of student rights in noncommunist countries, but ignores arrests and the imprisonment of students and academics within the Soviet empire. When the president and the secretary-general of the IUS dared to voice opposition in 1968 to the crushing of the Czechoslovak national resurgence under Mr. Dubchek, they were very soon removed from office.
It is disquieting to see the forging of links between this Soviet-controlled body and the British National Union of Students, to which a number of British
1098
university and college student unions are affiliated. The office bearers of the British NUS visiting Eastern Europe are reported as publicly uttering Soviet propaganda and criticising Western policies. For example, last year the president of the British NUS did so on a visit to the IUS headquarters in Prague. Also, he said that the British National Union of Students would give publicity to the World Festival of Youth and Students due to take place this summer in Moscow. This brings in another Soviet front organisation—the World Federation of Democratic Youth. Another is the World Peace Council, which seeks for members in this country as elsewhere in the West, and tries to promote "peace studies" in schools.
Wherever such proposals for "peace studies" are put forward in our education system in this country, I urge those in charge to examine their origin and to determine whether their purpose is to advance one point of view only. If so, they are not real studies of ways of maintaining peace and they are not fair to children.
I believe that the early 1950s, in Stalin's days, were the most dangerous time through which we have passed since the end of the 1939–45 war. We came through that period and subsequent years without world wars mainly as a result of the deterrent and our determination to be strong and resist. That was a major factor—probably the main one—contributing to peace among the great powers since 1945. The West must maintain its defensive shield while working for better relations. That should be part of "peace studies".
I hope that your Lordships will allow me a brief reminiscence with which to end. I was a First Secretary at our embassy in Vienna in October 1956, at the time of the Hungarian uprising. It is very vivid in my memory. There was a young general in the Hungarian Army in the uprising named Pal Maleter. When the Russians came in and crushed the uprising with their tanks, he was given sanctuary in the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest. After a period of time he was assured by the Soviet Government—as were the Yugoslays—of a safe conduct. When that assurance was taken up and General Maleta was released, he was immediately captured. The Soviet Union took no notice of what had been agreed about safe conduct, and he was executed. That was done without scruple. The Yugoslavs were shocked. Even they did not think that such duplicity and ruthlessness were possible.
We must remember that when it is a matter of a leader of that kind who can seem a threat to the Soviet Government, then that Government have no scruples about making sure that such a leader is wiped out.
At that time I remember, too, that the representative in Vienna of the Daily Worker—because that is what the Morning Star, to which I referred earlier, was then named—resigned and left his post. He had seen with his own eyes—with thousands of refugees crossing the border nearby—events which he was not prepared to see reported in his newspaper in an entirely false manner.
Those who have had that kind of experience, close to the events of the day, can see for themselves. It is important that the very many others who can only know of such things at second hand are not misled by determined efforts to misinform them.
9.44 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, according to my count there have spoken in this debate, or will have, three Alliance Peers, five Cross-Benchers and Bishops, six Labour Peers, and 13 Conservatives. It has been a Conservative debate and it is clear that all 13 Conservatives have read Sir Clive Rose's recent and useful book The Enemy Within, or a digest of it.
In my opinion it has been a day of cobwebs—and I shall later come to the question of blowing them away —punctuated by occasional bursts of cobwebbery so majestic as to pass over the frontier into sheer, magnificient eccentricity. We have had two good quotes about British gullibility in regard to the Soviet Union. One was from Wells and the other from Webbs—both 50 years old. We have had the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who said—if I remember his words correctly, and he will correct me if I am wrong—that the World Council of Churches and its British member body, the British Council of Churches, fit neatly into Soviet-Marxist propaganda. He said that they have succeeded in turning Christ's Easter peace on its head and making it equivalent to the work of the World Peace Council.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, I said that the Christian peace conference in Prague has turned those things upside down. I said that there is a fascinating overlap between that and the WCC and the BCC and that together they have the effect in some of their pronouncements of turning a thing upside down.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I remember the words "fit neatly", and we shall see in Hansard tomorrow.
The noble Lord, Lord Bauer, seemed to lay most of the world's evils at the door of the correspondence editor of the Guardian. I sometimes feel the same way myself, especially when the paper will not print the more moderate letters sent from this quarter of the British political spectrum; but that was a good eccentric example, too. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, believes that the British press does not know the difference between the World Peace Council and the Women's Institute; and the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, told us that he believes The Times, Telegraph, Sunday Telegraph, Sunday Times and colour supplements carry Soviet disinformation, of course without knowing it, which has been handed to them by the industrial correspondent of the Morning Star. I should very much like to know, as his was a careful and well-thought-out speech, whether the noble Lord has in his pocket any examples of that which he could give to the House. I give him notice of my question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I do not have any examples. It is absolutely true that journalists get their stories to investigate and write about from sources which provide entertaining stories. Mick Costello of the Morning Star provides interesting stories. Moderate trade unionists have told me, and repeated it, that they get extremely frustrated and suspicious because their stories of the battle they are fighting to
1100
prevent more union executives being hijacked by the hard Left do not receive coverage, while Mick Costello's stories do. I think it is a judgment, and I am not prepared to reveal the names of the moderate trade unionists any more than any journalist will reveal his sources.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, the House will note with interest the judgment reported to it by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and will also note with interest that he cannot produce examples of Soviet disinformation printed by the newspapers he alleged did print disinformation.
The problem of how to live with Russia has been an increasingly important one for this country for 200 years, and in the past 40 years it has been by a long way the most important and the most difficult question facing this country in its foreign relations. I submit that the only sensible way to tackle this terrible problem is to make sure that our judgments of that country are up to date and to base our policy accordingly. I think that most judgments which we have heard in this House today were distinctly not up to date. Russia has a double aspect which makes it very different from any other European country. Not only is it the largest European country, which goes without saying, but it has two other attributes which make it an altogether different kettle of fish.
The first is that in 1914 there were 11 European states with empires outside Europe. The second last, the Portuguese empire, collapsed in the early 1970s, and the last, the Russian, is still there. The whole of the North of Asia is populated by Asians living under the rule of a European people—the last such phenomenon in the world. It seems to me that it is most unlikely that it will endure forever. There is nothing intrinsically different between a North Asian and a South Asian of a corresponding educational level, and the North Asians will not endure it very much longer than their brothers in the South of Asia endured it. When that moment comes it will be one of terrible danger, of course. There is no need to spell out the alternatives which will be open to a beleaguered Russian people who have to give up their empire, the last European empire.
The second attribute is that it is, alone of the European countries, a powerful—I have to put in that proviso because there are others which have the main adjective—the only powerful ideological state. There is an interesting and amusing paradox here. To Marx, that amazing poet of justice, the word "ideology" was a bad word. He laughed at it and regarded it as a distortion of human thought. To his so-called followers—and how far they are from him in the Soviet Union today—it is an ordinary word; they are pleased to have ideological conferences to refine their understanding of this and that. We adopt it about them quite naturally. It seems to us that that is what they are. We should know that it is we who are using the word "ideology" in the Marxist sense when we cry it down, when we put it in inverted commas and hold it in a certain degree of intellectual contempt.
There is at present an ideological—or as we should say, perhaps, intellectual—ferment in the Soviet

1101
Union about the nature of society and about the future of their socialist or, as some Russians say, communist government. At the moment they are all agreed—Chernenko laid it down before he even became leader of Russia—that non-antagonistic contradictions may exist in mature socialism. That was his formulation about four or five years ago. That means that not all is peace and beauty the instant you have had a socialist revolution. We remember that Marx said there was going to be no more state and the human race within socialist society would enter Nirvana. In Russia they do not claim to have done that, and recently they have admitted the continuation of these so-called non-anatogonistic contradictions.
There is now in the last year or two a lively intellectual debate about whether non-antagonistic contradictions in a socialist society might flip, might topple over into antagonistic contradications. The debate is fought out largely in terms of the Polish experience. The Russians are arguing about Poland. Was what happened in Poland in 1980 merely the result of imperialistic interference, in which case they were exploiting non-antagonistic contradictions and making them antagonistic; or is it possible that it was the intrinsic result of Polish experience, in which case they are in the presence of an antagonistic contradiction within a socialist society? This gives them no end of trouble. It would, would it not? It is the kind of thing they live on.
They are not allowed to talk freely about it, but fortunately we are, and to us and I believe to some Russians—it came out in the Samizdat publications—it is perfectly clear that that was an antagonistic contradiction. It was, in short, a workers' revolution against the state. That is what Solidarity was, and it is what it would be again if it had half a chance. We can all see that. That is a communist state. Are they or are they not going to achieve the intellectual maturity in Russia to admit that truth and to say that struggles continue, revolutions continue, and justice has to be renewed with an open mind from generation to generation?
This poses problems for us. All these things pose problems for us. We have to live with this strange creature, the Russian state. Treaties govern much of it, and much has been said about treaties. We have to insist as best as we can that those with whom we sign treaties keep them. The Russians have a record on treaty-keeping which is not among the worst in the world. The one which jumps to my mind when I think of Soviet infraction of a treaty is the Montreux Convention of the 1930s about passing aircraft carriers through the Bosphorus. It prohibited it. The Russians passed an aircraft carrier through the Bosphorus about five years ago and have since then passed one or two more. What did we do? We did nothing. Was there any protest from the other signatories of that convention, including ourselves? Not a word was said. We cannot expect them to keep treaties if we do not show that we mind when they break them. We, too, are to blame in that matter.
Afghanistan is still a bit of the old Russia. They are still collecting pieces of Asia. It is surprising that it
1102
should have happened so late. I imagine that it happened because of the great feeling of confidence in the late 1970s, to which I shall come in a minute. It is not a human rights matter. Invaders always behave brutally. By definition they are unwelcome, so they behave brutally. Human rights is best, I think, conceptually limited to the native country of the government whose conduct we are measuring. This is an invasion and of course it has led to refugees, cruelty, bombing, strafing and all the rest of it. Invasions always do. That is an international offence and not a human rights issue, which is a domestic matter.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, with some eloquence at the beginning, in these judgments we have to remember that it is a bipolar world. There is another super-power in it. The United States since Vietnam has not done anything like Afghanistan. Let us pray that it will not, but the question of Nicaragua is inescapable at this point. I am hound to put this quite blandly and almost personally. President Reagan has told us that Nicaragua is already behind the Iron Curtain and that it is a communist dictatorship. I was able to visit it twice last year during the run up to the election and to visit it during the election.
The country that I saw and the country that was reported to President Reagan by his ambassador, as I know from conversations with him, was a country where a nationalist socialist dictatorship which had seized power in the civil war was gradually liberalising itself. It held an election last year in which the turn-out was only 70 per cent. and the vote for the Sandinistas was 63 per cent. of that 70 per cent. It is commonly said that the abstention of a powerful and respected block of so-called "Right-wing", but really, just capitalist, opinion in that country, and the fact that that block did not choose to take part in the elections invalidates the elections; to which the answer can only be that the Right-wing parties which took part got 31 per cent. of the vote. That simply suggests to me that one of the Right-wing blocks knew how to fight democratic politics and the other did not.
One thing I believe that we have forgotten in this whole debate is that there is an arms race. Russia is not operating alone facing Western Europe, still less facing this country; and it is not operating in a political field. It is operating in a politico-economico-military field, and the extent to which military considerations dominate Russian thoughts and fears can, in my experience, hardly be exaggerated.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in a characteristically interesting and well informed speech, said that he believed that the Soviet military build up over the past eight years was due to Kissinger making concessions—Kissinger and Carter; let us block the two together. If that were so, how easy life would be now in the Reagan age when no more concessions are made, and how good and quiet relations with Russia should be. But they are not. I believe that the reality is more difficult than that and more tragic. The Soviet build up had its origins long before the Kissinger age. It had its origins in the Kennedy build up which began in 1962. That is the timescale of the arms race: what I do now I will see your reaction to in 20 years, and vice versa. Mankind is on a very slow pendulum, and

1103
the fact that each stroke takes the destructive capacity of the weapons yet higher does not mean that the strokes are getting faster.
Let us look for a minute at the most recent experiences of the Soviet Union. In 1977 they were so confident of their military superiority, and that they were up-and-up in the Carter world, that they turned down, without discussion, consideration or acknowledgment, President Carter's proposal that both sides should halve their nuclear armouries. After Watergate and the Vietnam humiliation, the Russians thought they could do what they liked.
Then there were the Polish events which began this agonised debate in the Soviet Union, which has only just come to the surface. At that very moment, or very soon after the Polish events, Russia entered three or four years of what we may perhaps call rule by a person in terminal illness, which meant that the Russian Government were going forward on a kind of Heath Robinson auto-pilot. Perhaps one may call that period the period of Russian "comatocracy", if I may coin a word. During that time President Reagan was spending and spending on his new defence plans.
The Soviet Union has now in effect woken up under a new, younger and more conscious leader. President Reagan sees himself as riding some kind of endless wave of triumph which will carry him to an apotheosis which perhaps is not too clearly defined, even in his own mind. However, this wave rides on an unsustainable deficit. What it is storing up economically for the American people in the future is alarming and saddening to think about. Future generations will pay in many ways for what is now going on in many countries.
I now come to the new Soviet ruler, Mr. Gorbachev. A typical Gorbachev quote is when he said in a recent interview:
"Confrontation is not an inborn defect in our relations with the West; rather it is an anomaly. There is no inevitability about its continuation".
He would say that, would he not, if he was trying to charm us and put us off our guard? But he would also say it if it happened to be true. Usually we naturally think that it is true; if only the Russians would see sense and realise that it is true. Well, here is one who has said it, and the challenge to us is to know how to interpret this kind of utterance. I believe it would be more dangerous to rule out the possibility of their sincerity than to rule out the possibility of their insincerity.
Those who have talked to Mr. Gorbachev know that there is one subject which causes his eyes to light up. It is not detente. It is not disarmament. It is not the introduction of economic reforms in the Soviet Union, as one might expect. Still less is it the introduction of market forces. It is not, of course, greater freedom for the Soviet people. It is not any consideration of removing the Russian yoke from North Asia and Eastern Europe. It is none of those things. What it is is freer information for the Soviet peoples.
If you come to think of it, my Lords, that may be worth all the rest put together. Everything in the Soviet Union which over the years has troubled the world has
1104
been rooted in the ignorance of its own peoples. You cannot long run a tyranny, you cannot long run a dangerous foreign policy without secrecy and censorship. Let us hope that Mr. Gorbachev does not forget his vision of a well-informed Russian people. After all, the Russian people are, like us, an ex-Christian European people. They, too, have taken a hand in forming our own culture, as we have in forming theirs. Perhaps the greatest wrong that is imposed upon the countries of Western Europe by the existence of the closed communist society in the Soviet Union is that we cannot meet the largest, one of the most ingenious, likeable and creative of all our own European cousins.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, in the course of the authoritative speech of the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, there was one important phrase which I regard as perhaps a basic phrase in his Motion, to which he gave much less attention than I should have wished. I call attention to the phrase about,
"Soviet exploitation of economic and social problems in developing countries".
I recognise that probably the stringency of time was a cause of that omission. However, I think it has been an omission from the debate in general that not sufficient attention has been given to that part of the Motion before us.
The same is true of the debates on this subject that we have had over the course of some years. I recall at least two previous occasions, when debates have been almost exclusively about the military threat of Soviet communism, I have tried to direct your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Soviet Union has a powerful ally in the third world. That ally is the poverty of the people. And that is the breeding ground for communism.
Therefore, I certainly welcome the fact that the Motion calls attention to this problem. I regard it as one of the most important factors in international affairs today. That is why, at the beginning of the debate, I very much welcomed what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the need to develop the economies of the third world as the most certain defence against the spread of Soviet communism. The truth is that the threat of Soviet aggression takes two forms. There is the challenge that the Soviet Union presents to the West and indeed to the world in military terms. On the other hand, there is the challenge of Soviet exploitation of world poverty for communist ends. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, and other noble Lords, will understand that I wish to deal principally with that in my remarks.
First, however, may I take up a question that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, asked towards the end of his speech and to which my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos responded. The question was, "Now that Mr. Gorbachev has arrived on the scene of leadership, can we hope for improvement in the relationship with the Soviet Union?" My noble friend Lord Cledwyn said that he was optimistic on that. Other noble Lords have given various opinions. I noted particularly what the noble Lord, Lord Moran, said about it being early days for us to reach a

1105
considered judgment. I share the optimism for one reason. At the time that Mr. Gorbachev took office I looked carefully at his opening statement of what he foresaw as his task. I was delighted to see in his statement that he put improving relations with China as one of his objectives. That I believe to be a very important statement indeed. I hope that it will be proved in action as well as in words.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell, in talking about the Soviet Revolution, said, in ringing tones, that in 1917 something fundamental occurred. Those were his words. I would echo them in relation to the other great communist country, China. Something fundamental has occurred in China. It occurred four or five years ago when, under the leadership of Mr. Deng, a new liberal form of communist economy was inaugurated. I have noted that the Chinese have sent a high-powered delegation to Moscow. Therefore, although one must not raise hopes too high, one certainly does hope that there can be rapprochement between those two great world powers. That leads me to the thought that possibly our best or one of our best ways in which to pursue the first phrase in the Motion before us; namely, the need to establish:
"better relations with the Soviet Union".
may be achieved by the indirect path—that is, through a better relationship with China, which in turn we hope might have better relations with the Soviet Union.
Recent events in British/Chinese relationships, particularly over Hong Kong, have surely shown that it is possible for us to have improving relations with a communist power. We must build wherever we have achieved some success. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester pointed out, in seeking those objectives we need to be very careful about our choice of words. I think that that is what the right reverend Prelate said. Indeed, it led him into certain trouble with militant communicants on the other side of the House. I hope that he will not object to a little support from a non-communicant. However, I certainly welcomed his contribution to the debate and I welcomed what he said about the need for us to have a continuing forum where West and East can meet. I believe that that is essential to an understanding of this subject.
The right reverend Prelate naturally gave the example of the World Council of Churches as providing that forum. I, from my personal experience, would instance a large, many million member organisation, the International Co-operative Alliance, which has brought together co-operators from many countries through war, cold war and more peaceful times. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, that this is not a fourteenth subversive organisation for him to examine!
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, in all these matters we need to use careful words of diplomacy. Certainly the noble Lord, Lord Home, managed both to talk in plain speaking terms—I think that that was what he said—and at the same time to use words of diplomacy. I only wish that some of the speeches that we have heard from the Benches opposite had followed his example, and indeed the example of the
1106
noble Lord, Lord Beloff, who I thought put forward a very attractive speech.
However, I return briefly to what I was saying about poverty in the third world being the ally of Soviet communism. I said that the threat from the Soviet Union was a double one. In summary, I would say that the western nations have responded to the first challenge, the military challenge, but have almost completely failed in the face of the second challenge—that is, the challenge of world poverty. We have built up our armaments, but we have failed to make any significant impact on world poverty.
This failure on our part is extremely helpful to the Soviet Union. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, implied in his speech, the Soviet Union has been completely cynical in respect of aid to third world countries. Their provision of economic aid has been small by comparison with that provided by the West—and, as noble Lords will know, I regard that contribution of aid to be, in all conscience, inadequate enough. The Soviet Union compares unfavourably in terms of aid with the West, and the aid which the Soviet Union does provide to the third world is strictly related to its own commercial, diplomatic and military objectives.
The Soviets have a glib propagandist response whenever challenged about their negative attitude to third world development, and it is this. They say that world poverty is the result of imperialism and results from colonial exploitation by the imperial powers, and therefore in the post-war and post-imperialist era it is the responsibility of the Western powers to provide the means of overcoming the economic and social problems of the developing countries and they, the Soviet Union, have no such responsibility.
Indeed, the Soviet Union has been particularly successful in presenting relations between developed and developing countries as the international extension of the class war. They have presented the West as being the rich and the developing countries as being the proletariat whose very poverty has been due to exploitation by the rich. Such an interpretation is easy to sustain if you are talking to impoverished people recently emerging from the political subservience of colonialism. That message will continue to have a ready acceptance in the third world unless and until we enable the developing countries to achieve economic independence as well as the political independence which they have achieved in the postwar world.
Soviet propaganda is very easy indeed in the light of certain basic economic and social facts which are facing third world countries. I refer to a few of them. World market prices of the commodities that they grow on their farms slump. They have in fact slumped The manufactures that they wish to buy become more costly, and that looks to the peoples of the third world like exploitation. One can understand it appearing like that. To pay interest on the money which they borrowed during the 1970s they have to borrow more money at higher rates of interest, and that, understandably, looks to them like usury. In some cases, reverse flows of money are greater than outward flows. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made this point in relation to Soviet aid, but there are Lases where countries to whom we provide aid are having to

1107
pay back more now than they are receiving year by year, and that certainly looks to third world countries like injustice.
Therefore, it is no wonder that there are calls from the third world for a new international economic order. It is no wonder that the Soviet Union jumps in whenever it gets the opportunity and uses that situation to good propagandist effect. Sometimes, I regret to say, we in the West make the Soviet Union's propagandist task even easier than it already is. Take the recent example of UNESCO. The United States decides to withdraw because UNESCO is too political in its judgment. Britain proposes to follow suit and immediately the Soviet Union offers UNESCO a further £2 million—a small sum, indeed, in UNESCO terms but worth many millions more in propaganda value in the developing countries, in the other members of UNESCO. So that we score an own goal, we make it easy for the Soviet Union to win the battle of propaganda.
As has become clear from the debate, we are living in a terribly unstable world because of the existence of great armouries of nuclear weapons, but there are other causes of that instability, each in its way as frightening as nuclear weapons. If things do go wrong concerning the arms race, then mega-deaths loom in the future. But deaths on a comparable scale are occurring now, deaths from malnutrition and disease. And instability has other causes: apartheid in South Africa, poverty in Central America, conflict in the Middle East and the population explosion in many third world countries. All these are contributing to the instability of the world almost as much as the arms race itself. Unless we in the West find ways of solving those problems, it will be communist parties throughout the world which will benefit from the chaos. The Soviet Union and its satellite parties will not need, in the words of Lord Home's Motion, to exploit the "economic and social problems". That job will have been done for them by western neglect of those problems. The communists will need only to step in and take control of a chaotic situation, just as the Cuban Communist Party did a quarter century ago, having played a comparatively minor role in the overthrow of the Batista régime.
In my view, such a sequence of events cannot be stopped by force of arms—which is what my noble friend Lord Shinwell seemed to be implying; and it has been the tone of some other speeches. The armies of Chiang Kai-Shek did not stop the Chinese communists because the strength of the Chinese communists rested in the landless Chinese peasantry whose cause the communists espoused. American armed might on a massive scale did not prevent the communist take-over in Vietnam and it will not stop communism in Central America if the Americans fail to learn the lessons of history and the need for development of the economies of those countries. While we are debating this issue here in your Lordships' House this evening, I am conscious that a more critical debate is taking place on Capitol Hill in Washington and, in my view, it is very much to be hoped that Congress there will take this opportunity of preventing President Reagan from making the same kind of basic error which his predecessors made in
1108
Vietnam. Western nations must realise that in the third world, as I have said, communism cannot be stopped by military means.
What we must do is to show the third world countries that in practice there is a better way than the communist way. We must take action on a massive scale to demonstrate to the people of the third world that it is we, the democratic West, who can help them to develop their economies in the interests of their own people and that this can be done by the process of genuine democracy. In other words, when we uphold, as we must, the values of freedom—freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom to choose governments and freedom to travel—and when we point out that these essential freedoms are denied by communists, we must at the same time ensure that the economic and social freedoms which are so much part of true freedom are available to the peoples to whom we are talking.
Above all, if we wish to forestall communism in the third world—and that is a large part of the Motion we have been debating—we must be, as my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham so clearly explained, very careful about the political partners with whom we are prepared to work, because if we are seen to favour dictatorships and oppressive governments, that again will be an easy and significant propaganda boost for the communists. As I have said several times, we should not only tell the peoples of the third world that there is a better way than communism: we should also show them, by the policies we pursue, by the political partners that we choose, and by the aid that we give that we are intent on helping them to overcome their problems by the democratic path and not by the path of communism.
10.27 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in rising to draw together the strands of this debate, I am conscious that I may do so only with your Lordships' permission, and I hope that I have it. I am conscious, too, that this has been an occasion of the utmost importance—witness the number and eloquence of the speeches, and, indeed, the standing of so many of the participants. At this late hour I suspect that your Lordships would not wish me to deal with each and every point from each and every speech, but perhaps I may touch on one or two which struck me as particularly important.
Perhaps I may first turn to the matter which was referred to by several noble Lords; namely, the recent expulsion of certain Soviet officials and the Soviet Union's wholly unjustified reaction. As your Lordships may know, this matter was raised in the other place this afternoon, and I believe I can do no better than quote from the reply which was given by my right honourable and learned friend the Foreign Secretary to a Private Notice Question from the right honourable gentleman the Member for Leeds, East. My right honourable and learned friend said:
"Our policy towards the Soviet Union is consistent and clear and has been made clear to the Russians on numerous occasions, including most recently when informing them of the expulsions. We wish to improve relations with the Soviet Union. We have made considerable efforts in this direction, which will be maintained, but they have been hampered by the unacceptable activities of certain Soviet officials in this country. In the circumstances, and in accordance with our long-established policy, we had no choice but to expel the officials concerned. We deeply regret the retaliatory

1109
action taken against three members of the staff of our Moscow Embassy. This was wholly unwarranted and the accusations made against them without substance. We have protested strongly to the Soviet authorities. There can be no relaxation of our policy where our national security is concerned, but we shall continue our policy of seeking improved relations with the Soviet Union and better relations between East and West".
Turning now, if I may, to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, he asked me particularly about the end of the first session of the Geneva talks. The three chief US negotiators will be briefing the North Atlantic Council tomorrow on the first round of the Geneva talks, which finishes today. In addition, a special consultative group in NATO is meeting in Brussels today to review the Alliance's position on the INF element of the talks. We welcome this continuing close consultation in the Alliance but not until these consultations are complete will it be possible to judge the overall progress made. The United States and the Soviet Union have agreed that the negotiations at Geneva should remain confidential, and it is clearly therefore inappropriate for me to say anything more at this stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and I think at least one other noble Lord referred to the upcoming Ottawa CSCE Human Rights Conference. It is a meeting of experts to be held in Ottawa next month. I can assure your Lordships that the British delegation will indeed be raising the question of the non-implementation of a wide range of their commitments at Helsinki and Madrid by the eastern signatories. We have no intention of turning the meeting into an empty confrontation; but that does not mean we shall speak other than frankly on these important issues, which I know are of concern to your Lordships as they are indeed to the Government.
My noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing spoke about the question of Soviet money for British miners during the recent strike. As several noble Lords pointed out, the WFTU, which favours strikes against capitalist regimes but never against communist régimes (as Polish trade unionists know to their cost), was engaged on the sidelines in support of the miners' strike in this country. It is indeed interesting to note that when Mr. McGahey boasted that Soviet trade unions, which are collectively affiliated to the WFTU, were to send nearly £1 million to support Mr. Scargill's strike, Soviet newspaper readers were told that the money was to be passed on through the Soviet peace fund—an interesting example of how these disruptive bodies cooperate. In fact there seems to be considerable doubt as to whether any of this much-publicised subvention ever reached British miners.
My noble friend referred also to the question of trade union training in the Soviet bloc. In October 1983 there were press reports that 22 members of the National Union of Mineworkers were attending an all expenses paid one-month course at the Soviet High School of Trade Unions in Moscow to learn how unions work under the Soviet system. The school runs similar courses for trade union members from many countries, particularly in the developing world, but that group was the first to consist of British students. It can have had only a very marginal relevance, if any, to recent events in the mining industry.
1110
The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to the question of the Official Secrets Act and what changes might be made to it. I can perhaps do no better than refer to the words of my noble friend Lord Elton, speaking at the close of a recent debate in your Lordships' House on this matter, when he said: "Our mind is not closed and we can accept the first part of the Motion". He was referring, of course, to the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, which your Lordships were considering on that occasion. But it was a commitment, first, to take careful note of the views which had been expressed both in this Chamber and elsewhere, and then to consider whether there appears to be any measure of agreement in which the Government could join, in the light of their own particular responsibilities, and which might form the basis for a further attempt at legislation. My noble friend therefore stopped short of giving an undertaking for further legislation but certainly did give an assurance in the words that I have referred to.
The noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to the value of the BBC External Services. I referred to them in my opening remarks, and I do not think I need do any more than say how much the Government appreciate the work of the BBC External Services and indeed the high reputation which they enjoy.
Lord Hankey: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one instant? Will he be so good as to give an undertaking to draw the attention of the Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to what the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and I said about these secret organisations and the need to preserve their anonymity?
Lord Trefgarne: Yes, my Lords, I shall certainly see that the remarks of the noble Lord and of other noble Lords are brought to the attention of the relevant Ministers. The noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone referred to the support of the Soviet Union for terrorism in various parts of the world. The Soviet Union has indeed provided support, including military training, for a wide variety of what it calls "national liberation movements". However, and unfortunately, western terrorist groups have shown themselves perfectly capable of developing terrorist expertise from their own resources and there is no reliable evidence of Soviet control of, or substantial support for, terrorist activities in the West. Indeed, the Soviet Union has from time to time condemned individual acts of terrorism. The Soviet press, for example, was critical of the Brighton bomb attack. That the Soviet Union may be a beneficiary from terrorist activity in the West does not, of itself, prove that it supports or encourages it on any but a purely opportunist basis. So far as concerns Ireland, it is true that there is much Soviet press comment sympathetic to the more extreme political views of some sections of the Irish republican movement in Northern Ireland, but there is no evidence of Soviet material support for the terrorist activity of the Provisional IRA.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, asked whether we would be ready to resume co-operation in the field of medicine and public health under the existing, but inactive, United Kingdom/Soviet agreement The

1111
Government would be happy to consider a formal request from the Russians to reactivate this agreement. The noble Lord also asked why the United Kingdom does not take the initiative in this matter. The Government have considered this question carefully. We have concluded that we would be ready to respond to a Soviet request; but at present there seem to be insufficient fields of interest to the British medical profession to warrant a British initiative. In general, we regard such bilateral technical agreements with the Soviet Union as valuable, provided that they are of mutual advantage to both sides.
These subjects to which I have referred all form part of the realities of the inter-relationship between East and West, and the way in which the Soviet Union pursues its interests. I do not believe that we need be discouraged that these activities are continuing with much the same vigour as in the past. Experience has shown that the West is well able to look after its own interests, and that the money and time absorbed by Soviet propaganda and its activities through International Communist Front Organisations has not produced results commensurate with the size of this investment. In short, provided that the West remains vigilant to its own interests, its own security and to the realities of certain Soviet activities, especially those pursued by front organisations, it will be well able to defend itself.
I said in my opening remarks that our aim is to build a relationship with the Soviet Union on a long-term and realistic basis. Long-term, because nothing is achieved rapidly in negotiation with the Soviet Union. Adequate confidence needs to be built up for the two sides to trust each other sufficiently to do business and to work towards balanced arms control agreements. That is what our policy of increased contact is about. And our Western colleagues are also pulling their full weight in this process. Experience has shown that to move forward simply on the basis of hope is not an adequate foundation for doing business with the Soviet Union or for properly representing our interests.
I do not think that any of your Lordships would wish to argue that we do not need better relations with the Soviet Union. It is becoming increasingly important that there should be reliable channels of communication between us. And we need to be able to understand each other when we speak on these channels. We need to know the face at the other end. This, the Government believe, is the way to build the basis of the kind of relationship that will offer greater security and eventually a sense of constructive cooperation in both East and West. It will not be a rapid process. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said when she was in Moscow in 1984 it is a policy developed over time and designed to be put into effect over time; one for the years and months ahead, not the weeks or days.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, it merely remains for me to express my gratitude to all the noble Lords on all sides of the House who have spoken in this debate. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the Leader of the Opposition, for taking so much trouble with a speech
1112
which was very thoughtful and which set the tone for many speeches that followed, and my noble friend Lord Trefgarne for, at a very few hours' notice, making two contributions, with all the skill we have come to expect of him.
To sum up my impressions would be to oversimplify. We have agreed that we should diligently continue to seek closer relations with the Soviet Union. We know that there will be many difficulties; nevertheless we ought to persevere, and as at the end of the day it is example that counts, we should make the most of our democratic values. Much more I have heard from this debate, and I hope that other noble Lords have been similarly rewarded. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Charter Trustees Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Controlled Drugs (Penalties) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Copyright (Computer Software) Amendment Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.
Nottinghamshire County Council (Superannuation) Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.

Durham City Council Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before eleven o'clock.

  SOUTH-WEST SURREY HEALTH AUTHORITY: STRATEGIC PLAN
  SOUTH-WEST SURREY HEALTH AUTHORITY: STRATEGIC PLAN